FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: genfo12 on June 26, 2011, 08:53:24 pm
-
so did the chicken come first or the egg??
-
Long before chickens existed, dinosaurs had the ability to lay eggs. That means eggs came first.
-
But I heard that dinosaurs are related to chickens. So...?
-
That depends on which chicken is "the chicken" and which egg is "the egg".
-
who came first?
That's what SHE said! Ohhhhohohohohoho!
Wait..what's the question?
-
That's what SHE said
HAHAHAHAHA love it!
-
Chicken. Read Genesis.
-
Very simple the chicken. like the above post said... read your bible
-
Chicken. Read Genesis
Very simple the chicken. like the above post said... read your bible
Yes, let's all look for answers in a book that says light was created on day 1 and the light sources were created on day 4. This logic fits very well with this classic philosophical conundrum being discussed! lol
so did the chicken come first or the egg??
Even according to scientists, the conundrum still stands!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg/
VERSUS
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-14/world/england.chicken.egg.riddle_1_chicken-crystal-structure-human-skeleton?_s=PM:WORLD
-
THE EGG. THE EGG IS THE FOOD. SO IF THERE WAS NO FOOD THE CHICKEN WILL DIE SLOW BUT SURELY. :BangHead: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
Mmmm... Chicken. XD
-
egg
-
But I heard that dinosaurs are related to chickens. So...?
The chickens existed AFTER the dinosaurs.
-
The egg must have came first right. To create the chicken.
-
hmmm...been trying to figure this one out a loooong time......ive always went with the chicken first..
-
The chicken came first according to the bok of Genesis
-
Never thought about dinosaurs laying the first chicken egg...good point tho.
-
Never thought about dinosaurs laying the first chicken egg...good point tho.
Dinosaurs didn't lay chicken eggs. The ability of egg laying is something they had long before chickens came into existence.
-
The egg came first.
-
The chicken came first according to the bok of Genesis
Is that a disguised joke? The Bok? As in "Bawk"? lol
-
If you believe in Creation, then chicken came first. If you believe in evolution, then the egg came first. You decide.
-
Or you could believe that God created the chicken egg for the chicken to hatch out of. ;D
-
The chicken had to come first...How come no one ever asked the question, "Who comes first the baby or the Mother/Father?"
-
I never got the first egg until AFTER I bought chickens.
-
The chicken came first according to the bok of Genesis
Is that a disguised joke? The Bok? As in "Bawk"? lol
;D
Seriously, God made the birds so the eggs come out their "poop-shoot". No birds, no eggs. ::) (Scientists are still in a dilema over this one...why am I NOT surprised? ::))
-
Depends. Is there an egg one can purchase from the store to hatch a chicken?
-
But I heard that dinosaurs are related to chickens. So...?
The chickens existed AFTER the dinosaurs.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Of course they did. If dinosaurs lead to chickens (and hatch from eggs just like chickens do now), then dinosaurs/chickens came first. Right? :D
-
I think the egg came first. because, the egg inside is a chicken, so it must be true that the egg came first, just my two cents.
-
the egg. but i'm just sayin..
-
egg come first ...without the egg nothing is possible..so egg and then chicken so simple ;D ;D :) :)
-
Had to be the chicken....cause anything that woke us up that early in the morning caused us to eat there young(eggs)....
-
I think there were some eggs that surface the ground...yes, they came from the earth (soil) and hatched. Then, these real chickens laid eggs that hatched and we had a new generation of chickens that consequently laid more eggs and hatched more chickens...perpetuating the species.
-
Or you could believe that God created the chicken egg for the chicken to hatch out of. ;D
Oh right, the one that takes the best of both. ;D
God created evolution.
-
The egg. No one ever specifies which egg..... In that case, technically the term "egg" would include even the most primitive members of metazoa (and even in some protozoa). Any organism that forms from a zygote first requires an egg to be fertilized. Hence, the egg before the chicken, since chickens come in rather late in the evolutionary line.
-
Who really cares just so we have both.
-
I would say the chicken who had to lay the egg, lol:)
-
Or you could believe that God created the chicken egg for the chicken to hatch out of. ;D
I agree because it's the same concept!
