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.

 

chicken or egg, which came first (I KNOW)

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sippy Cup
I’ve always wondered about that question: (chicken or egg, which came first)

I think I just figured it out! And I AM the first: The chicken was first!


You are not the first! That kind of statement just makes you look like a complete idiot!

But yes, I agree... the chicken was first.




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Enigami
 


although you think science can be unified with religion it cannot one is purported fact while the other is sacred law and teachings you cannot understand sacred law with science fact, its simply stated. when one person claims that there is no god because there is no proof and the other knows there is a god because they have a connection your going to run into problems, and if you force science with religion in schools is that not antichristish forcing religion on people?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Sippy Cup
 


what i'm saying is.

this is a philosophical question. its not the answer that is important, its the information.

1. an egg is hatched containing first chicken
2. chicken births first chicken egg


being that the egg previous to the first chickens birth is of different origin:
1. first egg is excluded
2. first egg still first egg

conclusion:

1. egg came first because a general egg is necessary for birth of the chicken, no matter what the origin of the species
2. chicken came first because egg isn't technically a chicken egg, but and ancestor of the chicken.
3. direct link of genetics which created the mutation toward the creation of the chicken, creates a family tree, with the start of the new species as egg, being first of the mutation.
4. chicken, because how could god create an egg shape and expect a friggin' chicken to come out? lolz, (yeah wrong. if you try to base anything on religion or god in general, its nothing more than our ancestors speaking through us, filtering truth because truth back then was truly unimaginable and distant)

no matter what, you are wrong no matter what your choice is, because their is no answer to existentialistic questions. back then and now, it was never literally: chicken or egg, but the different perplexing ideas from an anomalous event which could never find a definitive answer. we'll find information supporting the egg theory, but even then the question will still be asked verbatim...

yeah, it was the egg





[edit on 16-4-2010 by tylermbell]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradoxos
 


if you'll notice, i chose my words carefully....I said sceince and spirituality can be unified, not religion. In no way am i trying to hurt feelings here, but religion has no place here on earth. Jesus and Buddha and many other holy men speak of this. And its quite obvious you didnt read my whole post or have done any type of REAL research on this subject, but like i said, you will find that most scientists and physicists are in fact spiritual beacause all science is proving is that there is a precise order amongst all things that they cannot, or will not, be able to explain. Like i said, read "Universe in a Single Atom" by H.H. the Dhali Lama, or "The Yoga of Jesus" by Yogananda. Science is just as essential as spirituality my friend.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Enigami
 


don't ask a religious person to read about science, tends to make them feel dirty or uneducated.

which is another chicken or the egg

if a religious person reads deep philosophy or scientific knowledge; does one feel dirty for looking at these words? picking up nothing from the texts?
or does one feel uneducated, when the very idea of feeling uneducated while reading educational materials is the basis for an uneducated people.

edit to take out my bias against religion...oh wait...



[edit on 16-4-2010 by tylermbell]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Enigami
 


with out getting short!!!!! did not jesus state that peter was the rock and did not peter start catholicism. what is catholicism to you a religion what was christianity based off of; the teachings of jesus which was spirituality in God. there are not multiple ways to god and i dont want to kill this thread so which came first the chicken or the egg the chicken came with the rooster to make the egg to make the offspring to populate the earth .



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by iamsupermanv2
 



Why>? Because it doesn't make any sense at all. This is something I found at a site relating to Islam. All I can say is Allah Akbar!




The Scientific Proof

Let us imagine ourselves standing in a laboratory stocked with beakers and test tubes containing all sorts of chemical compounds. Then suppose an earthquake has just occurred upsetting the shelved vessels, sending their contents spilling onto the laboratory floor. It would be a very strange coincidence indeed to find new life forms generating themselves where none had existed before.

You might say, 'Your analogy didn't account for time - these organisms need time to evolve.' We ask, 'How much time should we have allowed? Was there enough time since the beginning of the universe to allow for their self-induced formation?'

Let's hear from Swiss mathematician Charles Eugene Jai. In an experiment aimed at answering this very question, Jai set out to calculate the probability of the random formation of a single protein molecule. Jai 'helped' the situation by assuming the existence of formative elements, and by selecting a protein consisting of only 2,000 atoms (An average protein might consist of 32,000 atoms or more). Jai also assumed that the protein would consist of only 2 unique formative atoms.

He determined the value of probability by considering the size of the material and the time necessary for the random formation to occur. He calculated that the probability of forming even a simplified protein molecule was approximately 1 in 5 x 10 e+320 !

The size of the material necessary to produce that almost zero probability would have been a sphere with a diameter of approximately 6 x 10 e+176 miles - about 10 e+63 times bigger than the imagined size of the universe. Finally, the time necessary for the molecule to form was 10 e+243 billion years. This was far greater than the supposed age of the universe - only about 2 billion years.

