General discussion


Chicken or the egg, which came first?

By Oz_Media ·
While some people consider such a question an impossible excercise in futility, as nobody can actually go back in time and prove which came first. I have seen some interesting supporting arguments for both theories.

Obvisouly, know matter which side you choose, the reply can only be simplistic and not factual.

Some feel it is impossible to have a chicken before the egg has gestated and created a chicken. Others feel an egg couldn't possibly be laid without the chicken to begin with.

What's interesting is that I see both views coming from religious people, not all heavy bible thumpers but just people who believe in God and God's creations.

Example, one peer here will state the egg came first for simple, quite logical reasons, that person may also believe in God or similar religious beliefs.

Another peer who has shown to be quit agnostic or border line athiest, seems to feel it would be impossible to have an egg without the chicken first, obviously acceting the theory of creation and not evolution.

I am not referring to anyone specifically that has participated in the recent Chicken vs Egg segue, but it has come up more than once here.

This question (chicken or egg, which came first) has been asked several times on TR, usually as a jest or example to support another point but often segues.

So if it's true the egg came first, then did God simply create an egg and not the chicken itself?
If so, was man/woman created from two adult human beings or a fetus?

In religion, it seems adults came before babies (correct me if I am wrong, I don't really follow any chosen religion deeply enough to know if there is some exception or explanation otherwise).

If the Chicken came first, is it undeniable proof that we are a result of creation and not evolution?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

The chicken

by jdmercha In reply to Chicken or the egg, which ...

Creation: God created the animals. Not the eggs, not the embryos, but the animals. Thus the chicken came first.

Evolution: If the very first chicken evolved from another species, and we assume that the other species laid eggs. Then the first chicken was hatched from an egg that was not a chicken egg. Thus the chicken came first.

Collapse -

Almost... but then, you know... maybe.

by daveo2000 In reply to The chicken

I'm not sure about your evolution answer. Is the type of egg named after what laid it or what it contains? If a not-quite-chicken laid the egg which resulted in a mutant that was a chicken would you call it a not-quite-chicken egg because of what laid it or is it a chicken egg because it contains a chicken?

Personally I would call it based on what is in it so for me the egg containing the chicken is a chicken egg so I have to symantically disagree with your answer for evolution and say that the egg (containing the chicken) came first.

This all, of course, assumes that the person who asked the question in the first place really meant "Which came into existance first, the chicken or an egg containing a chicken?"

What if they were really asking about a foot race? The egg clearly wouldn't stand a chance.

Collapse -


by jedtimmer In reply to The chicken

I'm going to save all these comments for a good read and laugh later. Don't have much time to think on this at moment so my answer is going to be conjecture (otherwise, it'd be correct! ahem).

The answer is conditional. But as always, for the clearest and best answer, go to Microsoft Support.
They have all the smartest people and programmers and I wouldn't doubt it if they created the egg before anything or anyone else! It used to be the Russians in this enviable position but not any longer.

But, to get serious...

If you believe in a creator, the question is either academic or just doesn't arise.

If you don't, it's obviously the chicken - because that's its job description - unless some of you folks out there can lay eggs.

Remember, you've got to be able to walk b4 u can run - and you've got to (most people anyway) click the remote before u can turn on the TV.

J. :)

Collapse -

Both -- the Egg, the Chicken

by w2ktechman In reply to Chicken or the egg, which ...

Could have been laid by a creature somewhat resembling a chicken, but note really a chicken. The egg could have had some issue and then the content was deformed/mutated, the result being the chicken.
The original parent species, over time may have died off, or mutated into something a lot different. The hatchling egg could have been a successful life form, and was able to breed better, creating more chickens.

So, the Egg came first in this theory. BUT, the animal that laid the egg actually was the first.

Take into account that according to many, all life came from a single celled organism which mutated to form larger structures. Over many millions of years, a larger being was able to create eggs, instead of just mutating cells. Now, we have eggs. So, the animal had to come before the egg, but alternately, the chicken was created from a mutation inside an egg.

Something to ponder a bit

Collapse -

Does Adam have a navel?

by neilb@uk In reply to Chicken or the egg, which ...

Sorry to hijack your thread, Oz but I find that one much more interesting. There are actually Christian sects with differing ideas on the subject. Also, does God have a navel?

The chicken/egg one is easy depending on whether you are a creationist - chickens made fully formed by God - or Evolutionist - egg from which first real chicken hatched laid by very, very nearly but just not quite chicken.

Logic on a Friday? What are you doing?

Collapse -

I wonder

by ProtiusX In reply to Does Adam have a navel?

What a not quite chicken tasted like? I like legs and thighs. MMmmmmm - Chicken.

Collapse -


by CrashOverider In reply to Does Adam have a navel?

Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he could not eat it right away???

Collapse -


by neilb@uk In reply to Burrito????

because He is omnipotents.

Hmmmm. Then that means that there's NOTHING that He can't eat.

But if He can't microwave a burrito too hot for even Him to eat then He is not omnipotent else He would be able to eat it.

Nooooo! My faith destroyed by Mexican food...

:_| :_| :_|

Collapse -

Poor Neil

by w2ktechman In reply to Yes

Welcome to being an Athiest

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to Yes

If he can eat anything, he wouldn't gain weight. Those pictures of a chubby God (very Santa Claus like) are all a sham. ANOTHER question answered! What a fantastic discussion, all these answers to life's mysteries.

Related Discussions

Related Forums