It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


chicken or egg, which came first (I KNOW)

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:31 AM

Originally posted by ChemBreather

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
The Egg came first. Birds are descendant from dinosaurs (which also laid eggs)... ergo the Egg came before the Chook.


i wish I could witness this, A dinosaur layd an chicken egg ?

Is that why the dinos died out ? They started to lay chicken eggs instead of Dino eggs?

Like the Crockodors came from Dino eggs etc...
All dinos made kinder eggs with surprises in it : Oh look, a chicken and a crock..

I didn't say a dinosaur laid a chook egg! The question doesn't stipulate chook egg, it simply asks 'egg' or 'chook'.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:40 AM
Post deleted.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by killyou]

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:07 AM

Originally posted by bluedrake
Valid point, but how about this

What if the egg was ready to hatch the second it was created.....

Lol time to go back to that drawing board

[edit on 15-4-2010 by bluedrake]

I guess we can all pretend to change our minds when we get scared & start shaking as we realize some other dudes are now thinking its their turn to crucify us in Jesus style. Don't we all need our personal Jesus(s) to mutilate & poke at? Life wouldn't be fun without having them.

I guess we'll never come to a conclusion until chickens start laying eggs that hatch into chicks or other birdies that can't mature to a point where they can reproduce. You never know what can happen with environmental problems these days. I know none of us can help wanting to be like that that lucky chicken. We'll be out of luck the day they decide to just stop making the same mistakes twice or more and starve to death rather than being bought into closed places where they'll be fed meds or nutrients to help them mature & reproduce. But then we can all just move to asking those questions about other creatures. Until they all start dying off too. But maybe we'll always have enough energy left over to clone more of them. We're welcome to try it. Maybe if we play make-believe long enough, we'll be able to do it. Or we'll have to convince the chickens that we can do it. As long a possible.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by killyou]

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:12 AM
Sorry people, thread already exists here, along with a very satisfying answer.

A 5 year old solves the chicken or egg dilemma

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:30 AM

Originally posted by bluedrake
What if the egg was ready to hatch the second it was created.....

What came first... the egg.... or the second?

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:18 AM

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Similar "Q" Did Adam have an naval

Yes, Adam was born from a human female currogate after Enki inseminated the human female with his own fertilised egg from his sister Nin-krsag. Adam was born as a normal human with a naval.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:41 AM
Sorry but I came up with a different answer to the question; which came first the chicken or the egg?
My answer; the Dinosaur.
Think about it.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:40 PM
Me and a co-worker got into a lively debate the other day about wether or not "cavemen ate eggs" she seems to think that is not possible because "chickens didn't exist in caveman times".
I tried to explain to her that the domestic chicken came from the older Jungle Redfowl specieis (which i found online with 1 min of research into this ridiculous debate)
Further to the debate I explained that realisticly birds came from dinosaurs, so technically, eggs existed before cavemen even existed..
While the majority of my coworkers have all assisted me in shutting down this ridiculous arguement I am shocked to see one coworker (a fully grown man) say that chickens didnt exist in "caveman times" and that they didnt eat eggs......

Today I come here and see the chicken vs. the egg debate.. I showed said coworker and pointed out the synchronicity of this debate to our genius discussion... I told her I should post her question to the infinite resources and enthusiasm of the internet and the ATS forum and see what kind of responses others have for her.

So that being said; ATS Members reading this thread; I present to you another question (in an attempt to shame my co-worker) Did Cavemen eat eggs?

For the sake of the Chicken vs. the Egg arguement; I'm not a scientist, historian or genius by any stretch of the imagination. But my point would be birds in general came from Dinosaurs (egg laying reptiles) chickens didnt exist before dinos. therefore the egg came first since dinos were already laying eggs which would become birds eventually down the genetic road.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:37 PM
"Cavemen" did eat eggs. Egg shells with symbols drawn on them have been found in caves and such.

About the chicken or the egg argument, it's actually a cute childish version of the question of "Evolution or Creationism?"

In the case of Evolution, the egg comes first, since new species arise from pre-existing species. There can't be a chicken (new species) if the egg isn't laid.

In the case of Creationism, the chicken comes first, because obviously in the bible it says that god created all the animals, so on and so on.

Rational people will tell you that the egg came first.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by PieKeeper]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by PieKeeper]

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:55 AM

In the case of Evolution, the egg comes first, since new species arise from pre-existing species. There can't be a chicken (new species) if the egg isn't laid.

Also " rational people will tell you the egg came first "


Uhh.. okay. So let me get this straight - everything evolves from something else, right? I'm not too " educated " on evolution as I don't waste my life reading up on flawed theories but anyway; using my mind I can't help but think - k.. this evolves from that. that evolves from this. and so on.

Apparently chickens evolved from Dinosaurs ? And what did Dinosaurs evolve from ? And, then, what did the species that dinosaurs evolve from; evolve from? k... I guess using this logic you would have to go all the way back to some frigging single-cell organisms that just so happened to evolve in the ocean and some how after billions of attempts managed to jump out of the ocean and form the ability to survive on land and then --not only did they manage to achieve that feat of impossibility-- but evolved from single cell organisms to multi cell organisms and so on and then they also evolved as males and females ? And, of course, are totally compatible ( capable of cross-fertilizing freely or uniting vegetatively ) with each other - I guess they were just blessed that way?

Oh, and on top of all this evolving - turn into several different species that can Fly, Walk, and Communicate with each other as well. Some have two legs; others have four legs. Some have really sharp teeth; others don't. Oh and let us not forget the complex internal organs that they developed as well - a brain, heart, veins, liver, ect. Which all just magically works together just so perfectly you'd have to think it was " designed " to function like that. Some have warm blood; others have cold blood. OoOoO so basically, when you think about it, Evolution is saying that practically every single thing that lives on this planet came from some single-cell organisms which are responsible for existence on Earth.

