How many people of each nationality on the forum

Western culture has made the word Allau Alkbar phrase, which is good in all respects, a very bad word and they tell us it’s bad and never say it

Carking the 6th wrote:

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?

Yes, and then he could make it so that he could lift it, no? I’m confused… religious argument time? JIHAD, ALLAHU AKBAR

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.

I'm religious as well, I reject the theistic evolution part that count humans are from... monkey.

Which I don't believe them, same reason with Adam and Eve.

I do like the way you explained and not afraid to show this.

This brings another level of excitement in the topics from other people's perspective, which is very nice.

Cuz white people love colonizing shit as long as they get they’re fat grubby fingers into a culture

my brain cells are dying

russ_russ1 wrote:

Cuz white people love colonizing shit as long as they get they’re fat grubby fingers into a culture

russ_russ1 wrote:

Cuz white people love colonizing shit as long as they get they’re fat grubby fingers into a culture

Fortnite69 420 wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

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?

Yes, and then he could make it so that he could lift it, no? I’m confused… religious argument time? JIHAD, ALLAHU AKBAR

that would mean he did not create a stone he can not lift thus meaning that he cannot create everything he wants?

Carking the 6th wrote:

russ_russ1 wrote:

Cuz white people love colonizing shit as long as they get they’re fat grubby fingers into a culture

White people when white people with different accent exist:

If we were to live together, I'm going to force all of you to watch "Annihilation" with me... HUehEUheuH-

You guys are making it very hard for me to keep my word about stopping with the religious discussion. Well, since we have successfully morphed this thread from a debate about nuclear bombs to a religious discussion anyway, I'm going to jump back in (briefly since I need to go out soon).

Fortnite69 420 wrote:

why christian

Carking the 6th wrote:

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?

As a disclaimer my knowledge of biology, geology and cosmology is hardly extensive so if this is going to get scientific there's a level on which I don't know what I'm talking about, although this would also be true if I were arguing in favour of evolution. Hence the research (although good luck finding anything unbiased).

Kadeko wrote:

Nah, it's fine.

I'm religious as well, I reject the theistic evolution part that count humans are from... monkey.

Which I don't believe them, same reason with Adam and Eve.

I do like the way you explained and not afraid to show this.

This brings another level of excitement in the topics from other people's perspective, which is very nice.

Since most of the regulars on this forum have demonstrated that they aren't arseholes, I see no reason not to have a little more diversity in viewpoints if this sort of thing is going to come up.

From what I’ve read and watched it’s more that early men, more like ape-men came from not monkeys, but apes, who then evolved into slightly more and more human-like beings that eventually became humans. We share a common ancestor that diverged into humans and became Homo-Sapiens. But no, even in science humans did not evolve from apes

As for my standpoint? Islam itself doesn’t directly contradict evolution, although many scholars disagree the majority of Muslims as a whole believe in evolution. In fact many Muslim scholars, especially in the Islamic Golden ages during the Middle Ages theorized about some ideas relating to evolution. God creating the process of evolution and allowing life to grow like that, maybe only manually spawning humans at one point is probably the predominant viewpoint there.

Fortnite69 420 wrote:

russ_russ1 wrote:

Cuz white people love colonizing shit as long as they get they’re fat grubby fingers into a culture

r u white?I am not for a fact and i am proud of it

Long blonde curly hair, blue eyes, yknow :3

I'm from pluto

WOAHHH!!

I didn't know bringing a silly idea of Ordovician periods could lead a very potential interesting discussion like this!

This one sounds more of a healthy debate.

whilst I'm here, tasting some Hallucigenia.

Proud to be a plutonian!

Make pluto great again!

Pluto is smaller than Russia..

Kadeko wrote:

Pluto is smaller than Russia..

The Mister Class wrote:

Kadeko wrote:

Pluto is smaller than Russia..

Don't worry! We are still stronger.