Chicken-Trolling on Facebook..

OP: The funny thing is ... I've ALWAYS said this, since it would match up with the Creation account in the Torah. Now, don't I get a Nobel Prize or award money or something for figuring it out first?
'The chicken came first, not the egg', scientists provewww.metro.co.ukIt’s an age-old puzzle that’s stumped generations of scientists.
OP: Now it's your job to decide if I'm trolling or if I'm serious.

OP: Or both.
DA: Que AT.. GO
OP: I'm waiting for Adam to respond ... or Jake to drive-by with his usual "Hi! I'm an atheist!" routine.DA: I expected it before my post actually.
Jake LeMaster Well I deleted my beautifully worded thought out post and decided hey this is enough since only obvious things matter... Eggs were being laid by reptiles and amphibians way before chickens and other birds even existed.. I'm sure a deist, or Buddhist could come to the same logical conclusion.. that comment comes from a basic understanding of biology and logical thinking and has nothing to do with the atheist stance against religion.. Good day! :D51 minutes ago · Like · 1 person

Jake LeMaster I could also Explain why the bible is correct and humans are a unique creation even though we share a majortiy of our genetic code with chimpanzees due to a common ancestor... But that would require i take a presupposed stance that validates creation rationally.. and instantly invalidate itself logically.... Oh this is fun.. Bring on some more!! :D

OP: So, you're saying a chicken popped out of an amphibian egg? XD
RP: LMAO
Jake LeMaster: Nope I'm saying a precursor to the chicken at one time popped out of a reptile egg and as that creature continued to progress it adapted as such slowly as time progressed for it's own survival.. You can twist every way you want... But I gave you a valid explanation.. how detailed do you want it and I can write you a few paragraphs?
OP: At some point in time, though, a chicken would have had to come out of an egg that was not laid by a chicken. Correct?
Jake LeMaster A reptile laid a reptile egg and a slightly feathered reptile came out then on and on and on more feathers adaptation... a protein developed in another precursor and they become more bird like then a bird laid a bird egg.. and a bird popped out.. as well that bird was a tiny bit different than the previous bird and so on and so on and so on. like a shorter beak or a tiny bit taller... or its legs were a little bit longer, or it was a little bit more territorial or hey.. a strong more rapid acting protein developed in the next generation :D. that is as O'Reilly as I can make it sound.. What are you not getting here? you notice there are about 30 different kinds of chickens all that look a bit different from each other... Now if you want to get technical we can talk about why "chickens" specifically the ones in captivity specially bread by "scientists" for egg and meat production lay white eggs and all look the same? but then that defeats the point of there being 30 different kinds of chickens that all adapted differently but are genetically the same to the point they can interbreed successfully and their offspring can have offspring.. Cause I can explain that too.. But your not really looking for an actual answer here... Your looking for an opposition to try and prove wrong to make your self feel good and look right and you failed :D
That article is named very badly... It should be called... 'The precursor to modern chicken came first, not the egg shell protein ovocledidin-17 (OC-17)' But what do you expect got to make it good and controversial sounding to get a bunch of hits and thats what the news was going after.. What does this well worded bit of spin art quotation get for Dr Colin Freeman Most likely a huge check from some creationist organization that has as much money as "god" Thank you!
swallow your pride Next subject please! :D

OP: So, you're saying that at some point a non-chicken birthed a chicken?
Jake LeMaster Trying to oversimplify a complex system because it does not adhere to your biblical beliefs is asinine.. You understood everything I just said... Do not be dishonest with me Daniel I would like to think that your better than that.. This in no way disproves "god" this only disproves the creation story in the bible written by ancient bronze age douche bags that also believed slavery to be moral... If you want to expand this discussion please do it honestly sir.
OP: It is a simple yes-or-no question: at some point did a non-chicken give birth to a chicken?
And douche bags as recently as the present day believe slavery is moral, so I don't understand what that has to do with anything.
JC: This is incorrect due to symantics, The egg came first, It does not specify, Which came first the chicken or IT'S egg, Therefore reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens did.
JC: We can just scrap your question daniel about chickens and non chickens, Reptiles laid eggs before any bird did.
Jake LeMaster It's not a yes or no question it requires understanding of a process for the explanation to be valid..
JC: OP, I respect you, but I have to go with your friend Jake on this one, Your religious beliefs are getting in the way of what science proves.
OP: Science proves that the chicken predates the chicken egg. So, I'm asking: does that mean, at some point, a non-chicken gave birth to a chicken? Why is that not a yes-or-no question?
JC: If the chicken predates the chicken egg then that means the chicken would have had to evolved from a different animal. And I would imagine that that other animal probably laid eggs.
OP: So, you're saying a non-chicken gave birth to a chicken?
Jake LeMaster: a chicken like precursor gave birth to a more aptly described current day chicken
JC: Im saying I dont know the answer, but logically, Im saying it would seem that the precurssor animal to the chicken laid the egg of what would become a chicken.
OP: So, that's a yes?
OP: A non-chicken gave birth to a chicken?
JC: That is a probably.
JC: Look at us. Is it illogical to say that a human with a lifespan of 45 years can have a descendant that can live 100+ years?
JC: Things change and adapt.
OP: That's silly. :-D
JC: Silly because you dont want to accept it?
OP: Silly because you're both feeding the troll. I like getting Jake riled up and making him write fifteen paragraphs.
Jake LeMaster: ‎15 paragraphs worth writing if you ask me
Jake LeMaster: My brain needs the work out... easily dealing with Mundane Moderates gets old....