That is why Evolution doesn't make any logical sense to me whatsoever. roflmfao.

And please, feel free to bombard me with your so-called " evidence " of Evolution. It's not going to change my mind.

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:01 PM
Evolution is the only plausible and proven explanation for the diversity of life. We can observe it and make predictions about it, and we can even follow it's path through the fossil record.

And remember, Evolution is not a theory, it's a process. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of that process.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by PieKeeper]

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:10 PM
The chicken is a specific animal. The egg is a reproduction method.

The egg came first, i promise you.

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:10 PM
which came first the chicken or the egg, the chicken and the rooster came at the same time whether by two or by seven because of the great flood. if by seven my guess would have been 4 chickens and three roosters.

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Paradoxos
which came first the chicken or the egg, the chicken and the rooster came at the same time whether by two or by seven because of the great flood. if by seven my guess would have been 4 chickens and three roosters.

If god is all knowing, he would have been smart enough not to subject every species to a population depression.

Please, think about what you're saying.

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by Illuminati_K1D

Why exactly does it not makes sense to you that life came from one single celled organism?

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by PieKeeper

Piekeeper it seems that you dont know what your talking about because god isnt looking at it with a scientific mind. and your science is so recent and so one sided against god that you dont know a single thing about the way life is supposed to be. or the way man is supposed to be ruled

pope urban II"do you know with what little understanding the earth is ruled?"

the world should be ruled by divine law not scientific, one is sacred the other is corrupt.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Paradoxos]

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Sippy Cup
reply to post by Daniem

All thought you present a species “chicken “and its origin. It’s not meant like that!

IF a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound? That type of question.

Plus do you “KNOW” this information or truth or was you feed this information?

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Sippy Cup]

Scientifically there is an answer to the question of "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound". The answer lies in the definition of sound. Scientifically, for sound to exist, there must be an observer to perceive that sound. Therefore, if there is nothing and no one to perceive the sound of the tree falling, it makes no sound.

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:17 PM
Aristotle (384–322 BC) was puzzled by the idea that there could be a first bird or egg and concluded that both the bird and egg must have always existed:

If there has been a first man he must have been born without father or mother – which is repugnant to nature. For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg.
The same he held good for all species, believing, with Plato, that everything before it appeared on earth had first its being in spirit."[2]
Plutarch (46–126 AD) referred to a hen rather than simply a bird. His is[clarification needed] Moralia in the books titled "Table Talk" discussed a series of arguments based on questions posed in a symposium. Under the section entitled "Whether the hen or the egg came first", the discussion is introduced in such a way suggesting that the origin of the dilemma was even older:
...the problem about the egg and the hen, which of them came first, was dragged into our talk, a difficult problem which gives investigators much trouble. And Sulla my comrade said that with a small problem, as with a tool, we were rocking loose a great and heavy one, that of the creation of the world..."[3]

Macrobius (395–423 AD), a Roman philosopher, found the problem to be interesting:
You jest about what you suppose to be a triviality, in asking whether the hen came first from an egg or the egg from a hen, but the point should be regarded as one of importance, one worthy of discussion, and careful discussion at that."[4]

Stephen Hawking and Christopher Langan argue that the egg came before the chicken, though the real importance of the question has faded since Darwin's On the Origin of Species and the accompanying Theory of Evolution, under which the egg must have come first, assuming the question intended the egg to mean an egg in general or an egg that hatches into a chicken.[5][6]

f the egg is not necessarily of any specific type: Then it could be said that the egg came first, because other animals had been laying eggs long before chickens existed, such as the dinosaurs. In biology, egg is used as a general term in this way.

If only an egg that will hatch into a chicken can be considered a chicken egg: Then a re-consideration of the original question suggests: Some animal other than a chicken laid the first chicken egg which contained the first chicken. In this case the chicken egg came before the chicken. In reality, many scientific theories suggest that this would not have been a simple event. For example, the theory of punctuated equilibrium theorizes that the actual speciation of an organism from its ancestral species is usually the result of many mutations combined with new geographical surroundings, called cladogenesis.

If only an egg laid by a chicken can be considered a chicken egg: Then a re-consideration of the original question suggests: The first chicken (which hatched from a non-chicken egg) laid the first chicken egg. In this case the chicken came before the chicken egg. Again, this would not necessarily be a straightforward event.

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:19 PM
It's obviously the chicken...

God doesn't lay eggs

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by Paradoxos

I would just like to state, that the majority of science is not against god at all. In fact, while it may be hard to believe, most Scientists, theoretical pyhsicists, etc.. are very spiritual. "The Universe In a Single Atom" by H.H. the Dhali Lama is a great book on this very subject, unifying science and spirituality. I am very spiritual, and very much into science and theoritical physics. And all that science is finding is that there is a spectacular order to everything that cannot be explained. For example, if the electromagnetism that holds our bodies together was off by .00004 percent, our bodies would rip apart and fly into space. I think we can all agree that does not happen by chance. Everything in our universe is governed by a divine creator, conciousness. And the word of such holy men such as Jesus and Buddha spoke of this. It was the people that have purposely misinterpreted what they said and turned it into the mess we know as religion. Both men spoke against religion and personal gods to worship. They themselves said they are not to be worshipped. I just wanted to throw this in here before people start bashing science and spirituality when they can in fact be unified more then they ever could be. Hold yourself in the middle and keep an open heart, and you'll see the paralells.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in