Uploaded by Blunty3000 on Nov 1, 2009
What came first the Chicken or the Egg? and does it matter if the answer comes from science, or an interpretation of the Bible?
Blunty Bible Bashing, or Smarmy Science sex?
Intelligent design, or Variety through natural selection and genetic mutation?
Are we accidentally astute apes, or God generated goods, and what does that have to do with CHICKENS?
-
788 likes, 108 dislikes
Link to this comment:
Uploader Comments (Blunty3000)
All Comments (1,480)
-
The egg came first. Dinosaurs layed eggs way before the chicken did.
mastergremlin 1 year ago
-
RELIGION FUCKIN SUX!!!! religion has absolutely no proof and that there is a God has no proof whatsoever.
Chanak02 1 year ago
-
everytime somebody asks me this question I respond with "the egg since they didn't mention it had to be a chicken egg" :P
najex1 1 year ago
-
maybe nobody is right or maybe god made evolution? idk and idc :/
temporary1121 1 year ago
-
@ic2trees whether you find it improbable or not does not matter. what science can show us and what evidence leads us to is what matters. do yourself a favor, pick up a scientific journal and read about how the first cells came to be, the organelles, the membrane, the dna, all of it (its all in there). your argument is "I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE SO IM JUST GONNA SAY GOD DID IT BECAUSE THATS A LOT EASIER FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND AND I WONT HAVE TO READ AS MUCH". pathetic
caddy38 1 year ago
-
his final conclusion is realy realy retarded
Cyrusislikeawsome 1 year ago
-
I love fried chicken
HaloCaveMan 1 year ago
-
I like to be a smart ass and say that "the concept of the egg entered god's mind before the concept of the chicken so animals laid eggs before chickens evolved."
So if these 2 lines of thought are like lanes on a highway I just did doughnuts on them.
FattyMcFox 1 year ago
-
WATCH MY VIDEO ON YOUTUBE!!!
.com/watch?v=BSKGKqW74Ho
dannyboy2788 1 year ago
-
single celled organisms are extremely complex, no such thing as as simple cells as evolutionist would have us believe... there is a missing storyline before the true cell could have emerged. The program in a so called simple cell is so complicated i find it highly improvable and mathematically impossible that it could have evolved from non living matter with out intellectual designing
ic2trees 1 year ago
6:06LEGO HITLER, has come to save the day!by Blunty30009,455 views
5:07Hotel View Timecrunch --- Sydney time-lapse Pho...by Blunty30006,336 views
7:17mCAMlite - Put Lenses, Mics, Lights on your iPh...by Blunty30006,588 views
9:03Glidetrack 'MobiSlyder' - Does it Suck?by Blunty30006,568 views
4:05Dr. Michio Kaku Says America Has A Secret Super...by AllHistoryVideos149,290 views
1:10Speechless - Evolution vs. Creationismby EzraHorne107,029 views
0:53Intelligent Design in a nutshellby SchrodingersFinch2,075 views
9:40God vs. Scienceby cjay817513,397 views
9:56Evolution vs Creation (Part 5)by shlunko3,498 views
10:59Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics A...by IrresponsibleAtheism161,462 views
7:58Science Vs Godby KhristChild16,598 views
9:51Evolution vs. Creationism Debate (Part 1/3)by empiricist43537101,778 views
4:33bill hicks - evolutionby lacrymologyst785,922 views
10:51Michael Savage - God is Evolutionby imitator7778,270 views
3:06BBC report on Creationist Museumby Klarkster107,463 views
2:34Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationismby ForaTv764,888 views
2:33Creation vs Evolutionby hughjarrse39,205 views
4:31Evolution vs Creation (Part 2)by shlunko3,914 views
9:57God Revealed Science In The Bibleby FFreeThinker44,370 views
- Loading more suggestions...
What you call science is really naturalism. It is NOT science. It is a presupposed conclusion. Show the actual transition from one to another another and not just speculation. Your video does nothing to explain the origin of life. Show a plausible explanation for the origin of life and not just a baseless postulation
RAKEYREDARMS 1 year ago
@RAKEYREDARMS The evidence IS out there, just because you refuse to look for it, or acknowledge it doesn't mean it doesn't and it IS Science. And, once more, you fucking idiots... EVOLUTION IS NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE... JUST THE DIVERSITY OF IT, YOU MASSIVE IGNORANT TWATS.
Blunty3000 1 year ago
@Blunty3000 The evidence is out there? Inferring from some bones that macroevolution happened is not evidence. Extrapolation is not scientific. It is wishful thinking. You do understand the difference between operational and historical science, no? Trying to use "slight of hand" and say that evolution and science are interchangeable is simply incorrect. Naturalism has to account for the origin of life. The reason you don't want to do so is because it is a physical impossibility with no evidence
RAKEYREDARMS 1 year ago
@RAKEYREDARMS You're so stupid, you make jesus cry with shame. He died for your sins and you pay him back by being EPICALLY FUCKING STUPID? nice. good luck with that.
Blunty3000 1 year ago