are you creationist or evolutionist?

[OldTrees]

True, people could make that semantic point.

However, I defaulted to genetics.

I answered the question "which existed first, an egg with what we would consider to have chicken DNA or, was it a creature with chicken DNA"

However as a student of Genetics, I would defer back to highlighting that two different biological concepts are both represented with the same term.
Are we referring to the cell and extracellular matrix created by the 2 chickens or the cell and extracellular matrix that developed into a chicken?

Of course we could muddy the waters by deferring to speciation where there are 2 definitions of species that are used in evolution.

[TakoMan02]

Nobody knows what happened so it's best to just shut up and live the one life you get.

That's just my view, anyway.

[OldTrees]

Nobody knows what happened so it's best to just shut up and live the one life you get.

That's just my view, anyway.

Unless your life involves the topic. In which case open your mouth to question.

[TakoMan02]

Nobody knows what happened so it's best to just shut up and live the one life you get.

That's just my view, anyway.

Unless your life involves the topic. In which case open your mouth to question.

I was referring to those who spend any amount of time questioning it.  Greatest waste of time in the world.

We will never know, so anyone that argues over it is just plain idiotic.  It's like two children arguing over what inside a box.  Really, it's the biggest waste of time in the world.

[OldTrees]

Nobody knows what happened so it's best to just shut up and live the one life you get.

That's just my view, anyway.

Unless your life involves the topic. In which case open your mouth to question.

I was referring to those who spend any amount of time questioning it.  Greatest waste of time in the world.

We will never know, so anyone that argues over it is just plain idiotic.  It's like two children arguing over what inside a box.  Really, it's the biggest waste of time in the world.

Abiogenesists would disagree about the fascinating question being a waste of time. However argument on the topic is a waste.

[Nepycros]

It's like two children arguing over what inside a box.  Really, it's the biggest waste of time in the world.

I wanna open the box! 

[Pineapple]

Nobody knows what happened so it's best to just shut up and live the one life you get.

That's just my view, anyway.

Unless your life involves the topic. In which case open your mouth to question.

I was referring to those who spend any amount of time questioning it.  Greatest waste of time in the world.

We will never know, so anyone that argues over it is just plain idiotic.  It's like two children arguing over what inside a box.  Really, it's the biggest waste of time in the world.

To an individual, his death is akin to everything from his life disappearing from his grasp.
How, in this perspective, is anything not the biggest waste of time in the world?

[TakoMan02]

To an individual, his death is akin to everything from his life disappearing from his grasp.
How, in this perspective, is anything not the biggest waste of time in the world?

Death is a completely different story, but the same rules apply -- no one knows what happens after you die, therefore making it a waste of time to 'study' or 'predict'.

Also, it is a waste of time because, despite the 'proof' we believe we have, we do not know for fact that we have evolved (hence the name "Theory of Evolution") or were created.  All we know is that we are here today.

[OldTrees]

To an individual, his death is akin to everything from his life disappearing from his grasp.
How, in this perspective, is anything not the biggest waste of time in the world?

Death is a completely different story, but the same rules apply -- no one knows what happens after you die, therefore making it a waste of time to 'study' or 'predict'.

Also, it is a waste of time because, despite the 'proof' we believe we have, we do not know for fact that we have evolved (hence the name "Theory of Evolution") or were created.  All we know is that we are here today.

If one desires to study something is that study as waste of time?
Alternatively you can assume you know the answer (as you did with the question of if you exist) and continue to do something else you desire.

[TakoMan02]

If one desires to study something is that study as waste of time?
Alternatively you can assume you know the answer (as you did with the question of if you exist) and continue to do something else you desire.

If one desires to study the nature of our upbringing, so be it; but in my opinion, to study what we can only assume as a theory, and forever will remain a theory, is a waste of time.  To study anything that cannot be proven is a waste of time, but this does not mean all studies are bad.  Studies that contribute to informing the general public and improving the overall condition of mankind are the studies that I love, and should be encouraged.

[Belthus]

Also, it is a waste of time because, despite the 'proof' we believe we have, we do not know for fact that we have evolved (hence the name "Theory of Evolution") or were created.  All we know is that we are here today.

Do you know that? No, I didn't think so.

Religion is fine for comfort, social support, bonding, and self-improvement. As a basis of knowledge about the world, however, it is a failure.

Science is the best means we have to understand the origin of the human species. If you understand science, you know that an established theory is better than a fact because a theory can organize a multitude of facts into a coherent framework and make predictions about the future. Evolution is a well-established theory based on a huge number of data points — each of which is a fact.

[OldTrees]

If one desires to study something is that study as waste of time?
Alternatively you can assume you know the answer (as you did with the question of if you exist) and continue to do something else you desire.

If one desires to study the nature of our upbringing, so be it; but in my opinion, to study what we can only assume as a theory, and forever will remain a theory, is a waste of time.  To study anything that cannot be proven is a waste of time, but this does not mean all studies are bad.  Studies that contribute to informing the general public and improving the overall condition of mankind are the studies that I love, and should be encouraged.

Those studies tend to only be as certain or less certain then scientific theories. You do know the distinction between a popular theory and a scientific theory?