Gene Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 I always found this topic to be pretty funny as to how people justify their answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dowhatnow Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 Of course you chose the last answer. It's deflecting the issue. Which is really more of a conundrum of personal philosophy. Which to me, makes my choice the one that makes the most sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaMattMatt Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 My explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Posted September 28, 2010 Author Share Posted September 28, 2010 Pandas explanation is hard to argue with all of the evidence he has to support it @dowhatnow: I choose the last one simply to as you said to deflect the issue. The issue with the debate is as you put its personal as to whether the egg or the chicken came first. One could argue the egg had to of come first since that is where a chicken comes from. But another could argue the chicken has to be there to create the egg. Making it a hard answer to justify making it as you said more of a personal opinion. I would like to throw out there I believe it was a chicken. Why a chicken you might ask? I could try to justify it all I want but the reason being is I find it hard to believe an egg or a few eggs at the beginning of time (evolution or creation, or what ever theory you want to use) just sat there and with in time *boom* little chicks come out all alone to survive. Natural fertility is rarely 100% - it may vary from 55% to 95% with season, condition and type of birds. You might be safe to expect that 50% to 75% of the fertile eggs will hatch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Posted September 29, 2010 Share Posted September 29, 2010 Everyone is wrong. If it was an egg, they wouldn't have a chicken to incubate the egg. If it was a chicken, there'd be no rooster to fertilize the egg. You need two to tango. I can't believe no one in how many years has realized that both scenarios are impossible alone? At least all the arguments I've heard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cellar Door Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 You guys think to small. Jim knows what's up though, and I give him 95% credit. The undeniable truth is that the egg came first. Just because chickens weren't rockin' the roost in the Jurassic period, doesn't mean that dinosaurs weren't shitting out eggs... and if you'll notice... this riddle-type-thing doesn't specify the variety of egg that came first. ... Booyah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsu Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 (edited) Duh, since dinosaurs came before chickens and you didn't specify what kind of egg, the egg did. /win Serious note, the egg did because of evolution. Evolution is a serious of mutations, so a chicken didn't lay the chickens egg just something close to it with near the same set of instinctual knowledge. Edited September 30, 2010 by Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