-
I think in some article on Cracked.com, they prove that it had to be the chicken who came first. Some enzyme thing, I really don't remember.
-
The chicken had to come first. How could an egg turn into a chicken without a chicken laying an egg. Besides, where did that egg come from?(Was it the chicken?)
-
IM GOING WITH THE EGG.
-
If you think about it, this is the same topic about Creation Versus Evolution. The egg came first: meaning that the egg evolved and over time became the chicken. Or, the chicken came first: God created the chicken and the chicken lay eggs.
-
Chicken. Read Genesis
Very simple the chicken. like the above post said... read your bible
Yes, let's all look for answers in a book that says light was created on day 1 and the light sources were created on day 4. This logic fits very well with this classic philosophical conundrum being discussed! lol
so did the chicken come first or the egg??
Even according to scientists, the conundrum still stands!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg/
VERSUS
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-14/world/england.chicken.egg.riddle_1_chicken-crystal-structure-human-skeleton?_s=PM:WORLD
Only if you take the time to be literal 24 hours instead of millenia(2 Peter 3:8)
I agree with falconor and his learnt clique on this one unless we know that chickens where the first birds or even animal for that matter will never know which one came first.
-
Only if you take the time to be literal 24 hours instead of millenia(2 Peter 3:
"I know! I'll make it so my followers will have to jump thousands of years into the future just to make sense of my beginning technicalities! BRILLIANT!"
The fact that you had to decypher that shows how utterly poor that book is constructed. That, and you're displaying 2-dimensional thinking.
-
Very simple the chicken. like the above post said... read your bible
That is the dumbest answer I have ever heard. This has NOTHING to do with the bible, it has to do with evolution and science. Try again!!! :bs:
-
it has always been the chicken.
-
Only if you take the time to be literal 24 hours instead of millenia(2 Peter 3:
"I know! I'll make it so my followers will have to jump thousands of years into the future just to make sense of my beginning technicalities! BRILLIANT!"
The fact that you had to decypher that shows how utterly poor that book is constructed. That, and you're displaying 2-dimensional thinking.
Some of your comments remind me of youtubers flaming a video they didn't like, I love that about you :)
Far more then a few millenia I believe after all these are the fringes of his ways(Job 26:14), even if it wasn't supernatural fairy(in your eyes), wouldn't you want something that you can never stop learning about? If your as smart as I think you are you'll probably know everything about science before you die. Please define 2-dimensional thinking.
-
Some of your comments remind me of youtubers flaming a video they didn't like, I love that about you
Well I have done that afew times before.
Far more then a few millenia I believe after all these are the fringes of his ways(Job 26:14), even if it wasn't supernatural fairy(in your eyes), wouldn't you want something that you can never stop learning about?
If one is to never stop learning about the bible, there is a specific point where the student must realize it is a work of fiction. Without that aspect, the student limits themselves to a narrow thought process and cannot learn beyond the constraints of the ancient texts; the student must come out of the box and study it from above in order to understand it more.
If your as smart as I think you are you'll probably know everything about science before you die.
Science is constantly and forever sharpening it's views of the universe, so this is impossible to do.
Please define 2-dimensional thinking.
A very narrow thought process that lacks the attention of other factors in play. It diminishes opportunities. An example-
"It's either coke is the best or it's pepsi. I don't care about the other drinks-- I haven't tried them, but they don't count."
-
The first chicken came out of an egg. That's like asking if the baby or adult came first.
-
The Chicken first! :confused1:
-
The chicken came first. Biblical terms He made the fowls of the air (Chicken).
Fact: A chicken's egg needs to be hatched so the hen (Chicken) usually sits on it
to produce heat in order for it to be hatched. Simply put there had to be a chicken first
to lay and to hatch the egg.
-
:fish: it is simple , the animals evolved from small bacteria in the water. to become dinosaurs and i guess chickens so i think the chicken came first
-
:fish: it is simple , the animals evolved from small bacteria in the water. to become dinosaurs and i guess chickens so i think the chicken came first
Do you really believe all that you just said? Have you ever heard of or seen anyone or anything, even worst would you eat anything created from bacteria?
