The egg came before chicken Videos

thanks adien i appercate the support :)

hi miss you bro i wish i culd chat but skype is messed up when i try to call you but its summer so i will see if we can do something -from your old friend 

+rerevisionist Ok, I appreciate the reply.

+VVhiʇe Veil VVidovvs - If you use the site searcher in nukelies.org, you'll find a Russian who nicknames himself dinosaur-denier. I first heard the idea in about 2000 and I'm agnostic. The version I heard is that dinosaurs were a fabrication, based on chance finds of large bones (giraffes?) and the rarity of fullish skeletons, the use of plaster casts, legends about giants etc, and competitive ambitions and funding & facts about faked fossils eg from China. Most evolutionists (eg Dawkins) are naive about science fraud. But I haven't studied the subject or the careerists etc to be able to be other than agnostic.

+María Mary Miriam - You don't even being to understand the issue. Why not make some effort?//www.big-lies/org/reviews/reviews-richard-dawkins.html

+María Mary Miriam - Too tricky for Dawkins in 30 seconds. You may have missed the point - reproduction by eggs predated birds and must have started very simply. Maybe before DNA - DNA must have been preceded by simpler precursors. At least, I think so - I don't know if RD has solved this problem. I doubt it!

+John Mailk Well, ....

Wrong. It's both. The amnionic egg and the first organism to lay one evolved at the same time.

+gimmethedetails  - Yes. DNA has two strands and uses 4 amino acids (if they've got that right). It somehow manages to code the structure of an organism.  I'm saying there must have been precursors, now long gone.  The simplest duplication presumably would not even be recognised as life.Your comments on language don't seem relevant to the issue. Human language needed ears and moving jaws and tongues to make it possible. Judging by the fact no other species has it, a human brain is needed too. Or something like these things.  It didn't come from 'randomness'.Yes, I agree that the origins of life aren't known.Dawkins was asked specifically (in effect) how something which needs a parent to form it, but itself makes something like the parent, could have got started. Good question and imo Dawkins evaded the issue. You entropy comment surfaces all the time. The fact is that energy from the sun is enough to power these mechanism.

+rerevisionistYou are still framing it as"it is so complicated that it must have started out simpler"Language (which dna is according to many scientists including Francais S Collins) can NOT come about by chance...I am talking about APPLIED SCIENCE here. Show me ONE example where any designs/languages (not patterns ie. snowflakes which are all unique but seem like a design etc...) come from randomness or evolution from simple to complex in ANY lab/scientific experiment... ever.I am NOT saying I know the answer but Logic and Science say it is not possible for a language (something that represents something other than itself like DNA or ie. a map of an town represents something OTHER than itself, the town of course.).I am also not saying that EVOLUTION does not exist. Things are evolving as we speak on life that ALREADY exist, but it does not even come close to explaining logically how it came about in the first place.THE ONLY thing an atheistic evolutionist can say isThe spark of life happened randomly because of time and certain physical objects/chemicals etc... had "the perfect storm" so to say.This is flies in the face of entropy in the theory of statistical mechanics.

You haven't understood my comment on DNA. At the very start of life, there must have been some sort of duplication, copying, replication process.  I don't suppose anyone knows what.  There may have been alternatives. DNA couldn't have started it, as it involves some sort of coding too. So DNA must itself have evolved from some thing simpler.  And the idea about 'blindly and randomly' producing life forms is completely wrong.

+rerevisionist"it's too complex to have come from nowhere"I have to come back to this comment.If its to complex to come from nowhere than the argument that it evolved over Million/Billion years is even more fantastical that the idea that our dna was created. (the law of entropy refutes the very idea).If an alien race did create our DNA then the question is who created them and on and on (the 2 mirrors facing each other argument) still does not answer the question who created the ORIGINAL language it cannot come from patterns or chance.There are no examples of language coming about by chance that I have heard about.thanksNo need to reply just want to get these links out there for others to investigate.Keep up the great work!PS I am not religious and would never make biblical references for or against.To me it is a discussion aboutIntelligent Design: Some sort of Intelligent Designer (God?) designed the Universe and its life forms.vsAtheistic Evolution: A Godless Universe blasted itself into existence. Non-Intelligent Cosmic and Biological Evolutionary processes blindly and randomly produced all life forms.

+rerevisionist"I think the creationism material is wrong, and a blind alley; but it's his choice!"One question: Have you read the entire book?

"it's too complex to have come from nowhere"You are missing or blinded with your bias to the point.His talk was about patterns and design and language. I think he quite clearly makes the point that language has to come from a "Mind".DNA is a language that RePresents something other than itself.That is the point.thanks for the reply.

TomatoBubble is strong on history and on revisionism of the jewish roles for a century or so.  I think the creationism material is wrong, and a blind alley; but it's his choice!  .  . . The man you refer to doesn't seem to have understood that DNA must itself have been a product of evolution; it's too complex to have come from nowhere.  Nobody ever seems to make this point, so I can't exactly blame him.

Except that doesn't explain where the chicken came from.

did they use organic chicken in the research?

False.. Wikipedia chicken or egg..