i have questions to atheist?

Question

wht comes first chicken or the egg?if egg who made the egg?if chicken who made the chicken?also about evolution...who start it i mean if it also starts from a single drop,then monkey,then man...who made the drop?also why there are monkeys still?if a little piece of pencil cannot be created without a creator how can this universe be created without a creator...??

o.k let me clear up something here...god is immortal...also if u create something does people ask u who created u??? Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God.

Answer 1

The "drop" was formed by natural processes, much like snowflakes are, despite their complexity and regularity.

Monkeys are still around because of cladogenesis, where populations are separated and each one develops into a different species. I recommend reading up a little on biology before you make assumptions about how evolution works; evolution almost never works by an entire population simply "becoming" a new species. Rather, populations frequently split off, branching in different directions entirely. If not for cladogenesis, there would only be one species in the entire world, according to the theory of common descent.

A question for you: if everything needs to be created, then what created God? If everything doesn't, then why do you appeal to God at all to explain phenomena?

Answer 2

You completely do not understand evolution if you have to ask about the chicken and the egg thing. Eggs were around long before birds. Even with that, if you change it to chicken egg instead of just a general egg, you still have to say what exactly is a chicken from an evolutional standpoint. Just where in evolution did the chicken-like bird become a chicken? That chicken would have had parents that were almost identical to it. The difference would be so miniscule that you would not be able to say that the chicken born was different in any way. It is eons of these differences that add up.

Of course, you pull out the why do monkeys still exist if we came from monkeys argument. Once again, you are just displaying that you do not understand evolution. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. Simple as that. Your argument is like saying that if you exist then you should not have any brothers or sisters or cousins. All of you share a common ancestor.

You talk of a creator making everything. Where is your evidence? Let me guess you want to run to your bible. Well, the story of creation in the bible is a bit mucked up. Go and read it and pay attention and take notes. In Genesis 1 it says that god made all sorts of stuff. In that process he made animals, then he made man and woman together. In Genesis 2 it says that god made all sorts of stuff and in the process he made man, THEN he made the animals, THEN man got to name the animals, and THEN god made women. The bible contradicts itself right off the bat. That is not something you want to see in evidence.

Answer 3

Alright, here goes!

1) The egg. Reptiles lay eggs, and they were around so many millions of years before chickens, the question is ridiculous.

2) What started evolution? Have you ever heard of autocatalysis? Basically, under the right conditions, various chemicals act in a self-reproducing way, and some of the ones known thus far act a lot like life, so it seems logical that the first biosynthesis was from that kind of molecule.

3) The Theory Of Evolution says "there will be an average genetic difference per generation" - please find in that the statement "when you take one species of thing, it can only evolve into one other thing" - that is what is required for your question to hold water.

4) What made the universe huh? So, the old "everything has a creator" argument huh? As in, something that came before it, right? Well then let me ask you a question: What makes you think there was something before the beginning of time?

:)

Have fun!

Answer 4

This is so confused I don't know where to start.

As for the chicken egg question, the method of reproduction gradually evolved along with the species, becoming more and more complex over time. It is too complex to answer here, but there are whole books and papers written on this you could read if you wanted to.

The drop? What are you on about? Evolution can be traced back all the way beyond cells right back to the first self replicating molecules. How these came into being is answered by the theory of abiogenesis. What is often forgotten is the timescale of all this, if the age of the earth can be imagined as one 24 hour day, starting at midnight, the first amino acids didn't appear till 4am. After this, there weren't multicellular organisms till around 7pm (in comparison, the genus homo has been around since 23:59:58).

The monkeys question.... You have already insulted your own intelligence by asking it. WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS, MONKEYS AND HUMANS (ALONG WITH ALL LIFE) SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR. In bold so you remember.

Why does the universe have to be created? Imagine spacetime as a closed 4D manifold (like a 4D version of the surface of a sphere) it has no beginning or end, it just is. This is one of the major ideas in theoretical physics today. There are many other ideas such as brane theories and higher multiverses.

