03 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bad wolfPerhaps this will help:
If the chicken came first it must have come from an egg and an egg must have come from a chicken and that chicken must have come from an egg...😕
http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i4/chicken_egg.html
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bad wolfIt's quite clear that the chicken came first. As we can see from the rest of God's creations he never placed a womb on Earth and waited for the contents to be born, no, he placed already formed creatures on the Earth. Also a chicken can survive without and egg, but it is much harder for an egg to survive without a chicken.
If the chicken came first it must have come from an egg and an egg must have come from a chicken and that chicken must have come from an egg...😕
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by Freddie2004Did God fertilize the chicken's egg?
It's quite clear that the chicken came first. As we can see from the rest of God's creations he never placed a womb on Earth and waited for the contents to be born, no, he placed already formed creatures on the Earth. Also a chicken can survive without and egg, but it is much harder for an egg to survive without a chicken.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by shavixmirIf we are talking about eggs in general, than there is no question since there are species before chicken that were oviparous.
The egg came first.
A chicken has to come out of an egg, but the egg could have come out of the predecessor to the chicken. A jurassic chicken or so.
Therefore it follows that we are referring to a chicken's egg, when merely saying egg.
What is a chicken's egg? Herein lies the question.
If we assume it's the egg that a chicken lays, then the chicken would be born out of a jurassic chicken's egg which is not the egg we are referring in the question, hence the chicken would come first.
If we assume it's the egg that a chicken is born from, then the referred egg would always come first, for obvious reasons.
It doesn't make much sense to me to define the egg by what is within it, since the animal which lays the egg should be the one defining the type of egg, especially since a chicken's egg doesn't cease to be a chicken's egg if there's no chicken within it.
Ergo, the chicken came first.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaNe'r in my long life have I heard such piddle.
If we are talking about eggs in general, than there is no question since there are species before chicken that were oviparous.
Therefore it follows that we are referring to a chicken's egg, when merely saying egg.
What is a chicken's egg? Herein lies the question.
If we assume it's the egg that a chicken lays, then the chicken would be born out o ...[text shortened]... ease to be a chicken's egg if there's no chicken within it.
Ergo, the chicken came first.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaDoes everyone agree then?
If we are talking about eggs in general, than there is no question since there are species before chicken that were oviparous.
Therefore it follows that we are referring to a chicken's egg, when merely saying egg.
What is a chicken's egg? Herein lies the question.
If we assume it's the egg that a chicken lays, then the chicken would be born out o ...[text shortened]... ease to be a chicken's egg if there's no chicken within it.
Ergo, the chicken came first.