Does the question what came first the chicken or the egg indicate a presence sup

1. 68

   singleapleposted 11 years ago

   Does the question what came first the chicken or the egg indicate a presence superior to man ?
   
   Does the riddle of this question indicate the necessary presence of something that was superior to man (in order to create one or the other in the first place) ?

   replyreport
2. 59

   CertifiedHandyposted 11 years ago

   This question indicates a Creator. Evolutionists would disagree even when faced with simple logic. Do offspring appear before parents? Not in nature, but again evolutionist would probably argue that science can be made to manipulate logic for example in test-tube births and cloning. It all depends what one will choose to believe. I choose to believe in God and His Creation. Why? Because his stamp of creation is all around especially in science. Science could not exist without Him because He created everything for His pleasure and Glory. " for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see--such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him". Colossians 1:16. Through science we are now able to see things that are hidden and far way as in space.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      singleapleposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks - The question is not about what each of us believes - but rather - given the complexity of the riddle , how could the riddle be resolved to a logical conclusion.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      CertifiedHandyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      what you believe will lead you to a conclusion. This is not complex at all. Either offspring come from parents or parents come first.

      replyreport
3. 61

   MickSposted 11 years ago

   No................................................................................

   replyreport
   1. 68

      singleapleposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Why.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      MickSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You didn't ask your question, then ask 'why' in the original question, just a yes/no answer is all that is required.  I'm not here to justify my answers, this is not a school essay, or a debating forum.

      replyreport
4. 70

   dashingscorpioposted 11 years ago

   If one is a believer of creation according to biblical teachings then there is very little to debate about which came first the chicken or the egg.
   Assuming God created Adam and Eve as (adults) and not as (infants) it would be safe to assume that every living creature was initially created in it's adult form also. The Chicken came first! :-)

   replyreport
   1. 68

      singleapleposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks but the question is not really about which came first - but rather does this riddle indicate that there must be something greater,  in order that the riddle could be resolved to a logical conclusion.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Once again I would say if one believes in the biblical account of man's creation they (already believe) there is something "greater" than man. A Gallup poll taken in 2011 stated (9 out of 10) people in the U.S. believe in God or a Universal mind.

      replyreport
5. 68

   WalterPoonposted 11 years ago

   No, to me, the chicken must come first, otherwise who is going to lay that egg? Remember the egg has only half the chromosomes. You may then ask, "Where does the chicken comes from?" To me, the answer is the same as that for all other creatures... either they evolved from something that was created in the primordial waters, or they were themselves created in those waters. However, given that chicken have wings but cannot fly, it does seem that these vestigial structures suggest that they must have evolved from other birds and were not initially created.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      singleapleposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A good answer but it raises more questions than it resolves to me. The idea that the chicken evolved (from say some dot like creature) then the egg laying process evolved from the chicken is plausible, but the same question then arises about the dot

      replyreport
   2. 68

      WalterPoonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      LOL, do remember that the egg has only half a set of chromosomes. Someone lays an egg, it get fertilized and become a creature but the creature is not an exact replica of the parent... mutation does happen occasionally and over time, presto!

      replyreport
6. 72

   Ciel Clarkposted 11 years ago

   the question has been asked by people for ages, but the only indication of a presence superior to man is woman. Nothing rude against men --they have many fabulous qualities, but eggs and growing babies, no.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      CertifiedHandyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are not superior only equal, your egg must be fertilized, something women in all their majesty cannot perform

      replyreport
   2. 72

      Ciel Clarkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      true.  Wonder when they will get it

      replyreport
7. 72

   stanwshuraposted 11 years ago

   No.  It is the classic "paradox" juxtaposing the fact that we all start as children, but that adults had to "make" us. 
   
   I personally believe that the question itself proves evolution.   The egg is a chicken, and generations and generations and generations later, it may begin to transform into the egg of a new species and grow up to be the adult.
   