Answer 5

OK, in order:

The egg came first. According to evolutionary theory, the offspring can be different from the parent due to mutations. Odds are that the offspring will be very, very much like the parent, but with subtle differences. These differences can affect whether the offspring can compete better than the others. In this case, a proto-chicken - very much like a chicken, but not, according to our definition - lays an egg that hatches into a chicken. Maybe the chicken can run faster and avoid predators. Maybe it can eat things that the proto-chicken can't eat. Maybe it can fly better, and escape the predators.

Whatever it can do, it passes those traits on to its offspring, who can also out-compete the other proto-chickens. That means that the chickens are more likely to survive, to breed, and to crowd the proto-chickens out of that environment.

OK, now on to the "drop":

The ultimate building blocks of nature are amino acids. They can be created out of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen by natural processes like heat, lightning, etc. These were found in the early, early history of the earth. Check the link below for a little background.

If you want to go back further, the heat came from the sun, which was formed by a disk of dust that gradually clumped together until gravity packed it tightly enough to trigger nuclear fusion. If you need to go back further than that, the dust was created by the Big Bang.

Sorry, I can't go further than that - there's no way that I've ever heard of to show what existed before that. However, science and logic can explain just about every major event in the development from then until now. So why should I accept a supernatural being as the ultimate creator when he hasn't shown his hand in 15 billion years?

Answer 6

Fatima:

There is no "who" in making the egg. The egg came first, layed by the chicken's immediate predecessor, but containing a slightly variant form of the bird that allowed the newly hatched chicken an advantage in the environment.

There are monkeys because humans' progenitors and monkeys' progenitors diverged on the evolutionary tree, long ago. One branch divided several times and became monkeys. Another branch divided several times and became apes, of which humans are one.

A piece of pencil exists as wood before and gets along quite nicely as such with no creator at all. And what atheists assert was that the universe came into being without being created, but instead as a natural process.

Your wording makes you seem very young, and I know these are questions you've heard put forth to counter the idea that evolution is the way different species came into being. But if you ask your physician, your dentist, your pharmacist, and 99% of all biologists currently working, I would bet you will find that they all accept evolution as the way all species developed.

And since they know more about biology than you or I, you may want to consider trusting their insight.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 7

Your questions are asked with great frequency. Here is a scientific explanation: When the solar system formed several billion years ago, the Earth happened to be situated in a favorable position in relation to the sun so that, after several million years or so and over many million more, an atmosphere was acquired, rain fell, oceans formed, bacteria and other one-celled creatures evolved in the "protein soup" which the seas became; from that juncture, mutations occurred, so that more and more complex plants and animals evolved, dominant mutations/genes possessing the ability to pass from generation to generation. For the nth time, human beings did not evolve from monkeys; both humans and monkeys evolved from an ancient common ancestor which was neither a human nor a monkey. The Universe (via the Big Bang theory) erupted from a naked singularity, a point of unimaginable density which became unstable and ejected a cosmos, commencing with hydrogen atoms from which the current array of chemical elements evolved (in logical order from lightest to heaviest) as well as stars, galaxies, and planets. The naked singularity was NOTHING, incomprehensible, and was not created by anyone or anything... In regard to the chicken and the egg quandary: As terrestrial evolution proceeded, eventually more complex animals developed systems which enabled them to reproduce by the process of ovulation (egg formation) with fertilization by spermatozoa being the means by which progeny were conceived; thus, the primal oviparous subject was not a chicken but a primitive sort of egg-producing creature.