Never the less you're free to your opinion I'm just asking if bacteria could make such instinctive, constructive and continuous creations and with so much bacteria around today why aren't there anymore dinosaurs etc.
-
Do you really believe all that you just said?
No offense to abdyer2001 but that's an extremely dull example that leaves out a lot on evolutionary traits.
Have you ever heard of or seen anyone or anything, even worst would you eat anything created from bacteria
Yogurt, Kefir, Sauerkraut, Pickled Ginger, Wine+Beer, Sourdough Bread, Olives, Lysine, Dill Pickles, and Soy Sauce are all created from bacteria.
I'm just asking if bacteria could make such instinctive, constructive and continuous creations and with so much bacteria around today why aren't there anymore dinosaurs etc.
1.) Start here and educate yourself- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote
2.) A gigantic asteroid smacked what we know as the Yucatan peninsula along with massive climate change (most likely triggered by volcanism + the asteroid) killed off about 95% of species on the earth. This is inarguable since the fossil record shows this gap all over the world, though there are a few other theories that could be argued. Those 2 are the most unanimous since there is ample proof of these things happening. Mammals were lucky enough to survive, slowly evolved, and here we are now.
-
Do you really believe all that you just said?
No offense to abdyer2001 but that's an extremely dull example that leaves out a lot on evolutionary traits.
Have you ever heard of or seen anyone or anything, even worst would you eat anything created from bacteria
Yogurt, Kefir, Sauerkraut, Pickled Ginger, Wine+Beer, Sourdough Bread, Olives, Lysine, Dill Pickles, and Soy Sauce are all created from bacteria.
I'm just asking if bacteria could make such instinctive, constructive and continuous creations and with so much bacteria around today why aren't there anymore dinosaurs etc.
1.) Start here and educate yourself- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote
2.) A gigantic asteroid smacked what we know as the Yucatan peninsula along with massive climate change (most likely triggered by volcanism + the asteroid) killed off about 95% of species on the earth. This is inarguable since the fossil record shows this gap all over the world, though there are a few other theories that could be argued. Those 2 are the most unanimous since there is ample proof of these things happening. Mammals were lucky enough to survive, slowly evolved, and here we are now.
Wasn't it mammilian precursers which were lucky enough to survive the impact's effects and mutate into various species over time?
-
I like the logic of the dinosaurs and the eggs. I'll go with egg and say that the chicken is a mutant. LOL
-
I like the logic of the dinosaurs and the eggs. I'll go with egg and say that the chicken is a mutant. LOL
Well, if that logic is followed then some chicken-like dinosauric precurser laid eggs and some of the hatchlings' DNA mutated into a more fowl-like critter over time. Eventually, those critters laid eggs which hatched as chicks. Therefore, the dinosaur came before the chicken egg. Heh.
-
Wasn't it mammilian precursers which were lucky enough to survive the impact's effects and mutate into various species over time?
>.< *slaps head* That's true! It totally skipped my mind. Thank you for the correction.
-
Wasn't it mammilian precursers which were lucky enough to survive the impact's effects and mutate into various species over time?
>.< *slaps head* That's true! It totally skipped my mind. Thank you for the correction.
No wonder all those mutations 'taste just like chicken'?
-
I believe God created the chicken first. Just as God created the first people as fully grown humans, so he created the chicken as fully grown, capable of laying eggs.
-
A gigantic asteroid smacked what we know as the Yucatan peninsula along with massive climate change (most likely triggered by volcanism + the asteroid) killed off about 95% of species on the earth. This is inarguable since the fossil record shows this gap all over the world, though there are a few other theories that could be argued. Those 2 are the most unanimous since there is ample proof of these things happening. Mammals were lucky enough to survive, slowly evolved, and here we are now.
Wasn't it mammilian precursers which were lucky enough to survive the impact's effects and mutate into various species over time?
[/quote]
"Oh I almost forgot that EVOLUTION fell from the sky, Just kidding pardon my sly remark." When a scientific principle invades even grammar school, it has long since passed the stage of theory to established fact so I won't argue this one even thought it arouses a bit of questioning; the sudden way in which so many species disappeared point towards a cataclysmic event and the crater in the Yucatan Peninsula is said to be proof.
