Chickens

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay then, just one:

Why did the chicken cross the road, roll in the mud and cross the road again?

Because he was a dirty double-crosser.

Have you heard the YEC one?

Q. Why did the chicken cross the road?

A. Because it was running away from the dinosaur.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
But surely that is only the case for 'Why did the chicken [b]really cross the road?'[/b]

He was trying to get away from Mrs. Tweedy of course.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
But surely that is only the case for 'Why did the chicken [b]really cross the road?'[/b]

He was a very political chicken He wanted to go from the left to the right.

Why did the pervert cross the road?

Because his knob was stuck up the chicken's butt.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You think that there's only one chicken, but it has a time machine so that when one sees more than one chicken it's in fact the same chicken at different ages after it's been sent back in time?

According to MWI shouldn't there be an infinite number of chickens? And how does time travel have anything to do with...


Opps, wrong forum... never mind.

So, why didn't the chicken cross the road?

obviously because it was a chicken.

also, why didn't the skeleton cross the road?

because it didn't have the guts to.

btw the chicken and the egg problem is solved.

the chicken was created first with the ability to lay the egg.

See Genesis 2:19,20

Adam certainly couldn't name an egg.

Originally posted by roigam
So, why didn't the chicken cross the road?

obviously because it was a chicken.

also, why didn't the skeleton cross the road?

because it didn't have the guts to.

btw the chicken and the egg problem is solved.

the chicken was created first with the ability to lay the egg.

See Genesis 2:19,20

Adam certainly couldn't name an egg.

'Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.'

http://science.howstuffworks.com/


P.S Adam didn't exist.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken.

Except in reality, 'chicken' is not a scientific word and simply isn't defined well enough to take to the DNA level. Even if we referred to a species, we simply haven't defined species well enough to deal with evolution.
An egg is never a chicken ('true chicken' or otherwise), it is an egg. It hatches into a chick which grows up into a chicken.
Obviously eggs came millions of years before chickens, but if we are talking about a 'chicken egg' then surely the question is whether we name an egg after the parent (in which case the parent must have been a chicken and the chicken came first) or after what hatches out (in which case the chicken egg came first)

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
'Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced t ...[text shortened]... the egg must have come first.'

http://science.howstuffworks.com/


P.S Adam didn't exist.

So, if you say Adam didn't exist, you must also say that the entire list of the ancestors of Jesus including among others: Amos, Nahum, Zerubbabel, David, Boaz, Nashon, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, Methusalah, and Seth also did not exist.

My guess is you haven't seen the proof that the Bible is an accurate historical book and so you do not believe in it.

You must worship science which cannot be relied on as it is always changing.
Whatever happened to leechs as a curative.
There are those who still follow such primative science.

Originally posted by roigam
So, if you say Adam didn't exist, you must also say that the entire list of the ancestors of Jesus including among others: Amos, Nahum, Zerubbabel, David, Boaz, Nashon, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, Methusalah, and Seth also did not exist.

My guess is you haven't seen the proof that the Bible is an accurate historical book and so you do not believe i ...[text shortened]... ever happened to leechs as a curative.
There are those who still follow such primative science.

Worship is your bag dude. I don't worship science.

Originally posted by roigam
So, if you say Adam didn't exist, you must also say that the entire list of the ancestors of Jesus including among others: Amos, Nahum, Zerubbabel, David, Boaz, Nashon, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, Methusalah, and Seth also did not exist.

Seriously? Do you think that makes any kind of sense?

My guess is you haven't seen the proof that the Bible is an accurate historical book and so you do not believe in it.
I certainly have seen no such proof. If such proof existed you would think that Christians would be showing it to everyone, yet strangely they are silent on the matter.

You must worship science which cannot be relied on as it is always changing.
I don't worship science, but you are mistaken that it is always changing. You are confusing 'science' with 'the findings of science'. The latter is of course always changing because we find out more all the time. Clearly this should suggest that it is extremely useful and should be relied upon.

Whatever happened to leechs as a curative.
Scientific methods demonstrated that that leaches were largely ineffective for most conditions, and better medications were discovered. (leaches as a curative was not a scientific finding if that was what you thought, but they do have their uses and science has been used to find out why.)

Originally posted by roigam
So, if you say Adam didn't exist, you must also say that the entire list of the ancestors of Jesus including among others: Amos, Nahum, Zerubbabel, David, Boaz, Nashon, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, Methusalah, and Seth also did not exist.

My guess is you haven't seen the proof that the Bible is an accurate historical book and so you do not believe i ...[text shortened]... ever happened to leechs as a curative.
There are those who still follow such primative science.

Worship science. That's a good one. We actually KNOW science can change our views of nature. We rely on that. It is unlikely for instance, that the speed of light will ever be different in a vacuum. We know if you drop a rock on your foot it will hurt. That is not going to magically change.

A new cure for cancer that people put hopes in, maybe it works maybe it doesn't, but it is science that eventually shows the truth one way or the other.

You make it sound like science is so unreliable you can't ever believe anything scientists say.

Not only is that wrong, it is an insult to our intelligence.

Science has told us tobacco is bad for us, known for hundreds of years actually but the good Christian tobacco CEO's said there was nothing wrong with tobacco smoking even though their own scientists were saying otherwise, and suppressed.

So you show me a science argument that reversed itself and I will show you a thousand others that still hold today.

Originally posted by roigam
................ See Genesis 2:19,20

Adam certainly couldn't name an egg.

Adam certainly couldn't name an egg.

Adam certainly couldn't name [ --- ] ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except in reality, 'chicken' is not a scientific word and simply isn't defined well enough to take to the DNA level. Even if we referred to a species, we simply haven't defined species well enough to deal with evolution.
An egg is never a chicken ('true chicken' or otherwise), it is an egg. It hatches into a chick which grows up into a chicken.
Obviousl ...[text shortened]... and the chicken came first) or after what hatches out (in which case the chicken egg came first)

We name the egg after what is in it - not where it came from.

e.g. Crème eggs.
They contain crème.
😛