Answer 8

Okay, whoa, first of all you're equating people who accept the theory of evolution with people who don't accept the existence of God. Not everyone who believes that science can be used to better our understanding of the universe is also of the opinion that all religion is bunk. Many prominent figures in the sciences, and even people who study evolution, are also deeply spiritual people. For example, did you know that Charles Darwin himself was a member of the clergy? Or Gregor Mendel, the founder of modern genetics, without whom we would have no way of understanding the mechanisms of evolution, was a monk?
The concept of evolution is far more complex than drop to monkey to human. Evolution occurs as a series of slow changes that are experienced by entire populations, but necessarily by entire species. So, a population of some apelike ancestor may have split, with one staying in the trees and becoming modern monkeys, and another taking to the ground and slowly developing into humans. Because not everything that dies becomes fossilized, we perceive "gaps" in the fossil record- which are rapidly closing as more fossils are being discovered- that we can only explain through theory. Now that we are solving the mysteries of the genetic code, we may rely less and less on the fossil record to explain the history of life. For example, are you aware that the human genome is 99% similar to that of a chimp, or that the genome of a chimp is more similar to that of a human than to that of an orangutan? Even more mind-blowing, the human genome and the genome of a banana are 50% similar! This shouldn't make us feel uncomfortable or convince us that we are no better than a banana. I find comfort in knowing that all life comes from the same origins, and therefore should be regarded with respect. We could all use a little more humility.
As for the chicken/egg story, birds evolved from dinosaurs, which laid eggs, so technically eggs came first. Besides, I don't think that question was formulated as a means of testing the theory of the origin of life. The pencil analogy is also a terrible argument. The laws of nature and the ability of mankind to make writing implements have nothing to do with each other.
I believe that there is a God, but I also believe that God is revealed to us through our everyday observations, not simply through blind faith. The miracle of life and the laws of the universe are all around us. Can't we accept that evolution explains the how, and not necessarily the why, of the development of life on this planet? Is it not fair to assume that God has created a universe that operates through a set of simple yet elegant laws? If not, then why do we observe that the same laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are observable everywhere? Science should be our means of understanding God and God's creations- it doesn't have to go against all faith.

Answer 9

Fatima, if you truly want the to know the nature of existence you will have to have intellectual curiosity that I suspect you do not now have. I suspect you already have an answer which you like because it did not require you to study, learn, or think: "it's all magic."

But there is no magic, Not really. And the explanation of how life formed on earth is more complex than simply saying "it's magic." You will have to make the effort to become educated if you want to understand the 3.5 billion year long process. The truth is not simple, but it is rational and demonstrable, which gods are not.

Religion told us illness is caused by demons and gave us magic and exorcisms. Science told us disease is caused by physical factors and gave us antibiotics, sanitation, refrigeration, and human life expectancy is no longer less than thirty years in industrialized nations. Reasoning, not religion, gave you the computer you are communicating on.

And as everyone will remind you. Where did God come from? If you say the universe cannot have been here forever without a creator, then the same must be applied to your creator. If your creator can exist without a creator, then clearly a creator is not necessary to existence is it? And if a creator is not necessary to existence then one is not necessary to the cosmos, to life in the cosmos or to you and I.

Answer 10

Let me get a the core of a huge, and baseless, assumption.
It centers on the words "creator" and "create." They get thrown around so much one is tempted to think people actually have a clear notion of what these words actually mean. Nonsense.

When people use the word "creation," they are never talking about anything other than (at best) the reorganization of EXISTING materials. In other words, because they think they've "created" a table in their middle-school wood-shop, then the whole universe must be just like that classroom - with a super-guy who created "everything." Since they don't examine the implications of their original (and silly) premise, their abstraction of the conceptual error is beyond absurd.

They may cobble things together, but they created nothing, and have never, ever, witnessed anything that could be called "creation."

And even though they have no knowledge of ANY sort of creation, they insist that it's an "obviously" existing aspect of reality.

Answer 11

Still monkeys? DRINK!

Why do people ask the same question over and over, and ignore the answer?

The egg came first. Who made the egg? Something slightly different from what is in the egg. Eventually all those slight differences make the chicken we know today.

A cloud makes the rain... a what, not a who.... why does there have to be a who? If your "God" could have always existed, why can't all the things you say he made have also always existed?