It was not directed at you, therefore it was not a personal attack.
Your comments were/are....
Your comments were/are....
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Bunch of Bickerin' B!tches.
Atypical FAITH lesson -for both sides of the Godly vs. Mother Earth - fence.
QUOTE]Quote from optionpro007:
The only way for a chicken to come before an egg is if something else created it, full with a reproductive system and everything.
That is highly unlikely. [/QUOTE]
QUOTE]Quote from optionpro007:
The only way for a chicken to come before an egg is if something else created it, full with a reproductive system and everything.
That is highly unlikely. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Quote from JAGUARBONE:
Atypical FAITH lesson -for both sides of the Godly vs. Mother Earth - fence.
QUOTE]Quote from optionpro007:
The only way for a chicken to come before an egg is if something else created it, full with a reproductive system and everything.
That is highly unlikely.
Faith is beside the point. Maybe God is causing mutated offspring. They happen.
IMO - This issue is all about having a faith - one or the other that is.
"if something else created it, full with a reproductive system and everything." then you posses the faith that God engineered all that tidy inner-workings and creation.
If the egg was first the ole Muther Earth and that incredibly opportunistic and coincidental evolution faith path is your guide.
Take faith to believe GOD did / does ANYTHING. IMO it takes jsut as much ( or more IMO) to believe the coincidential route - as there are many hungry things 'round that like to eat your "little precious".
Faith is beside the point. Maybe God is causing mutated offspring. They happen. [/B][/QUOTE]
"if something else created it, full with a reproductive system and everything." then you posses the faith that God engineered all that tidy inner-workings and creation.
If the egg was first the ole Muther Earth and that incredibly opportunistic and coincidental evolution faith path is your guide.
Take faith to believe GOD did / does ANYTHING. IMO it takes jsut as much ( or more IMO) to believe the coincidential route - as there are many hungry things 'round that like to eat your "little precious".
Quote from Ricter:
Faith is beside the point. Maybe God is causing mutated offspring. They happen. [/B][/QUOTE]
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Flame all you like, it doesn't work.
I wish you would type like a non moron. I know you can type in a non moron manner, but why you choose to type in a moron manner is your choice.
flamin'? u started it, if u don't like it skip my posts.
back to the egg-chicken paradox:
u said eggs come from chickens, then there must be a beginnin' in this birth cycle...where does the first chicken come from? dont u agree it surely evolved from another bird [well before it became domesticated] and where does this bird come from? u see we go back to my theory of fishes [it is not mine by the way] sure it might be an evolutionary process, all the way from layin' eggs creatures but there is still a possibility that some animals developed to procreate that way
[/B][/QUOTE]Quote from JAGUARBONE:
IMO - This issue is all about having a faith - one or the other that is.
"if something else created it, full with a reproductive system and everything." then you posses the faith that God engineered all that tidy inner-workings and creation.
If the egg was first the ole Muther Earth and that incredibly opportunistic and coincidental evolution faith path is your guide.
Take faith to believe GOD did / does ANYTHING.
Faith is beside the point. Maybe God is causing mutated offspring. They happen.
I agree, but it's not the pertinent issue imho. Mutation is the point. A mutant offspring does not change the structure of the parent.
Doh!
My comments went to grotesque mutants, not to "the man."
Those grotesque mutants were not described as humans by me....
If fact, it was you who introduced the concept of grotesque mutant chickens....so my comments may have been about grotesque mutant chickens, or grotesque mutant dogs, or grotesque mutant fish, etc.....but they were not specified as grotesque mutant human beings.
When you suggested I looked in the mirror and saw a grotesque mutant, then it went to the man, i.e. ad homen attack, a personal attack by you toward me.
My comments were not ad hominem in a technical sense, nor were they directed at the opponent in the opponents presentation of a logical argument as a personal attack or as a means to belittle the person offering an argument.
My comments went to grotesque mutants, not to "the man."
Those grotesque mutants were not described as humans by me....
If fact, it was you who introduced the concept of grotesque mutant chickens....so my comments may have been about grotesque mutant chickens, or grotesque mutant dogs, or grotesque mutant fish, etc.....but they were not specified as grotesque mutant human beings.
When you suggested I looked in the mirror and saw a grotesque mutant, then it went to the man, i.e. ad homen attack, a personal attack by you toward me.
My comments were not ad hominem in a technical sense, nor were they directed at the opponent in the opponents presentation of a logical argument as a personal attack or as a means to belittle the person offering an argument.
Quote from Ricter:
Doesn't need to be a personal attack, it was "to the man". You started it.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Doh!
My comments went to grotesque mutants, not to "the man."
Those grotesque mutants were not described as humans by me....
If fact, it was you who introduced the concept of grotesque mutant chickens....so my comments may have been about grotesque mutant chickens, or grotesque mutant dogs, or grotesque mutant fish, etc.....but they were not specified as grotesque mutant human beings.
When you suggested I looked in the mirror and saw a grotesque mutant, then it went to the man, i.e. ad homen attack, a personal attack by you toward me.
My comments were not ad hominem in a technical sense, nor were they directed at the opponent in the opponents presentation of a logical argument as a personal attack or as a means to belittle the person offering an argument.
Don't be obtuse. You were going for the laugh, and calling some Southern Californians "grotesque mutants". It's right there in your post. I don't care about the "technical" sense in this case, you're merely attempting to use it to squirm out of this. If you hadn't built up so much animosity towards yourself on this board maybe someone would have laughed.
People don't so much lose arguments to you, Z, as they simply can never win. You're remedial.