Prymordial Soup - May I talk to the Chef?

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

So let's say God made the Primordial soup, or the Big Bang.

Who made God?

This little argument that everything needs a progenitor

is a little flawed.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
So let's say God made the Primordial soup, or the Big Bang.

Who made God?

Dang good question. The religious say "God always was". Where's the logic in that? The non-religious say "Man made God".

This little argument that everything needs a progenitor
is a little flawed.

Why? (Please tell me. I want to learn!) How can there just be nothing and then, all of a sudden, SOMETHING? Doesn't there have to be a kicker in there somewhere to get the 'something' going? (BTW, which DID come first? The chicken or the egg? )

It seems to me that there will never be answers to these and like questions. What it gets down to is "You pays yer money and you takes yer choice". I tend to side with Pasqual. He seemed like a pretty smart guy...

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Why? Because you can always ask what created the progenitor. Asking what created the big bang is no more a valid question than what created god.

Chicken or the egg? It was the egg. Since chickens evolved from other birds.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
So let's say God made the Primordial soup, or the Big Bang.

Who made God?

This little argument that everything needs a progenitor

is a little flawed.

I would venture to say that the "immaterial" existed before the material, and has "always" existed in this respect.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I would venture to say that the "immaterial" existed before the material, and has "always" existed in this respect.

How did I know you'd say something like that?

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Why? Because you can always ask what created the progenitor. Asking what created the big bang is no more a valid question than what created god.

That's the point I was heading toward. So why is so dang much fighting on this forum? Nothing can ever be proven and there is no evidence on either side, right? (or have I missed something somewhere and someone came up with some REAL evidence? )Believers in God:how about a response to Chemicalsuperfreak's statement above.

Chicken or the egg? It was the egg. Since chickens evolved from other birds.

I've never heard this answer before! Sorry to ask, but, EVIDENCE?

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Tsunami
I've never heard this answer before! Sorry to ask, but, EVIDENCE?

See the theory of evolution. Chickens evolved from a chicken-like ancestor which layed eggs too. And it would seem that the ancestral birds came from egg-laying dinos which came from egg-laying reptiles, etc. etc. etc. In short, there were eggs in the world long before there were chickens.

Now the question can be returned to confusion if you restate it as "which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?"

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Phobos
See the theory of evolution. Chickens evolved from a chicken-like ancestor which layed eggs too. And it would seem that the ancestral birds came from egg-laying dinos which came from egg-laying reptiles, etc. etc. etc. In short, there were eggs in the world long before there were chickens.

Now the question can be returned to confusion if you restate it as "which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?"

Alrighty, then! "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?"

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Alrighty, then! "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?"

The primordial soup!

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Alrighty, then! "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?"

Abviously the chicken-egg - once you decide that
a certain DNA mutation of a certain previous species
is now that of a chicken then abviously this creature
is first born in an egg to its non-chicken parents.
Once a creature is born it's DNA won't change.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by drag
Abviously the chicken-egg - once you decide that
a certain DNA mutation of a certain previous species
is now that of a chicken then abviously this creature
is first born in an egg to its non-chicken parents.
Once a creature is born it's DNA won't change.

Hmmmm... what caused the mutation?

Live long and prosper.

Thank you - and you, as well.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Hmmmm... what caused the mutation?

Abviously, a chemical and/or electrical energy
imbalance in the sperm or egg (it could even be a
nuclear imbalance if caused by an occasional
cosmic ray) which affected the DNA/RNA.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by drag
Abviously, a chemical and/or electrical energy
imbalance in the sperm or egg (it could even be a
nuclear imbalance if caused by an occasional
cosmic ray) which affected the DNA/RNA.

Hmm... Abviously? Ah. Abviously. Where'd the cosmic ray come from? (Ah. Wait. I know that one. The cosmos. Abviously.) Where'd the cosmos come from?

 

[Astrophysics]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
So let's say God made the Primordial soup, or the Big Bang.

Who made God?

This little argument that everything needs a progenitor

is a little flawed.

Some would call me a religious man, some would not.
But I see God as hope, as a refuge.
I see God as a mentor who helps us choose the right path, the rest is up to ourselves.

 

[Marshall]

The Chicken came first, God made the Chicken

Proof: What would lay on the chicken-egg to fertilize it, if Chickens didn't exist yet

 

[Phobos]

chicken vs. chicken egg?

Neither. Populations evolve, not individuals. There was no single first chicken or egg...it was a gradual shift of a large number of individuals...the traits of which would fit a bell curve* (statistically speaking) and not a sudden appearance.

* bell curve representating variation within a population...during the transitional period (which has no definite beginning/end anyway), the bell curves for different traits and population subgroups would overlap

It's one big gray area.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
No, there is no way to blend science and religion, in any real sense.

This appears to be the one issue where Zero and I actually agree.

Dang good question. The religious say "God always was". Where's the logic in that? The non-religious say "Man made God".

Not quie, Tsunami. The religious would say "God just IS." If God created the universe, he created time. So "always" doesn't apply.

This also reveals the flaw in the "who created God?" question. If something exists outside of time, there is no "creation." He just IS. Ask any variation of the question you want (ie, "if he wasn't created, how did he 'come to be'?" - same diff) - they are all equally invalid.

This is also the fundamental reason why religion and science are icompatible in the most basic way. There quite simply isn't any reason for God to exist. He just IS. Religion is all about God's motives and actions has nothing to do with his identity and "history". Why? How? When? Those are scientific questions and have no relevance whatsoever to religion.