How many people of each nationality on the forum

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Chicken came first. I say this as a creationist. Although then there's the whole thing about the development of different varieties of chicken, or of poultry in general, and how much of that happened after creation, and I'm not going into that until I've had time to do more reading up on this.*

Honestly the whole Einstein/bomb debate isn't going anywhere at this point: my skim-read of the argument suggests that the last few posts have mainly been a back-and-forth about whether Carking's sources prove the point he says they prove, whether as sources they are reliable, whether the backing-up with his own opinion was sufficient, and whether noblebright actually read them properly. It looks like an overly elaborate argument of contradictions at this stage, so I suggest you both drop it and accept a stalemate.

*Which will probably be never unless a number of people insist I do go into this in more detail. I'm fine with 'my religious beliefs clash with your scientific understanding'.

This argument of "Who came first? Chickens or eggs"?

Is like we just think that both of these would pop out of nowhere and puzzled us with various questions? Where the answer mostly lies, dating back to million, billion years ago.

They don't really just pop and there's a chicken here... Back then, I don't think laying eggs were a thing, before the mammals got hit by a mass extinction, which slowly a new generation came in.

That is, I dare to say... Dinosaurs...

This joke about chickens or egg first can be quite puzzling for people who didn't really know about the previous periods of earth and their evolutions.

You might try to light things up with your friends with one of this tricky question.

Unless your friend is a huge nerd in evolution, which I would probably advise you to not do...

Very fast Jesus Christ but on a skateboard doing “hell yeah” tricks impressing everyone and scaring away goths and Satan

russ_russ1 wrote:

I prefer hunger games style fight to the death

Im an Apex predator, I eat all meat

Kadeko wrote:

russ_russ1 wrote:

I prefer hunger games style fight to the death

Apex predators after all of their preys died from another mass extinction:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

russ_russ1 wrote:

I prefer hunger games style fight to the death

Apex predators after all of their preys died from another mass extinction:

russ_russ1 wrote:

Im an Apex predator, I eat all meat

I don’t eat brains, I’m not from Москва, those people are brainless

Kuru

nah get out here Muscovite

russ_russ1 wrote:

I don’t eat brains, I’m not from Москва, those people are brainless

You know, currently there's no cure for carl freudtz jakob disease(CJD)/Kuru...

Kadeko wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Chicken came first. I say this as a creationist. Although then there's the whole thing about the development of different varieties of chicken, or of poultry in general, and how much of that happened after creation, and I'm not going into that until I've had time to do more reading up on this.*

Honestly the whole Einstein/bomb debate isn't going anywhere at this point: my skim-read of the argument suggests that the last few posts have mainly been a back-and-forth about whether Carking's sources prove the point he says they prove, whether as sources they are reliable, whether the backing-up with his own opinion was sufficient, and whether noblebright actually read them properly. It looks like an overly elaborate argument of contradictions at this stage, so I suggest you both drop it and accept a stalemate.

*Which will probably be never unless a number of people insist I do go into this in more detail. I'm fine with 'my religious beliefs clash with your scientific understanding'.

If chickens came first... then where do they come from? Chickens come from eggs, which usually a mother chicken needs to look after the eggs quite a lot.

This argument of "Who came first? Chickens or eggs"?

Is like we just think that both of these would pop out of nowhere and puzzled us with various questions? Where the answer mostly lies, dating back to million, billion years ago.

They don't really just pop and there's a chicken here... Back then, I don't think laying eggs were a thing, before the mammals got hit by a mass extinction, which slowly a new generation came in.

That is, I dare to say... Dinosaurs...

This joke about chickens or egg first can be quite puzzling for people who didn't really know about the previous periods of earth and their evolutions.

You might try to light things up with your friends with one of this tricky question.

Unless your friend is a huge nerd in evolution, which I would probably advise you to not do...

"And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

Presumably chickens would be counted with land-dwelling animals; if not, refer to the earlier part of the chapter where birds more generally are created. So, if one accepts the authority of the Bible (which I do, and nobody else in this thread seems to) chickens did just 'pop into existence' as it were, with a supernatural cause. In the same way Adam and Eve, the first humans, weren't born from a human mother, but were created as adults who could take care of themselves.

I'm sorry if I've turned what wasn't meant to be a science versus religion discussion into one, or am in the process of doing so; it so happens that this very question was brought up in my (church-organised) school as an example of how differing opinions on the origin of the universe lead to that sort of question being perceived very differently by different people, and when other people answered it from an evolutionist perspective, I couldn't resist throwing in my own creationist one. I'll stop now or this thread will get taken up by another debate.

why christian

Funny thing is that "kuru" in my tribe language means skinny...

But if it said let the land produce it wouldn’t that mean he let the land itself evolve the creatures over time, all to fill the ecological niches they now fill?

Kadeko wrote:

russ_russ1 wrote:

I don’t eat brains, I’m not from Москва, those people are brainless

I know you eat brains and you laugh a lot...

You know, currently there's no cure for carl freudtz jakob disease(CJD)/Kuru...

russ_russ1 wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

russ_russ1 wrote:

I don’t eat brains, I’m not from Москва, those people are brainless

I know you eat brains and you laugh a lot...You know, currently there's no cure for carl freudtz jakob disease(CJD)/Kuru...

