Page 1 of 2
Chicken or Egg?
Posted: 19 Nov 2005, 23:39
by Sheekel
Post your side to this argument...perhaps explain it:
Which came first, chicken or egg?
Posted: 20 Nov 2005, 00:20
by aGorm
Clearly aGorm came first... then the egg (for breakfast) and then the chicken (for tea)...
I thought everyone knew that?
aGorm
Posted: 20 Nov 2005, 00:41
by Kuroneko
aGorm wrote:Clearly aGorm came first... then the egg (for breakfast) and then the chicken (for tea)...
I thought everyone knew that?
aGorm
*Hits forhead*
Totally forgot... sorry =\
Posted: 20 Nov 2005, 01:11
by [K.B.] Napalm Cobra
If you accept evolution, and you're a moron if you don't, then the egg must have come first.
The chicken like creature would have laid an egg and the embryo inside that egg would have mutated just enough to be classified as a chicken rather than what come before the chicken.
Posted: 20 Nov 2005, 01:23
by Weaver
Egg laying is a very old system, the ancestors of chickens were not recognisable as chickens. Those creatures probably did lay eggs, so the eggs where first... or were they?
If we loosen our definition of chicken to the point where we can include all its ancestors, our argument travels back to the point where eggs became part of the reproductive process. Now there clearly must have been creatures around before they used eggs and if we can call them ancestors of chickens then the chickens win.
Posted: 20 Nov 2005, 02:08
by Archangel of Death
I had to vote number 4, not because I hate you, but because any attempt to argue an event that far back in the past will spark a religioscientific debate (don't try your dictionary on that one).
Posted: 20 Nov 2005, 05:21
by SwiftSpear
Little known fact: The first chickens reproduced by splitting into new chickens.
Posted: 20 Nov 2005, 08:33
by Maelstrom
Again, that depends on what you classify a chicken as. If you want to be as leniant as classifing single celled organisms as chickes, purley because chickens evolved from said organisms, then yes, chickens split in half to reproduce. But the chicken still came came first in that scenario. But if we are being as leniant as to classify a single celled organism as a chicken, what is an egg clacified as?
Posted: 20 Nov 2005, 08:35
by SwiftSpear
Maelstrom wrote:Again, that depends on what you classify a chicken as. If you want to be as leniant as classifing single celled organisms as chickes, purley because chickens evolved from said organisms, then yes, chickens split in half to reproduce. But the chicken still came came first in that scenario. But if we are being as leniant as to classify a single celled organism as a chicken, what is an egg clacified as?
You drove the logic boat off the waterfall! I WANT MY JOKE BACK!
Posted: 20 Nov 2005, 14:07
by Kixxe
The bacteria evoled into later forms, and suddenly one of these forms laid an egg. Now, the qwestion is, was the thing that laid an egg a bird? It proably would be a reptile. So the qwestion is not what came first, it's "Is a reptile a Chiken?"
Posted: 20 Nov 2005, 17:44
by AF
Eggs where being layed before birds existed, and lifeforms walked, ran or flew, back when all mobile life was under the sea. I'm talking about things like fish. Now I dont think that can be classed as a chicken.
To many people think that when we say egg we mean a chicken egg, or the egg that laid the first chicken.
So the egg came first.
Posted: 21 Nov 2005, 00:49
by Lindir The Green
It really depends on what you classify as a chicken and what you classify as an egg.
If you classify a chicken as a member of the species [insert latin name for chicken here] and an egg as the first cell of any organism, then the egg must have come first because there were organisms before members of the chicken species.
If you classify an egg as an ellipsoid object that commonly comes out of a female chicken, then the chicken must have come first to produce that egg.
If you classify an egg as the ellipsoid object that given the right curcumstances will become a chicken, then the egg must have come first to produce the first chicken. But you could argue that the egg was the same as the first chicken, and therefore they both came at the same time.

Posted: 21 Nov 2005, 09:49
by Min3mat
heh.
Posted: 21 Nov 2005, 13:46
by SwiftSpear
I propose that the banevolent spaggetti monster willed chickens into existance, and at the same time willed eggs into existance, and thus niether the chicken or the egg came first, they spontaniously occurred in parallel.
Posted: 21 Nov 2005, 14:27
by Targ Collective
Personally, as a Darwinian thinker, I'd argue Egg.
Keep going, everyone. This is hilarious.
Posted: 21 Nov 2005, 15:09
by aGorm
Ofcourse your all missing the obvious...
It doesn't matter which came first, what actully counts is what came last. Did the chicken lose the race? Afterall, he had to cross the road aswell for no apparent reason. However the egg is not a total spherical shape so it would be liable to go of course when rolling... Then again the chicken can only run so fast and I expect a rollling egg will have a much greater terminal vellocity, so if its a down hill race its egg all the way. If up hill, well god knows what the egg does?
Difficult...
aGorm
Posted: 21 Nov 2005, 16:42
by FizWizz
Personally, as a Darwinian thinker, I'd argue that this is a grossly over-simplified question, but I agree with Targ: keep the funniness going!
Posted: 21 Nov 2005, 17:25
by Weaver
Eggs are a parasitic alien species they just use chickens as hosts to reproduce themselves.
Posted: 21 Nov 2005, 20:09
by AF
muhahahaha
Really, what your talking about when you say what do you define as an egg is, that you're talking about a 'chicken egg', but everyone else is talking about eggs in general.
Cookies with bits of egg in them arent that nice xP
Posted: 21 Nov 2005, 21:52
by aGorm
Or maybe what came first? The lettace and suggur sandwitch or the cheese and onion tosty?
aGorm