Well Increasingly, in a perverse twist of science new results became to be judged by how well they supported the impact hypothesis, rather than how well they tested it
But don't take my word for it read and judge for yourself. Checkout this study from the Geological Society
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/keller/page7668.html
Another thing only "mammalian precursors" were lucky enough to survive the impact right? I'd think you were referring to the platypus and the echidna am I right? But seeing that the chicken is a completely different vertebrate from mammals are they some additional form of meteoric evolution?
Now don't get me wrong, I am in no wise attempting to be rude. I'm just asking these questions seeing that you seem to posses a more in-depth understanding in the study of Paleontology.
-
A gigantic asteroid smacked what we know as the Yucatan peninsula along with massive climate change (most likely triggered by volcanism + the asteroid) killed off about 95% of species on the earth. This is inarguable since the fossil record shows this gap all over the world, though there are a few other theories that could be argued. Those 2 are the most unanimous since there is ample proof of these things happening. Mammals were lucky enough to survive, slowly evolved, and here we are now.
Wasn't it mammilian precursers which were lucky enough to survive the impact's effects and mutate into various species over time?
"Oh I almost forgot that EVOLUTION fell from the sky, Just kidding pardon my sly remark." When a scientific principle invades even grammar school, it has long since passed the stage of theory to established fact so I won't argue this one even thought it arouses a bit of questioning; the sudden way in which so many species disappeared point towards a cataclysmic event and the crater in the Yucatan Peninsula is said to be proof.
Chickens (Gallus domesticus) are known to be descendants of the famous Archaeopteryx from the Jurassic period. Scientists have identified that domesticated chickens (Gallus domesticus) were descendants of the Red Jungle Fowl (Gallus gallus) and appeared as early as 4,000 BC in Southeast Asia. The domesticated chickens were initially used for entertainment in the form of physical fighting, rather than food. However, Archaeopteryx may be only a birdlike dinosaur rather than a dinosaurlike true bird.
Well Increasingly, in a perverse twist of science new results became to be judged by how well they supported the impact hypothesis, rather than how well they tested it
But don't take my word for it read and judge for yourself. Checkout this study from the Geological Society
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/keller/page7668.html
"Most mass extinctions over the past 500Ma occurred during times of major volcanic eruptions, some occurred at times of multiple impacts." No one said any one particular impact was the single cause of a MEE, (Mass Extinction Event). Between the numerous volcanic eruptions and periodic meteor impacts, the climatic changes engendered massive losses of flora & fauna species. These included the more massive dinosaurs, but not all reptilian critters, nor all plant life. Whether the MEE of that time period was sudden or, a drawn-out die-off, we don't get many huge dinosaurs these days, (various dragon legends nothwithstanding).
Another thing only "mammalian precursors" were lucky enough to survive the impact right?
No, not "only" them; several different plants and animals managed to hang on through the climatic shifts, (volcanic ash clouds, temperature changes, tectonic plate-shifts, etc.). The big 'uns had about a 100 million year run and didn't make the transition that surviving species did.
I'd think you were referring to the platypus and the echidna am I right? But seeing that the chicken is a completely different vertebrate from mammals are they some additional form of meteoric evolution?
Species either evolve over time to survive in a changing environment or, they die out. "Chinese paleontologists reported in the current issue of the journal Nature that a previously unknown chicken-size 155-million-year-old dinosaur with feathers, named Xiaotingia zhengi. The skeleton was embedded in shale, along with the clear impressions of feathers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/science/02fossil.html
Now don't get me wrong, I am in no wise attempting to be rude. I'm just asking these questions seeing that you seem to posses a more in-depth understanding in the study of Paleontology.
No worries, I replied without really calling 'fowl'/foul.
-
Obviously ur mom
-
I think the chicken came first
-
I'd think you were referring to the platypus and the echidna am I right? But seeing that the chicken is a completely different vertebrate from mammals are they some additional form of meteoric evolution?