IM NOT FROM MOSCOW!!! They’re all weak and feminine and fragile and more taxed and less funny interactions there

you go to Moscow you see 1 man, you talk to him, he speaks a weird ass dialect with that shit accent he got and I’ll start throwing hands

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Chicken came first. I say this as a creationist. Although then there's the whole thing about the development of different varieties of chicken, or of poultry in general, and how much of that happened after creation, and I'm not going into that until I've had time to do more reading up on this.*

Honestly the whole Einstein/bomb debate isn't going anywhere at this point: my skim-read of the argument suggests that the last few posts have mainly been a back-and-forth about whether Carking's sources prove the point he says they prove, whether as sources they are reliable, whether the backing-up with his own opinion was sufficient, and whether noblebright actually read them properly. It looks like an overly elaborate argument of contradictions at this stage, so I suggest you both drop it and accept a stalemate.

*Which will probably be never unless a number of people insist I do go into this in more detail. I'm fine with 'my religious beliefs clash with your scientific understanding'.

If chickens came first... then where do they come from? Chickens come from eggs, which usually a mother chicken needs to look after the eggs quite a lot.This argument of "Who came first? Chickens or eggs"?

Is like we just think that both of these would pop out of nowhere and puzzled us with various questions? Where the answer mostly lies, dating back to million, billion years ago.

They don't really just pop and there's a chicken here... Back then, I don't think laying eggs were a thing, before the mammals got hit by a mass extinction, which slowly a new generation came in.

That is, I dare to say... Dinosaurs...

This joke about chickens or egg first can be quite puzzling for people who didn't really know about the previous periods of earth and their evolutions.

You might try to light things up with your friends with one of this tricky question.

Unless your friend is a huge nerd in evolution, which I would probably advise you to not do...

An alternate answer can be found in Genesis 1:24-25:

"And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

Presumably chickens would be counted with land-dwelling animals; if not, refer to the earlier part of the chapter where birds more generally are created. So, if one accepts the authority of the Bible (which I do, and nobody else in this thread seems to) chickens did just 'pop into existence' as it were, with a supernatural cause. In the same way Adam and Eve, the first humans, weren't born from a human mother, but were created as adults who could take care of themselves.

I'm sorry if I've turned what wasn't meant to be a science versus religion discussion into one, or am in the process of doing so; it so happens that this very question was brought up in my (church-organised) school as an example of how differing opinions on the origin of the universe lead to that sort of question being perceived very differently by different people, and when other people answered it from an evolutionist perspective, I couldn't resist throwing in my own creationist one. I'll stop now or this thread will get taken up by another debate.

Carking the 6th wrote:

russ_russ1 wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

russ_russ1 wrote:

I don’t eat brains, I’m not from Москва, those people are brainless

I know you eat brains and you laugh a lot...You know, currently there's no cure for carl freudtz jakob disease(CJD)/Kuru...

IM NOT FROM MOSCOW!!! They’re all weak and feminine and fragile and more taxed and less funny interactions there

Let me guess, St.Petersburg? The city of Femboys?

Fortnite69 420 wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

Chicken came first. I say this as a creationist. Although then there's the whole thing about the development of different varieties of chicken, or of poultry in general, and how much of that happened after creation, and I'm not going into that until I've had time to do more reading up on this.*

Honestly the whole Einstein/bomb debate isn't going anywhere at this point: my skim-read of the argument suggests that the last few posts have mainly been a back-and-forth about whether Carking's sources prove the point he says they prove, whether as sources they are reliable, whether the backing-up with his own opinion was sufficient, and whether noblebright actually read them properly. It looks like an overly elaborate argument of contradictions at this stage, so I suggest you both drop it and accept a stalemate.

*Which will probably be never unless a number of people insist I do go into this in more detail. I'm fine with 'my religious beliefs clash with your scientific understanding'.

If chickens came first... then where do they come from? Chickens come from eggs, which usually a mother chicken needs to look after the eggs quite a lot.This argument of "Who came first? Chickens or eggs"?Is like we just think that both of these would pop out of nowhere and puzzled us with various questions? Where the answer mostly lies, dating back to million, billion years ago.

They don't really just pop and there's a chicken here... Back then, I don't think laying eggs were a thing, before the mammals got hit by a mass extinction, which slowly a new generation came in.

That is, I dare to say... Dinosaurs...

This joke about chickens or egg first can be quite puzzling for people who didn't really know about the previous periods of earth and their evolutions.

You might try to light things up with your friends with one of this tricky question.

Unless your friend is a huge nerd in evolution, which I would probably advise you to not do...

An alternate answer can be found in Genesis 1:24-25:"And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

Presumably chickens would be counted with land-dwelling animals; if not, refer to the earlier part of the chapter where birds more generally are created. So, if one accepts the authority of the Bible (which I do, and nobody else in this thread seems to) chickens did just 'pop into existence' as it were, with a supernatural cause. In the same way Adam and Eve, the first humans, weren't born from a human mother, but were created as adults who could take care of themselves.

I'm sorry if I've turned what wasn't meant to be a science versus religion discussion into one, or am in the process of doing so; it so happens that this very question was brought up in my (church-organised) school as an example of how differing opinions on the origin of the universe lead to that sort of question being perceived very differently by different people, and when other people answered it from an evolutionist perspective, I couldn't resist throwing in my own creationist one. I'll stop now or this thread will get taken up by another debate.

if god can do and create anything can he lift a stone that he cannot lift?