4 members like this

< Previous Post

Comment by Jacob LeMaster on May 1, 2011 at 10:46pm: he started some creationist shit so Iwent Carlin on him...

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on May 2, 2011 at 12:29am: The real question is: What came first - the inorganic cubane complex or the manganese-calcium oxide cluster? Throw THAT out there for the theists to chew on!

Comment by Jacob LeMaster on May 2, 2011 at 12:30am: JC: Daniel, How old is the Earth?
JC: Not touching that one huh?....lol.
Jake LeMaster Trolls be trolling :P
OP: How old is the earth? I wouldn't say it's older than ten thousand years, but I don't know. Of course, a debate on the subject isn't necessary because I believe HaShem created a mature earth ... so mountain ranges that would have taken millions of years to form naturally were put there in an instant. You can neither prove nor disprove my theory under current methods. :-D
JC: Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I expected such poppycock from you....lol.
JC: Why couldnt it have been created mature a few hundred million years prior?
OP: Well, it may have been ... I don't know ... so all I can tell you is what I think.
OP: I believe the Scriptures are one hundred percent true and without error ... but that doesn't mean our interpretation is. Perhaps it's more figurative than literal ... I don't believe it is, but that isn't one of those salvation-level issues.
JC: Doesn't scripture also say that the moon gives off light?
OP: Well, it says He created two lights .. one to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night ... it doesn't really go into the specifics.
JC: But there is only 1 light, The moon is just a floating rock that reflects the sun's light.
OP: There is a light at night ... it didn't specify where that light would originate.
JC: True, But we know it originates from the 1 light source.
OP: Sure ... but that doesn't contradict what was written. Most of Scripture is written in a stylized, poetic way.
JC: Oh so the Bible is a book of poetry? lol, Perhaps a coffee table book?...lol.
OP: Well, it's definitely poetic. You can say "The veil of darkness came down from the Heavens and covered the entire land" or you can say "It was nighttime." The Bible chooses the former.
Jake LeMaster Outer space is not filled with water either.. we've been there. Empty space is in no way water. definitely not that refreshing if you go skinny dipping it outer space. what else can we rip apart for you?
OP: What the hell are you talking about Jake?
Jake LeMaster ‎1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
OP: Ohh, you mean "clouds?"
OP: Again, keep in mind these are very stylized writings ... it doesn't make them incorrect ... as my earlier example pointed out. There are those who think there used to be a water canopy around the earth (like the vapor around Venus) but I like the more pedestrian explanation that it's talking about clouds.
Jake LeMaster: No clouds are in the sky "firmament" technically there were no clouds or rain pre-flood according to creationist teachings... but there was dew.
OP: I don't care what "creationist teachings" say ... the Torah is my only concern. People have been blaming all kind of weird things on the Torah for years.
JC: Coffee table book of poetry...loll.
Jake LeMaster yeah thats the thing... Your interpretation is right to you(making god personal (and conceptual)).. You weren't there. You have no proof.. Everyone else is wrong unless they agree with you.. So holy scriptures are 100% right (ALL OF THEM(no no just yours right?)) or they are 100% literature open to interpretation for philosophical reasons and So there is so much to criticize..
If you cant get the interpretation right (then the universal truth is not universal)... Since there is a all knowing god behind them that interacts with man and writes moral truth into their hearts... and leads them to the truth... Then why the hell are so many people wrong? Oh because of the devil! cause hes a fucking liar.. Naw.. Thats a load of crap as well... Oh Maybe its because they are people and 100% of people at some point in time a long their lives are full of shit (including myself sometimes)... As well a majority of people lets say 68% of the wold population are scared as fuck (for various reasons) and like to take the easy way out when offered a chance to do so.. Hey who wouldn't am I right? Welcome to what we call reality! You have the right to say your right I have the right to say your wrong.. Where does it end up? Nowhere... But we both get to say our piece and thats what I love about America..
Now do you want the observant science lover? Or the Carlin-Esque Atheist? cause One is a lot easier to piss off... the other just gets a little bit aggravated....
OP: Jake, I have no idea what you're talking about the majority of the time. Articulation does not appear to be your strength, so your free-flowing line of ideas is not an effective method of making your point. You are arguing with things that I have never said. It's like you're having an imaginary argument with theism in general but theology is so over the place you can't address it all.
Jake LeMaster yeah spread out and by verbosity.. It just disperses itself as hot air... Since every single person is right and nobody agrees on it... It's only rational that they are all wrong.. this does not completely discount the deistic god that does not give a crap about people.. but they don't try to define their god beyond an infinite consciousness that snapped its fingers and set stuff into motion.. its basically equivalent of chaotic energy waves causing the big bang but it knew what it was doing.. the more you define your god the more wrong it just apparently becomes..
How about you addressing every single Belief ever thought up by any person in the history of time... If you cant prove something is wrong do you then instantly have to believe it? Cause honestly thats what you expect me and every other atheist to do..
You think everybody else is wrong except for yourself and people that believe the same things as you right? That is a yes or no question.. Also if you would like to for bonus points (possibly)... Go ahead and define god the best way you can for me.. So I can break it down to nothing more than a contradictory non existent literary falsification..
OP: Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. You rant like a madman. I don't expect you to believe anything. I never said I did. You're laying every negative feeling about Deists on me.
Do I think everybody is wrong except for myself? Well, sure. And you think you're right. If you didn't think you were right you would have different beliefs. I know I would. That is a logical, sound argument.

