I have the answer: What came first, chicken or egg?

reserved

Successfully updated karma reason!

Wellll...

Successfully updated karma reason!

For the creationist: God created chickens in Genesis, not eggs, chickens. He created fully formed men, animals, fish, plants, etc, all adult. Thus the chicken came first. Could it have been an inaccuracy and god actually created eggs instead? well, no... because chicken eggs die unless they are incubated by the body heat of an adult chicken. Thus creating merely eggs would have resulted in a bunch of dead eggs, not chickens. There might be some religions in which both were created simultaneously, but you cannot have just eggs.

I wouldn't go that far as chicken farms hatch eggs without chickens so...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting CharlesCS,

reply 3

I wouldn't go that far as chicken farms hatch eggs without chickens so...

by placing them in an incubator, a special "oven" set to the body temperature of a living adult chicken. I know about those, I have personally used some.

you could say "and god created chicken eggs, then placed them in an incubator, then when they hatched took them out of the incubator, then fed them, and kept them warm and dry, and kept predators away, and kept them save as they grew up in adult chickens"... but it gets rather silly...

Successfully updated karma reason!

you could say "and god created chicken eggs, then placed them in an incubator, then when they hatched took them out of the incubator, then fed them, and kept them warm and dry, and kept predators away, and kept them save as they grew up in adult chickens"... but it gets rather silly...

Then again you could say God created chicken eggs and placed them in a cave near a volcano which provided the necessary heat needed for the eggs to hatch and being inside the cave provided shelter against the weather and predators and the cave may have also provided food such as insects that they could have consumed. This seems more realistic, don't you think?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Then again you could say God created chicken eggs and placed them in a cave near a volcano

You have been watching too much Ice Age.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Really, there's only one answer to this question. The other is a fake. In everything there's always the genuine article and many counterfeits ready to come up with some explanation to knock off the real thing.

why not just open up HIS word and find out the answer to this question?

This question came up in the H.S. Sunday School class recently. After I told them it was a no braiiner..of course the chicken came first because God created everything with maturity and set it in motion to go from there, the response from one young man was "well now I know how to answer that question if it comes up again." He seemed satisfied with the logic..and he wasn't even a Christian from what I could ascertain.

Besides even if you had the single egg coming first...how does the second egg make into a chicken? And the third?

good question but I believe the Christian POV answers it best as the Christians have the best answers especially when it comes to origins!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ,

reply 7

Really, there's only one answer to this question. The other is a fake.

true, but I figured I'd humor those who believe in the fantasies of creationism and God and included the religious view too.

Besides even if you had the single egg coming first...how does the second egg make into a chicken? And the third?

By breeding with the protochickens, with a percentage of the offsprings being "chickens" and a percentage not.

The singular mutation where you arbitrarily draw the line and say "this is a chicken, and this is not" will not be significant enough to prevent reproduction between the two, yet.

For example, about 2 million years ago a single mutation ruined a gene that is used in the formation of human jaw muscles. With that gene being defective, the protein it coded for is not produced, without that protein human jaw muscles are formed to be 1/3 the mass (and 1/39th the strength), being 1/3 the mass, the anchoring point on the skull becomes smaller, resulting in more space inside the skull, resulting in a 50% brain size increase. while the head shape is different and intelligence is very different, enough that you would say "This is a modern human, that is a precursor", all that changed was one single nucleotide, and it changed in a gene that deals solely with jaw muscles, meaning that there is absolutely nothing preventing cross breeding between the two. Children of 1 parent with that mutation and one without have a 50-50 % chance to inherit it. Note that the gene is not gone, its just rendered useless, the majority of your genes are just mixed up junk. For example, we have a defective vitamin C production gene (While dogs and many other animals can produce their own, thus they never get scurvy).

Chickens on the other hand, have disabled genes for teeth and scales.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You have been watching too much Ice Age.

Actually....

Successfully updated karma reason!

This question came up in the H.S. Sunday School class recently. After I told them it was a no braiiner..of course the chicken came first because God created everything with maturity and set it in motion to go from there, the response from one young man was "well now I know how to answer that question if it comes up again." He seemed satisfied with the logic..and he wasn't even a Christian from what I could ascertain.

I can live with that logic. To be honest I don't see how this question affects my life enough to have to find the true definitive answer to it. Regardless which one came first I eat the egg first for breakfast and the chicken second for lunch or dinner.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

true, but I figured I'd humor those who believe in the fantasies of creationism and God and included the religious view too.

haha...you'll see soon enough. Truth always prevails. Always. Remember that old TV show "To Tell The Truth?" Will the real (truth) please stand up?

I have nothing to lose. IF there's no God then I've lived a good life doing good things to please this non-existent God and I'll take my long nap into eternity with everyone else.

BUT if there is a God, which I absoultely know in my spirit and flesh exists, then I've gained everything including an eternal life living with the God who has revealed himself to me while on earth. So I will continue to do what I believe I was created to do in the first place.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have nothing to lose. IF there's no God then I've lived a good life doing good things to please this non-existent God and I'll take my long nap into eternity with everyone else.

faith, true faith, isn't something you do just so that you have nothing to lose. It isn't betting on the safer team. I could just pay lip service to it because that would be the safest, if it is not real, well no harm there, I will just cease to exist on death. If it does I go to heaven, wee, I beat the system.

But such cold calculations isn't the trapping of faith. If there is a god, and he isn't a total jerk, he will understand my point of view and forgive it anyways.