   The egg becomes a DIFFERENT chicken.  Thus, the egg and the chicken* are one.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      WalterPoonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Do remember that an egg has only half the set of chromosomes...

      replyreport
   2. 59

      CertifiedHandyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Logic: if an egg only contains half the chromosomes then evolution is definitely out

      replyreport
   3. 68

      WalterPoonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Not as simple as that... all life forms began from the primordial waters as primitive life forms and they evolve over time. Those that practice asexual reproduction gets wiped out over time because of their limited gene pool.

      replyreport
   4. 72

      stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Good point, Walter, although I don't think the *classic* question bothers with matters of fertilization.  For my purposes, come to think of it, I am going to assume that fertilization (embryo) is implied, and so a false paradox  is presented in vain.

      replyreport
   5. 68

      WalterPoonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Stanwshura, WikiAnswers says: "Most chicken eggs produced for consumption are unfertilized. Eggs found in the grocery stores are typically produced by chickens that never come in contact with a rooster."

      replyreport
   6. 72

      stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Right.  I think we can assume that the egg in this question is not in the grocery store, but in a nest (usually) and still a potential chick*.

      replyreport
   7. 68

      WalterPoonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's exactly how you end up with a paradox. Wrong premise, wrong conclusion because you simply refuse to accept the fact that eggs don't fertilize themselves.

      replyreport
   8. 72

      stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's my POINT.  (Non-sibling) sex (fertilization) begets the NEW...what "chickster".  The rooster is a given.  Thus is begotten biodiversity and thus evolution!   Chicksters are not asexual.  Species survival MEANS change.  Sheesh! I mean "HEESH"!

      replyreport
   9. 68

      WalterPoonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Stanwshura, how does the cock fertilize a non-existent egg? The hen must lay the egg first, right?

      replyreport
   10. 72

       stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       And both the hen and cock began life as what?

       replyreport
   11. 68

       WalterPoonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Stanwshura, read my other posts. I have answered that already but seems like you prefer your own answer. So just stick to what you wish to believe in.

       replyreport
   12. 72

       stanwshuraposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       What a derisive dodge!  I asked.  If you had an answer, you'd offer it.  This was a discussion.  But you apparently cannot handle a dialogue that wrestles with the real stuff.  I believe in facts, not post-death fairy-tale "happily ever after"s.

       replyreport
   13. 68

       WalterPoonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Stanwshura, I asked you to read back my posts on this page, didn't I? You give me the impression that you want to stick to your point of view. That's why I tell you to stick to your own opinion. I am not here to change your views.

       replyreport
   14. 59

       CertifiedHandyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       @stan there is just to much specialization in nature for macroevolution to exist. Can evolution explain interspecies diversity?

       replyreport
8. 68

   singleapleposted 11 years ago

   My thinking. If one feels the chicken was placed here by aliens, you then to me  simply create a bigger picture ie what came first the "alien chicken" or the "alien egg". If you believe the process all "evolved" from some dot like creature again are  you simply not moving  the question further back in time ie what created the dot like creature. The answer to the riddle therefore tends to lead more to the thinking  of a creator, who could be almost pulling the chicken out of a hat like some sort of magician. But if you believe that  everything was placed here by a creator, then again does the riddle  simply not grow even bigger yet again ie  the same question applies  "where did the creator come from".

   replyreport
9. 75

   JimTxMillerposted 11 years ago

   Not if one understands and subscribes to the basic principles of biology.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      WalterPoonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Jim, care to elaborate? Is it not one or the other, or could there be a third option?

      replyreport
10. 64

    StanTheLifeguardposted 11 years ago

    Yes, the simplest way to explain a higher presence is to believe in Genesis. Now I do understand that you might consider it ignorant of me to leave other theories out, so that's why I said this is the simplest way. God came from infinity (we don't understand this concept because we all had a beginning), he created the heavens the earth. Then, the animals I'm supposing this is where the chicken came from. Now, in theory maybe he put a fertilized egg in a warm place thus, the egg hatched, and came first. Either way this would explain a higher presence. Go ahead make the question more complicated, but old testament says it could be either way through a higher presence.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       WalterPoonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       QUOTE: "Go ahead make the question more complicated."
       LOL, I am still wondering who created God. You mean He created himself and then created the heavens and the earth? By the way, the earth is not even an infinitesimal part of the universe.

       replyreport
    2. 64

       StanTheLifeguardposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       @WaterPoon I implied that this answer is based on belief in the bible. If you believe in the bible, you believe that God has been here since forever (he was not created). Therefore, belief in the bible implies belief in a higher presence.

       replyreport