- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Well, it’s still unclear whether chicken eggs or chickens came first (the intended question in the original riddle), said Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta who was the first scientist to closely analyze the dinosaur nest.
But interpreted literally, the answer to the riddle is clear. Dinosaurs were forming bird-like nests and laying bird-like eggs long before birds (including chickens) evolved from dinosaurs.
"The egg came before the chicken," Zelenitsky said. "Chickens evolved well after the meat-eating dinosaurs that laid these eggs."
So the original riddle might now be rephrased: Which came first, the dinosaur or the egg? Meanwhile, the new nest provides some of the strongest evidence in North America in favor of the bird-like egg over the chicken.
Actually the revolutionary fathers of America were progressive--even liberal--for their era. Both English and French governments found American philosophers repugnant due to their extreme forward-thinking.
I agree that one interpretation of the values of our founders is embedded in the intent of the Republican party, but do they embody those ideals or merely chant them?
Although clarity is an ideal of communication of which I'm personally and professionally fond, language and those who use languages do not consciously take this into consideration. Linguists theorize that language develops from isolated dialects. Isolation does not have to be physical or geographical. There are some groups who find that, due to their political isolation, it is better to be ambiguous than precise. For example, there is a dialect of Irish that combines English and Irish and was used to confuse the British authorities. (I can't recall the name of the dialect off-hand.) The dialect had it's own very creative rules that prevented non-indoctrinated listeners from comprehending.
My main point is that sometimes, the words we use are not as important as the context.
A religion is a system of beliefs and behaviors. Each religion began in a different way, but always with someone laying out those behaviors and specifying those beliefs at some point. That is exactly the foundation of the Jedi system. However, due to it's lack of a blatantly spiritual nature, some would say it is more like Buddhism and less like Western religions. Others argue that it is based on an obviously false premise ("the Force"); this is no more or less valuable than an omniscient/omnipotent deity instilling an unprovable soul into humans.
Many people and cultures survive on varying levels of vegetarianism. Some for environmental or economic reasons, some for religious or belief reasons.
The human body can obtain all the nutrients necessary to survive from a variety of sources. It is by far more important to eat a diet with various fruits, vegetables, and grains than the opposite. In fact, there are serious health issues for those who eat mostly meat and too little other items.
If you believe the Bible, then God placed Mankind in charge of all of this world. It was given to humanity to maintain. People were charged with taking care of it and all that is within it. However, God knows human fallibility and tossed humans out of the perfect Garden of Eden. God does not expect people to be perfect nor keep this world a perfect garden. The choice people face is to attempt to restore the world to the perfect balance or continue to move further away from that ideal.