It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   
There's a question that had been asked around. But somehow, it's baffling why smart thinking people are unable to give a straight answer.
They go round and round explaining how stuffs work and how science work but never giving an answer. Sometimes they say the question doesn't make sense. Some say we don't know the answer. But some protest that it's a leading question. But really, are they being honest as to what they know or is it that they don't want to admit the obvious?

Well let's see where you stand.

But first let me please state this scientific and incontrovertible fact:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

So, what's the answer to this simple question:

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

What say you?


edit on 14-4-2017 by edmc^2 because: title correction




posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Got an easier one, but no less unsolvable.

"What came first the chicken or the egg"?

Hint: No one knows the answer no matter how smart they sound.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: edmc^2

Got an easier one, but no less unsolvable.

"What came first the chicken or the egg"?

Hint: No one knows the answer no matter how smart they sound.


That's easy. Scientifically speaking - the chicken.

Why?

Because there are things in the chicken that are not in the egg. However - everything in the egg can be found to be in the chicken.

You need to study up more.

ty.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Idreamofme

So your turn - what's the answer to my question?

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

That sounds fantastic. But wouldn't the chicken need hatching from the egg?

Or did it just kinda big bang into existence and start crapping out a bunch of eggs?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: edmc^2

That sounds fantastic. But wouldn't the chicken need hatching from the egg?

Or did it just kinda big bang into existence and start crapping out a bunch of eggs?


The answer is - Everything that has a beginning has a cause.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Idreamofme

the egg, a chicken is a cross breed. my family use to raise chickens for egg production. most smart people agree that they came from cross breeding.
a wiki cause it's fast, and from

The domestic chicken is descended primarily from the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and is scientifically classified as the same species.[21] As such it can and does freely interbreed with populations of red jungle fowl.[21] Recent genetic analysis has revealed that at least the gene for yellow skin was incorporated into domestic birds through hybridization with the grey junglefowl (G. sonneratii).[22] The traditional poultry farming view is that chickens were first domesticated for cockfighting in Asia, Africa, and Europe, rather than for egg or meat production. In the last decade there have been a number of genetic studies to clarify the origins. According to one study, a single domestication event occurring in the region of modern Thailand created the modern chicken with minor transitions separating the modern breeds.[23] However, that study was later found to be based on incomplete data, and recent studies point to multiple maternal origins, with the clade found in the Americas, Europe, Middle East, and Africa, originating from the Indian subcontinent, where a large number of unique haplotypes occur.[24][25] It is postulated that the jungle fowl, known as the bamboo fowl in many Southeast Asian languages, is a special pheasant well adapted to take advantage of the large amounts of fruits that are produced during the end of the 50-year bamboo seeding cycle to boost its own reproduction.[26] In domesticating the chicken, humans took advantage of this prolific reproduction of the jungle fowl when exposed to large amounts of food.[27] It has been claimed (based on paleoclimatic assumptions) that chickens were domesticated in Southern China in 6000 BC.[28] However, according to a recent study,[29] it is unclear whether those birds were the ancestors of chickens today. Instead, the origin could be the Harappan culture of the Indus Valley. Eventually, the chicken moved to the Tarim basin of central Asia. The chicken reached Europe (Romania, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine) about 3000 BC.[30] Introduction into Western Europe came far later, about the 1st millennium BC. Phoenicians spread chickens along the Mediterranean coasts, to Iberia. Breeding increased under the Roman Empire, and was reduced in the Middle Ages.[30] Middle East traces of chicken go back to a little earlier than 2000 BC, in Syria; chicken went southward only in the 1st millennium BC. The chicken reached Egypt for purposes of cock fighting about 1400 BC, and became widely bred only in Ptolemaic Egypt (about 300 BC).[30] Little is known about the chicken's introduction into Africa. Three possible routes of introduction in about the early first millennium AD could have been through the Egyptian Nile Valley, the East Africa Roman-Greek or Indian trade, or from Carthage and the Berbers, across the Sahara. The earliest known remains are from Mali, Nubia, East Coast, and South Africa and date back to the middle of the first millennium AD.[30] Domestic chicken in the Americas before Western conquest is still an ongoing discussion, but blue-egged chickens, found only in the Americas and Asia, suggest an Asian origin for early American chickens.[30]


+4 more 
posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Idreamofme

The egg was around long before chickens. The chicken evolved from dinosaurs. The end.
Also to the original question, that's a stupid question.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

noth·ing
ˈnəTHiNG/Submit
pronoun
1.
not anything; no single thing.
"I said nothing"
synonyms: not a thing, not anything, nil, zero, naught/nought; More
adjectiveinformal
1.
having no prospect of progress; of no value.
"he had a series of nothing jobs"
adverb
1.
not at all.
"she cares nothing for others

From our definition of "nothing," it cannot cause something. Therefore, all events have a cause



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: Idreamofme

The egg was around long before chickens. The chicken evolved from dinosaurs. The end.
Also to the original question, that's a stupid question.



As expected. The response to the question.

Hope I didn't scare you.

Lol.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: edmc^2

noth·ing
ˈnəTHiNG/Submit
pronoun
1.
not anything; no single thing.
"I said nothing"
synonyms: not a thing, not anything, nil, zero, naught/nought; More
adjectiveinformal
1.
having no prospect of progress; of no value.
"he had a series of nothing jobs"
adverb
1.
not at all.
"she cares nothing for others

From our definition of "nothing," it cannot cause something. Therefore, all events have a cause



So what's the answer to the question?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Idreamofme

The chicken, except it wasn't the chicken as we know it today, but an ancestor that used to gestate in the womb before it evolved to lay eggs.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: edmc^2

Got an easier one, but no less unsolvable.

"What came first the chicken or the egg"?

Hint: No one knows the answer no matter how smart they sound.


Let me take a stab at it. If the question cannot produce an answer, it is likely the question is misworded.

The answer then becomes obvious, it is 'neither, it was the rooster that came first'.....



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2



Everything that has a beginning has a cause.


A cause as defined by whom?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

See what I mean? You say chicken, other dude says egg. You both sound smart. And no one knows.

That's why I gave you a "HINT" which was also a slyly phrased answer. No one knows



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: edmc^2



Everything that has a beginning has a cause.


A cause as defined by whom?



I would say - the observer.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
In the Beginning there was just a chicken.
It had no cause.
It just existed.
Then, one day, it layed an egg.
Things got very interesting soon afterward.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?



If "something" exists - - why would it exist without a cause?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: edmc^2

See what I mean? You say chicken, other dude says egg. You both sound smart. And no one knows.

That's why I gave you a "HINT" which was also a slyly phrased answer. No one knows


Of course if you believe that.

I don't. To me, there's always an ultimate answer otherwise I'll be like you - unsure.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: edmc^2

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?



If "something" exists - - why would it exist without a cause?



good question. here lies the conundrum.

The ultimate question to our existence.

Can something exist without a cause?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join