Species either evolve over time to survive in a changing environment or, they die out. "Chinese paleontologists reported in the current issue of the journal Nature that a previously unknown chicken-size 155-million-year-old dinosaur with feathers, named Xiaotingia zhengi. The skeleton was embedded in shale, along with the clear impressions of feathers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/science/02fossil.html
First let me say thank you for sharing some light on the topic. Like I shared before I was never a big fan of paleontology never the less I am hooked "whenever" I reserve myself to indulge in the discovery channel, Geological Society and other open resources that shed in-dept light on or these topics.
I checked the above mentioned article on the Archaeopteryx.
Archaeopteryx has perched high on the avian family tree as the earliest and most primitive bird, somewhere near the evolutionary moment when some dinosaurs gave rise to birds. While this one was not striking in appearance as additional remain it was good enough apparently to contradict conventional wisdom about proto-birds.
In other words; ok it's no longer that, though it could be either that or this but lets settle with this seeing that it's the closest resemblance to the chicken. Personally I'm surprised they didn't put an ostrich next to it seeing that seems to be more prehistoric in resemblance to dinosaurs, but that wouldn't have sufficed the existence of birds, namely the chicken.
My point is after finding such an interesting/marvelous discovery why settle at that? I personally would be motivated in finding something a bit closer to the real thing after seeing that. Rather than saying ok boys it's a wrap (that'll do), pack it up and lets go home.
-
First let me say thank you for sharing some light on the topic. Like I shared before I was never a big fan of paleontology never the less I am hooked "whenever" I reserve myself to indulge in the discovery channel, Geological Society and other open resources that shed in-dept light on or these topics.
I checked the above mentioned article on the Archaeopteryx.
Archaeopteryx has perched high on the avian family tree as the earliest and most primitive bird, somewhere near the evolutionary moment when some dinosaurs gave rise to birds. While this one was not striking in appearance as additional remain it was good enough apparently to contradict conventional wisdom about proto-birds.
In other words; ok it's no longer that, though it could be either that or this but lets settle with this seeing that it's the closest resemblance to the chicken. Personally I'm surprised they didn't put an ostrich next to it seeing that seems to be more prehistoric in resemblance to dinosaurs, but that wouldn't have sufficed the existence of birds, namely the chicken.
My point is after finding such an interesting/marvelous discovery why settle at that? I personally would be motivated in finding something a bit closer to the real thing after seeing that. Rather than saying ok boys it's a wrap (that'll do), pack it up and lets go home.
Well, they didn't settle at Archaeopteryx after all; the more recently-discovered evolutionary link between dinos and birds was mentioned as "Xiaotingia zhengi" - "a previously unknown chicken-size 155-million-year-old dinosaur challenges the centrality of Archaeopteryx in the transition to birds. The question now is, if not Archaeopteryx, which of many feathered dinosaurs or dinosaurlike birds being found is closest to the first bird?"
-
Obviously, the chicken and the egg as we know them are highly irrelevant to this entire discussion. If you wish to make a chicken, you must first create the universe.
-
In other words; ok it's no longer that, though it could be either that or this but lets settle with this seeing that it's the closest resemblance to the chicken. Personally I'm surprised they didn't put an ostrich next to it seeing that seems to be more prehistoric in resemblance to dinosaurs, but that wouldn't have sufficed the existence of birds, namely the chicken.
My point is after finding such an interesting/marvelous discovery why settle at that? I personally would be motivated in finding something a bit closer to the real thing after seeing that. Rather than saying ok boys it's a wrap (that'll do), pack it up and lets go home.
Well, they didn't settle at Archaeopteryx after all; the more recently-discovered evolutionary link between dinos and birds was mentioned as "Xiaotingia zhengi" - "a previously unknown chicken-size 155-million-year-old dinosaur challenges the centrality of Archaeopteryx in the transition to birds. The question now is, if not Archaeopteryx, which of many feathered dinosaurs or dinosaurlike birds being found is closest to the first bird?"
Would you consider the chicken to be a more advanced or mature stage than it's precursor?
I ask this not to drift from the point but I still find it a bit hard to acknowledge evolution seeing that it's based on rationalization. Meaning it's consistency is so inconsistent that it could be changed by the next discovery which turns out to be a cycle of theoretic explanations. For example I was watching the History channel MEGA DISASTERS: the theory that an asteroid strike may have been responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs.
