No, you mentioned a chicken-like creature laying an egg containing a chicken. Millions of years prior to that, creatures that were nothing like chickens laid eggs containign other non-chickens. We're still on the same side of the argument, though.

Indeed but the introduction of the chicken (the first creature that could genetically be equated to a chicken) was laid from an egg by an"almost chicken". The almost chicken was laid by another almost chicken but further back the chicken was a further genetically removed almost chicken again laying an egg of an almost chicken and so on. But the argument was not about either of these chicken descendants I thought. Mind you I did tune out not long after the video started. It sounded stupid and was not shaping up to being groundbreaking or insightful.

This post was last modified: 05-09-2012 06:45 PM by Bloke.

I think the only religious people who believe they have all of the answers are actually the insecure ones.

they worry too much that science might prove their god doesn't exist so they waste valuable time railing again science and engaging in circular arguments such as the one Mel provided.

I love both religion and science, but they each fulfill difference needs in me and do not compete with one another.

There are lots of foolish people in the world and what they say is to be taken with a grain of salt.

I love seeing William Craig and D'Souza arguing thelogically. They are brilliant. I disagree entirely with what they say but I love seeing it.

It is far easier to prove yourself right, than it is to find the truth.  And so theists and atheists keep arguing.

No, their response to that is that he knows and just doesn't do anything and either try to come up with some explanation that doesn't make any sense or have no explanation at all.

Bloke, in the video he disproved the approach of saying the chicken came from something else first too.

I watched it all and no he did not. He says ,Something must have created the first organisms and fish comes from fish eggs and not chicken eggs. None of which proves anything. It is known that fish come from chicken eggs and that chicken were never born from fish. Such claims do not show an evolutionist or atheist in poor light but rather shows an ignorance of what the theory of evolution is.

Even if we specify chicken egg in the question, it's still relatively simple to answer. All we need is to know if we're defining a chicken egg as an egg laid by a chicken or as an egg that a chicken hatches from. Once we decide that, the answer to which came first is pretty obvious.

He's using an argument which has been scientifically disproven.  He's going back to the old determinist belief that any universe with a beginning must have a "first cause;" that our universe must exist with an unbroken chain of cause and effect back to it's creation by God (and of course, only God can exist without cause, as if that were in any way rational).  He's saying that we should all at least be deists.  

But he's wrong.  Both relativity and quantum mechanics demonstrate that our "common sense" notions of cause and effect are bullshit.  In a four-dimensional universe, effects can precede cause (relativity) and on the small scale, events frequently happen with no apparent cause at all (QM).  

Never mind that even if there were an unbroken chain of cause and effect going back 15 trillion years, there is no rational basis for assuming that the "first cause" from our perspective would be anything approaching the Christian or any other notion of God.

This post was last modified: 05-13-2012 07:12 PM by Lang.

I wouldn't watch the video, but your statement just has to get a reaction: If someone is omniscient like you described, everything happens at the same time (from his POV), so if he wants to change something, he does it at the same time.
Here's Brian Greene's approach summarized:
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/08/now...rever.html
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=248893

If we accept that the universe has a beginning, then we must reject the notion that every effect has a cause.  This is why, before big bang theory was accepted, conventional wisdom was that the universe was infinite in all direction of space-time, in order to support the notion that every effect has a cause preceding it.  God cannot be a cause without being an effect.

-Facepalm-

That's what I think.

The egg came first, but before it came a reptile-bird hybrid-type creature and before that a larger version of it, and before that a dinosaur. All of which laid the eggs to advance to the next stage.

That's what I think.

This guy is a supporter of the republican party, and possibly anti-homosexual

That's what I think

This guy has no life.

That's what I think.

See what I'm getting at?

The video's majority is dislikes

That is a well-proven fact...

This post was last modified: 05-16-2012 06:51 PM by Some_Bloke.

Law of physic do not applied before big bang: they did not exist.

There is a god because you can fit a cucumber up your ***! It was a divine invention to pleasure oneself!