Chicken or the Egg - Page 3

What this really boils down to is the proble of nature versus our will to categorise nature. Nature itself is a flow...only we perceive the chicken and each one of these is different so in truth there never exists a chicken in the absolute sense but only in a blurred margin. I guess its like trying to see black and white when there are only various flowing shades of grey.

Is it really true that the chicken doesn't exist?
Even though it attacks me. lol

the egg couldn't possibly come first because it needs a place to form... eggs don't form out in the open nothingness.....and if you acknowledge the creator, no matter which way you acknowledge him, then you would acknowledge that the perfection in which life came to be had to be set from the beginning.......so therefore the creation has to come from the creator....the creator is first.....chickens only come after the egg is hatched... the egg has to be formed and first right?............

hatching- Maybe the Creator made the egg and made the enviroment around it perfect for it to hatch. Or simply made hatch.
reproduction- the creator made a field of eggs in this same enviroment of different sexes.

quote:

---

hatching- Maybe the Creator made the egg and made the enviroment around it perfect for it to hatch. Or simply made hatch.
reproduction- the creator made a field of eggs in this same enviroment of different sexes

---

Your rebuff is based on a maybe......maybe isn't an actual fact. I'm stating my opinion on fact, reasoning, and common sense........the condensed environment needed for an egg to be formed, not hatched, but formed is so hot and so tight that plant life could never have existed in that atmosphere.... So there was a bunch of hatched eggs in a place of nothingness???.....makes sense??

Think my point was misunderstood:

Its not that a chicken doesnt exist, of course not. But the point is, as it is now, every chicken is unique. So it is in evolution that every chicken is unique, as is every egg and go through the slight changes until, as according to science, it is no longer a chicken.

The only thing that then seperates it is one word: classification. As soon as it is realised that nature doesnt name things; humans do, the quicker it is to realise that everyone has a different opinion of what a chicken or egg is. Me and my grandad are human....but we are different.

quote:

---

Your rebuff is based on a maybe......maybe isn't an actual fact. I'm stating my opinion on fact, reasoning, and common sense........the condensed environment needed for an egg to be formed, not hatched, but formed is so hot and so tight that plant life could never have existed in that atmosphere.... So there was a bunch of hatched eggs in a place of nothingness???.....makes sense??

---

Anything is possible.

First answer: heyjme1

I overstand fully the uniqueness of the "chicken" and the latter. I also overstand the fact that they are both words. but however no matter how you come about the name, no matter what name you give or do not give the two subjects you'll still come to the same thing. 1+1 will always equal to 2. Why purpose things on evolution when sex is the only way to create things? not sex on a physical term, but the joining of two to make one...what can an egg be joined with to produce an egg??.......

second Answer Zato: I overstand also that any thing is possible. but anything is a detraction from the actual itself. any-thing purposes seperation. any ONE thing....I rather say that EVERYTHING is possible....that leaves nothing out.

quote:

---

EVERYTHING is possible

---

I agree. But anything can refer to the idea of everything thus they are the same but different. I think it works both ways.
Much love all!

the chicken came first then the rooster came second and produced an egg does that clear things up

the chicken was already in the egg.. thus they came at the same time

It truly amazes me how many people either choose to ignore, haven't realised or don't believe the scientific evidence on what came first. The problem only requires a logical answer. And science answers this. As I said chickens (the animal) evolved from DNA mutations which produced the zygote (egg). The function of reproduction occured further down the evolutionary line. Cell division created the first animal, not reproduction (which requires a zygote). Therefore the chicken came first.

quote:

---

It truly amazes me how many people either choose to ignore, haven't realised or don't believe the scientific evidence on what came first. The problem only requires a logical answer. And science answers this. As I said chickens (the animal) evolved from DNA mutations which produced the zygote (egg). The function of reproduction occured further down the evolutionary line. Cell division created the first animal, not reproduction (which requires a zygote). Therefore the chicken came first.

---

This is just as illogical as the idea that God created the eggs that hatched into the chicken. Evolution is just as illogical as creation by God. This theory of evolution has to founding beginning that remains logical to the human mind and the theory of God is illogical itself because the way he presented to have no beginning. Both are illogical to humans and anything and everything is still just as possible as anything else.

I think egg.
A Creature almost like a chicken had an egg.
Then was suddenly a bioligical Bird that could lay eggs, and was yellow & had Little Fuzz.

But thats just me

(P.S: how can u put links on the board instead of just making a URL?)

Magical i think you hit on the head let me just plus you idea. the thing that looked close to a chicken laid an egg dropped it and it cracked open. the yellow part of the egg was exposed to nature and atomospheric pressure causing it to mold and creating fuzz on the unfertilzed egg. then the teradactal dropped a little sperm on it and thus out of the ground the chicken was created. so the egg did come firs.