This took our discussion into another cycle, which again shows that as man's understanding transcends, what was once former turns out to be inconsistent and illogical therefore it demands further study/discussion/explanation.
I find it a bit hard seeing that job of a Scientist is to "CREATE" an answer or solution whether rhetorical or theoretic (false) until something is found to replace it.
-
The chicken came first. It was cells multiplying that eventually formed the chicken just like everything else did in the whole world and everywheres else. The egg has nothing to do with the process it is just how the chicken reproduces. :thumbsup:
-
Would you consider the chicken to be a more advanced or mature stage than it's precursor?
A precurser is just that; something that came before something else. While evolution holds that species tend to evolve to adapt to changing enviromental factors, there's nothing that says a species must do so, (and these species either die out or, 'devolve').
I ask this not to drift from the point but I still find it a bit hard to acknowledge evolution seeing that it's based on rationalization. Meaning it's consistency is so inconsistent that it could be changed by the next discovery which turns out to be a cycle of theoretic explanations.
The theory of evolution is a theory, (says so, right in the name). Theories are not final conclusions; they remain tenetive and subject to new information. Different theories can be in dispute with one another while each supposedly strives to explain observed data. Any inconsistencies arising from competing theories are nominally based upon varying degrees of emphasis, de-emphasis or, not considering myraid contributing factors. As more reliable and accurate information becomes available through new discoveries, some theories will evolve while others become extinct - just like flora & fauna.
For example I was watching the History channel MEGA DISASTERS: the theory that an asteroid strike may have been responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs.
This took our discussion into another cycle, which again shows that as man's understanding transcends, what was once former turns out to be inconsistent and illogical therefore it demands further study/discussion/explanation.
There's nothing "inconsistent and illogical" about physical evidence of huge rocks smacking into the earth's surface since physical evidence of this exists. What's being disputed by different theories is how much impact these impacts had on dramatically altering the climate and other environmental factors to either cause sudden or, gradual MEEs, (Mass Extinction Events).
I find it a bit hard seeing that job of a Scientist is to "CREATE" an answer or solution whether rhetorical or theoretic (false) until something is found to replace it.
A theoretic hypothesis isn't automatically false; it is considered to be a possible explanation for observed data, (dictionary definitions will expand on this brief synopsis). Scientists aren't the only ones who theorize; almost everyone does that on a daily basis regarding routine matters. Oftentimes, insufficient information is all that is available when attempting to find a solution or answer to a problem/question.
One common error of 'logic' is to assume that, just because there is insufficient information available, one's unsupported opinion is equivalent to a theory which has at least some substantiating evidence. Another is assuming that a lack of evidence constitutes evidence to support an unsubstantiated theory or opinion. No evidence means just that; it is not the equivalent of evidence itself. As new information becomes available, theories normally change or, are discarded in favor of theories which better explain phenomenon.
-
Thats a hard one since a chicken cant grow into a chick without the egg and an egg cant be made without a chicken.. so we may never know.
-
This question: which came first, the chicken or the egg, is just another way of asking, which do you believe, Creation or Evolution. Depending on which one you believe, there will come your answer.
-
Just to stoke the fire here---
God created all the animals of the earth, he did not create eggs.
Give it a thought.
-
Just to stoke the fire here---
God created all the animals of the earth, he did not create eggs.
'Given that alligators, snakes and other reptiles taste like chicken, it's likely that even dinosaurs had flesh with that ubiquitous poutry-flavor. Both amphibians and terrestrial animals developed a flavor and texture that now persists in birds, reptiles and amphibians, although the flavor has gradually become absent in most mammals.'
Give it a thought.
Some have given it more thought than an unquestioned 'belief' in an unsupported claim, have you?
-
animals were made from earth along with mortals at first-just like i was reading the dead sea scrolls one person had something about him being made from clay.
-
I believe that God created Chicken first. Then the chicken laid an egg in order to reproduce. So chickens came first but then the egg... Im just not sure why they keep trying to cross roads ;)
-
The chicken came first!
-
Since it says "egg" and not "chicken egg". It is obvious the egg came first since many other animals have used eggs to reproduce long before chickens were around.