No I can accept the deistic stance.. I have no problem with them... they have no dogma.. they just live their lives to live them... the only difference between a Deist and an atheist.. is that they think there was a consciousness that kicked off the big bang(or whatever they believe was the start of the universe) and walked away to let us be. Maybe you should read what I'm saying instead of trying to interpret what I mean and missing the direct point.. What belief do I have Daniel.. I do not subscribe to beliefs or faith without factual representation... and once facts are in place... Its not faith or belief anymore..
Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
Faith: belief that is not based on proof
Now... What an atheist wants..
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Truth: a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like
Now what is logical..
Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies.
a fallacy: Is usually incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor... Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument..
Study up and lets play this game again soon.. You will find it a lot more interesting that way..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies
Start with this one..
Argument from ignorance: assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true)
My answer to is there "A" god.. We don't know... Evidence has not been provided... until such evidence is provided I do not "believe" in a god..
Your Answer... There is one god and it is Abrahamic god Yahweh.. And you claim to be right..
You have a very bad misconception of atheists..
OP: I don't have any conception of atheists because I don't really care. Again, you write a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the original point of contention.

Comment by Akshay Bist on May 2, 2011 at 12:47am: @Heather - you wanna cause permanent brain damage to the poor theist by making him think about something that his tiny little brain can't ever comprehend?

About the OP constantly asking whether a non-chicken birthed the first chicken --> You should just point out that evolution is a slow process & doesn't happen overnight. He shouldn't confuse evolution with mutation.

Comment by Jacob LeMaster on May 2, 2011 at 12:57am: Well.. I'm done...

Final Post to that status..

Jake LeMaster:
It is hard for me to walk away from something without making a point... But the fact of the matter is I made my point.. and you just completely missed it or ignored it.. I hate to be dismissive because I think its the most disrespectful thing that can happen in intellectual discussion but... Wow... I understand where you come from and many other stances but you don't care to understand my standpoint.. Thats just completely ridiculous and egocentric...
~fin

Comment by Shanna on May 2, 2011 at 10:48am: I signed in under a different name. I'm Shanna J, Jacob. And I approved this message, lol. Way to go!

Comment by Jacob LeMaster on May 2, 2011 at 3:35pm: Thank You Shanna.

I expected him to be the "smart" one as well... It just ended up just being very disappointing..

Comment