He concluded that the universe was neither old enough, nor big enough to allow for the random formation of even a simple protein molecule. It was impossible for the universe to have created itself, and for life to randomly form. We must then consider another course. There is a Creator who created the universe.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradoxos
 


Thats ok my friend, you are not ready to learn the greater truth, and one must be ready to accept it. Religion has no place, Worship has no place, and there is great literature out there by former catholics and christians that realize this, including Jesus and Buddha themselves. Sprituality is not religion. Peace and respect to you.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
This question was once posed to Mensa members.

(Yeah, I know, 90% of people on ATS claim to be members of Mensa.


Anyway. The absolute general belief by all or most members was:

The chicken came first.



Oops. I became distracted, left my post up, and just returned to send it. Viewing the more recent posts made in my absence, I see my On topic post is no longer relevant. Sorry?

[edit on 4/16/2010 by ladyinwaiting]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illuminati_K1D
reply to post by iamsupermanv2
 



Let us imagine ourselves standing in a laboratory stocked with beakers and test tubes containing all sorts of chemical compounds. Then suppose an earthquake has just occurred upsetting the shelved vessels, sending their contents spilling onto the laboratory floor. It would be a very strange coincidence indeed to find new life forms generating themselves where none had existed before.
(wrong)

You might say, 'Your analogy didn't account for time - these organisms need time to evolve.' We ask, 'How much time should we have allowed? Was there enough time since the beginning of the universe to allow for their self-induced formation?'
(your analogy didn't account for many necessary conditions for something as chaotic and unpredictable as evolution. evolution isn't the religious study of science, its the only accountable action which has been proven true for billions of years through the many tests that confirm chaotic change (not 6000 years btw).


He determined the value of probability by considering the size of the material and the time necessary for the random formation to occur. He calculated that the probability of forming even a simplified protein molecule was approximately 1 in 5 x 10 e+320 !
(this isn't scientific proof, its statistics, statistics is the religion of science; inaccurate)

The size of the material necessary to produce that almost zero probability would have been a sphere with a diameter of approximately 6 x 10 e+176 miles - about 10 e+63 times bigger than the imagined size of the universe. Finally, the time necessary for the molecule to form was 10 e+243 billion years. This was far greater than the supposed age of the universe - only about 2 billion years.
(try 13.9 billion years ago minimum, and only connecting to the theory of the big bang as the beginning (i for one don't think it was the beginning, just the beginning of our universe). google information sometime kid...its pretty easy...)

He concluded that the universe was neither old enough, nor big enough to allow for the random formation of even a simple protein molecule. It was impossible for the universe to have created itself, and for life to randomly form. We must then consider another course. There is a Creator who created the universe.

wrong wrong wrong. that was one of the worst things i've ever read, thank you.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
You obviously have no spiritual understanding on why religion was here is jesus wasnt religious would he have been a palistinen jew or is that a common misperception. i think that you forget why religion is here its to teach the truth for god and jesus and yes its only been around since adam and eve ate of the tree off of the garden there might have been no religion before adam and eve. when there was only god but know that we are here religion is here to teach us the truth.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradoxos
 


Again, you just dont get it. And my friend, not to cause hurt feelings, but it is obvious you were raised religious and therefore have a hard time accepting another truth. You accept authority as truth, rather than truth as authority. Religion teaches you to be satisfied with NOT understanding the world around you. Please, read the many books on such subjects, including the ones i mentioned in my previous posts, hold yourself in the middle with an open heart, and you will see exactly what im talking about. But, one must be ready to do so. Peace and respect.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


mensa is a group which differs from state to state. wherever you read it as chicken

"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg."

www.sacramento.us.mensa.org...

mensa takes the other side in a different state.


heres a question for mensa; whats intelligence?

by definition: "intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind comprehending related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, reasoning, planning, problem solving, speech, and learning."

but intelligence is merely a broadview term toward the accuracy of information. the word itself is unintelligible; for the fact we only have one word for 'intelligence'



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradoxos
 


speak for once and don't let your church or family speak through you.

if a person is in a box all his life, never to hear even a word about god; is that person going to hell?

then he doesn't teach that person anything of science, but of everything else in a subjective manner. will that person seek answers?

in the end

religion = i'm fine with not questioning
science = i'm not fine with only questioning

(edit to add that this is still on topic, its the same question rehashed in different form, much more modernized of course)

[edit on 16-4-2010 by tylermbell]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tylermbell
 


Actually, no. They have a small publication, the Mensa Bulletin, published only intermittently. They will sometimes take a question to ponder for readers. This was one of them.

I happened to see the Bulletin in which this questioned was addressed, and remember the response because, like most others, I was interested in the question. This was however, several years back.

There may be varying responses by members, but in this case, it was the chicken, was the agreed upon response.

Without a chicken, there is no egg.

Also, I notice you ask a question, then answer it yourself.