-
Since it says "egg" and not "chicken egg". It is obvious the egg came first since many other animals have used eggs to reproduce long before chickens were around.
That seems the most reasonable deduction and the same reasoning applies to a precurser dinosaur egg however, it does account for chicken origins. Inherently, this begs the question of where dinosaurs came from, (the inference is eggs, from other critters), and so on recursively. At some point, its back to single-celled critters and primodial ooze.
-
Since it says "egg" and not "chicken egg". It is obvious the egg came first since many other animals have used eggs to reproduce long before chickens were around.
How can that be? God created birds and fish before he created the other animals. It doesn't make sense that there would be other animals laying eggs before that.
-
How can that be? God created birds and fish before he created the other animals. It doesn't make sense that there would be other animals laying eggs before that.
That is a myth coupled with creationist pseudoscience.
-
If you didn't have a chicken or something like a chicken first.... How did u get the egg?
-
If you didn't have a chicken or something like a chicken first.... How did u get the egg?
You had something like a chicken, (theropod dinosaurs), that laid eggs in a radioactive environment which caused mutations. Of course, this begs the next question of which came first - the dino or the dino egg? And that takes us back to primodial slime, (biological 'soup'). Where'd the soup come from, you may wonder? Odds are it wasn't from a deital 'grandma' but, from meteoric impacts which carried the dormant cellular components. Now, as for where these dormant cellular components came from ...
-
For those of you who believe in the evolution of animals, doesn't it take more faith to believe that everything could "just happen" then to believe that there is Someone Who is in charge of everything and powerful enough to create everything that exists?
-
For those of you who believe in the evolution of animals, doesn't it take more faith to believe that everything could "just happen" then to believe that there is Someone Who is in charge of everything and powerful enough to create everything that exists?
Having or, not having "faith" has no bearing on evolutionary, (or emergent phenomenon), theories. They either account for observed processes or, they do not. Your implication being that "faith", (a supposition lacking supportive evidence), in a theoretical deity is equivalent to theories which have at least _some_ supporting evidence. This is a false dichotomy/comparison since "faith" isn't an integral aspect of emergent or evolutionary theories while it is critical to a deital theory.
-
so did the chicken come first or the egg??
well.. the chicken rolled over in bed, and smoked a cigarette so... :P lol
-
so did the chicken come first or the egg??
well.. the chicken rolled over in bed, and smoked a cigarette so... :P lol
Finally, thats an answer I can understand :thumbsup:
-
what came first the chicken or the egg ?. amazing how a simple question can come right back to being a god debate.
-
Neither.
-
hmm.... why did the chicken cross the road?
-
Neither.
Ah, the implicit immaculate conception of chickens theory ... an oldie but, a goodie?
-
who cares which came first , just so long as we have chicken . so that everything else can taste like it.
-
so did the chicken come first or the egg??
To me the chicken had to come first to be able to product the egg. If there no chicken theres's no egg to get. :thumbsup:
-
most of the time the guy comes first. cause as we all know the female orgasm is a myth.. ;D
-
most of the time the guy comes first. cause as we all know the female orgasm is a myth.. ;D
Y'know, there does appear to be a suspicious lack of evidence to support claims of the female O, (despite any somewhat dubious testimony to the contrary), although 'dubious' might be too skeptical in the eye of the frantic thrasher ...
-
Does it really matter? one or both came first, because without the chicken there would be no eggs and without the eggs there would be no chicken.
-
most of the time the guy comes first. cause as we all know the female orgasm is a myth.. ;D
Y'know, there does appear to be a suspicious lack of evidence to support claims of the female O, (despite any somewhat dubious testimony to the contrary), although 'dubious' might be too skeptical in the eye of the frantic thrasher ...
is that why the thrash around. UI just thought she was happy for me.. lol
-
Hahaha, I agree with CHADW97.......without the egg - no chicken!
-
The egg would have been unable to hatch if there was no existing chicken.
-
Very simple the chicken. like the above post said... read your bible
The Chicken had to come first to reproduce the eggs.
-
without the chicken no egg, and without the egg no chicken. but does anyone really care. as long as all other foods taste like chicken it doesnt matter
-
Egg. The Quran says so.