March 25, 2020 at 6:51 pm #324941@halsterParticipant
Ok my friends, it was “what came first the chicken or the egg”. forget the side dadoos about humans … and such.
This is a way an evolutionist might view the answer to the question: I see an egg and no chicken-the chicken is in the egg and the egg is first. I see a chicken and no egg, the chicken came first. This is practically insolvable to a creationist.March 26, 2020 at 6:14 am #324982@write4uParticipant
halter said; Ok my friends, it was “what came first the chicken or the egg”. forget the side dadoos about humans … and such.
I already told you. The very first cell able to duplicate itself is technically the first egg. Forget all the side dadoos about humans or chickens.
But if you want to answer the question as posed;
If the question refers to eggs in general, the egg came first. The first amniote egg—that is, a hard-shelled egg that could be laid on land, rather than remaining in water like the eggs of fish or amphibians—appeared around 312 million years ago. In contrast, chickens are domesticated descendants of red junglefowl and probably arose little more than eight thousand years ago, at most.
Put more simply by Neil deGrasse Tyson: “Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The egg—laid by a bird that was not a chicken.”March 26, 2020 at 12:25 pm #324995@halsterParticipant
Neil deGrasse Tyson: “Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The egg—laid by a bird that was not a chicken.” Neil says this elegantly. Sorry in being so clumsy in my answer.March 29, 2020 at 2:08 pm #325171@vincelwrnc8Participant
As I understand it, as Darwin was finalizing his thoughts and writings concerning natural selection he realized that vast amounts of time, and a great many of successive generations would be necessary to explain that truth he believed he’d teased from nature. The problem was, at that time theological dogma with respect to the age of the earth still was the dominant view, as was catastrophism, as opposed to the homogeneity of geophysical processes – wind and water erosion, transportation and deposition, etc. – which is referred to as uniformitarianism. At that time the oldest age for the earth that one could state in polite company was something like several hundred thousand years.
Darwin was a close friend of Charles Lyell, one of the first modern geologists, who was in tern heavily influenced by James Hutton, whom some refer to as the father of modern geology. Their ideas formed what is known as uniformitarianism, and their theories pointed to an earth that was much, much, much older than any of the extant figures. That was the motor that made his theory run – DEEP TIME.April 1, 2020 at 10:05 am #325375@citizenschallengev3Participant
Although if you like Hutton’s story, I imagine you are familiar with it’s historical successor the story of William Smith and his map.
The Map that Changed the World is a book by Simon Winchester about English geologist William Smith and his great achievement, the first geological map of England and Wales.
Smith’s was the first national-scale geological map, and by far the most accurate of its time. His pivotal insights were that each local sequence of rock strata was a subsequence of a single universal sequence of strata and that these rock strata could be distinguished and traced for great distances by means of embedded fossilized organisms.
Winchester’s book narrates the intellectual context of the time, the development of Smith’s ideas and how they contributed to the theory of evolution and more generally to a dawning realisation of the true age of the earth.
Now that stuff is fun reading and makes for wonderful musing. 😉April 1, 2020 at 12:59 pm #325384@laustenKeymaster
Thanks for bringing that up. I read something years ago about a geologist who started out on this project to determine the age of the earth, expecting it to be 6,000 years old, for obvious reasons. But he stuck to his scientific methods and went through a period of trying to choose between his beliefs and his scientific results. This led to debates about science vs religion. Reading the wikipedia article on Smith, it seems that old story might be apocryphal. Either that, or I’ve got this story confused with another.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.