[edit on 4/16/2010 by ladyinwaiting]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Aww, hell was worth a shot. Here is the link has a beautiful picture of the Universe as well so it's worth clicking just to see that. - www.missionislam.com...


Anyway, I'll admit, I used to be an atheist. I watched all the programs on TV like " Ape to Man "; ect. Bought into them. It used to really scare me too. Well, at first it did. Then I just came to accept that there was no God and it was just something that people believed in to help them sleep at night.

Anyway, just to make it clear - I don't believe in Allah because I am afraid of dying or to help me sleep better at night. As an atheist I used to embrace death and cherished the thought of it because my life was filled with nothing but turmoil and I looked at dying as the end of all my problems. I was young back then and death seemed so far away but I am well aware that time does fly so that was reassuring to me.

Then, after all the Hell on Earth that I've been through in my short 22 years ( at the time 2007 ) I kinda had something happen to me spiritually and it changed my life ever since. All I can tell you is that ever since that moment in time I have been filled with this inner-tranquility that absolutely nobody can take away from me. I have no fears of dieing in my sleep anymore. I have no fears of my heart suddenly stopping. I am no longer filled with rage and hate at society. I was simply " touched " by something that is greater than us. Feel free to mock me all you want; I get it all the time. People read my story and laugh at me and call me delusional - I've become used to it. All I know is that when we do eventually pass on and enter the next world Allah shall let it be known that what I went through was indeed reality.

And even after that revelation I wasn't very religious. I was simply seeking Truth as to why I was picked... why I was enlightened ... And I found this truth in the Holy Quran. Allah Akbar.

So, for all you believers out there - sleep good at night knowing that Allah is the Reality. Feel free to read my blog as well - media.abovetopsecret.com...&action=view&id=460

Yup. I'm far from delusional as well. But go ahead - yuck it up - laugh at me. I could care less. I know what's real - I just feel sorry for those who don't.


xoxo

~ Matt



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   


if a person is in a box all his life, never to hear even a word about god; is that person going to hell?



Of course not. That's one point that I agree with. I don't believe you have to be a hardcore religious person to go to Heaven. I believe if you live a good life and do not harm people intentionally or anything and love your family and struggle enough - you will make it to Heaven regardless of your religious views, ect. Just don't be greedy person or really arrogant and think you are better than someone because you are smarter or have more money, ect. And definitely do not be a racist. Ouch...



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
i wasnt raised religious at all im luthern i dont have to go to church to be with god im above average with my science scores, my math scores, and my english scores. i hold religion the highest as of late because some miraculous religious stuff has happened to me that you would never understand because you my friend have never learned the truth i just wish i could tell you but now is not the time.and i speak for myself i follow my religion not only because its right but because i agree with it and even if i didnt agree with it i know that its for the better and must be followed.

you however in the science field are subject to changing facts that constantly change, and your religion your spirituality you search for through multiple religions is antichristish by combining multiple religions you have no true guidance. i know much about alot of religions but i only follow christianity and no im not a shepple dont ask. also what did your bhudda say about prejudging people. but let me figure out who you are your new age you havent come to a complete decision on evolution because your constantly changing, you think that your nice but you dont realize you sound self righteous when someone counterpounts your beliefs you dont stick with the facts but say peace and love and maybe youll find understanding to make them upset. except when it comes to jesus and bhudda you think were both enlightened and tought the same truth al though one came before the other dont forget that christianity stems off of judaism came first and then christianity stemmed off. i know you would have too that why i threw that in their. and when i ask you why you think jesus and bhudda taught the same truth you would say that because they where at the same spiritual level and that it was the higher inner truth that is inside all of us? while i realize that there truths were pretty far apart you might find some similar teachings but mostly you wont find that many similar teachings, what laws did bhudda teach and what laws did jesus teach and what truth did jesus teach compared to that of bhudda do your research its astonishing.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradoxos
 


Your showing your absolute lack of any real research with an open heart my friend. Jesus and Buddha not only had the same message, but they were the same soul. Again, you are wrong, but i understand you are not ready to accept this. There is truth, and then there is a greater truth. And both men taught the importance of not worshipping any god. Neither was ever meant to be a religion. What they offered was a raft, to get to the other side...but you dont turn around and worship the raft now do you? I dont know how you can look at simple history, and see how many times the bible has been interepreted in a way to favor goverment rule and control. Your bible in your house now is so far off from what it really was, its scary. But until you really research such things, you will always remain lost. Look, we are on the same side here whether or not you recognize that. But spirituality and religion are two COMPLETELY different things. I believe in Jesus' teaching just as much as Buddha, and just as each said, they are not to be worshipped, and certainly not to be made a religion out of.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Sippy Cup
 


Neither of these 2 were first !

You have omitted the Living One from the equation...and only spoken of the Dead...

Any equation has a minimum of 3 components.

So what do you see the 3rd part of the equation as being???



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join