Religious people often say "wouldn't it easier to simply believe, wouldn't you feel better knowing there is an after life, wouldn't it be less scary to have less unknowns?" and the answer is, of course it would. But just because something is more convenient or desirable doesn't make it true. I honestly wish there was an afterlife and a loving god, to meet all my departed loved ones in heaven once I pass away.

I wish for it the same way I sometimes wish I could go to a wizardry school, own a pet flying unicorn, or use the force like a jedi. That is, I recognize it to be idle fantasy and pay no attention to it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

I honestly wish there was an afterlife and a loving god, to meet all my departed loved ones in heaven once I pass away.

It's not about wishing. It's about praying. If it is as you say, you'd do everything in your power to check out the claims and the first step is praying about it.

I wish for it the same way I sometimes wish I could go to a wizardry school, own a pet flying unicorn, or use the force like a jedi. That is, I recognize it to be idle fantasy and pay no attention to it.

this seems to be a direct contradiction of what you just said about "honestly wishing there was an afterlife." This is also the reason, you're not "getting it." Your heart is closed to the truth. How the heck do you suppose it can get in under such hardened conditions? Nothing can grow in cement you know.

But just because something is more convenient or desirable doesn't make it true.

I agree. The only faith that counts anyway is a true genuine faith. God will see right thru the make believers. The Pharisees were a good example of that. People thought they were good and righteous as they appeared on the outside, but instead Christ called them white washed tombs filled with dead man's bones.

But such cold calculations isn't the trapping of faith. If there is a god, and he isn't a total jerk, he will understand my point of view and forgive it anyways.

God will not be mocked.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's not about wishing. It's about praying. If it is as you say, you'd do everything in your power to check out the claims and the first step is praying about it.

I said I wish it was real, not I wish I believed in. there is a huge difference.

this seems to be a direct contradiction of what you just said about "honestly wishing there was an afterlife."

Since you highlighted the "I wish I could go to a wizardring school" I am assuming you mean that "honestly wishing there was an afterlife and a loving god" somehow directly contradicts "I wish magic was real and I could learn it"... It in no way shape or form contradicts. Now, had I said "I wish to be a devout christian" that might have contradicted. But I never wished to be a christian, merely for eternal souls to be real.

God will not be mocked.

You think I was mocking god? Ha, I actually show enough respect to assume the depiction of him as a petulant child throwing petty tantrums is insulting of the being should he be real.

Or is it that you assume the only possible religion in the world to be Christianity and thus "and he isn't a total jerk part" cannot possible refer to one of the more bloodthirsty human sacrifice kind of gods?

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

I said I wish it was real, not I wish I believed in. there is a huge difference.

I think it's only semantics here. Either that, or I'm just not getting it. If you wish it were real and it was, wouldn't you believe it then? Or are you just content in always being contrary no matter the case?

Or is it that you assume the only possible religion in the world to be Christianity and thus "and he isn't a total jerk part" cannot possible refer to one of the more bloodthirsty human sacrifice kind of gods?

there's only one God. Has nothing to do with religion per se. But since Christianity is the following of Christ and since Christ is God yes, Christianity is the only religion that actually is following the God of creation. The rest are imposters trying to knock of the genuine article. There are many "gods" out there but only one true GOD. So if you're referring to a "jerk" the only person that could be would be the arch enemy of God which would be Satan because there are no such thing as pagan gods that respond to mankind.

I actually show enough respect to assume the depiction of him as a petulant child throwing petty tantrums is insulting of the being should he be real.

that's actually what is called blasphemy which is attributing something to God that isn't true. Did you know that all sin is forgiven but blasphemy? Basically blasphemy is rooted in unbelief. So all sin, but unbelief, is forgiven.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ,

reply 11

I have nothing to lose. IF there's no God then I've lived a good life doing good things to please this non-existent God and I'll take my long nap into eternity with everyone else.

BUT if there is a God, which I absoultely know in my spirit and flesh exists, then I've gained everything including an eternal life living with the God who has revealed himself to me while on earth. So I will continue to do what I believe I was created to do in the first place.

Here's an excellent YouTube video describing why Pascal's gambit is quite wrong: Betting on Infinity. (You might want to ignore the first bit about contradicting claims. The actual wager is also discussed.)

Regarding the chicken & egg problem. Yes, assuming the egg came first seems to be in accordance with evolution (the observable biological fact, not just the theory).

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

it's quite simple really... without a chicken there would be no egg.

So simple even a child can get it. Like I said the evolutionists have nothing on the creationists when it comes to origins.

Successfully updated karma reason!

that's actually what is called blasphemy which is attributing something to God that isn't true. Did you know that all sin is forgiven but blasphemy? Basically blasphemy is rooted in unbelief. So all sin, but unbelief, is forgiven.

Isn't taking god's name in vain blasphemy?

Isn't believing the wrong denomination blasphemy?

If it can not be forgiven ever, no matter how repentant you are, then every Christian is going to hell.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Isn't taking god's name in vain blasphemy?

Isn't believing the wrong denomination blasphemy?

sort of to the first, no to the second. "Wherefore I say to you all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men but the blasphemy AGAINST the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven to men." Matt 12:31.

Blasphemy is a form of sin representing the most extreme sin. Blasphemy is defiant irreverence, the uniquely terrible sin of intentionally and openly speaking evil against a Holy God or mocking him. Paul confessed that he was a former blasphemer, persecutor and violent aggressor against God but was neverthless shown mercy because he acted ignorantly in unbelief. God's grace is bigger than our sin. Peter even blasphemed Christ with curses and was forgiven.

So even a believer can blaspheme since any thought or word that defames God's name constitutes blasphemy. But to acknowledge that sin and go to the one who forgives is the key.

To question God's goodness, wisdom, fairness, truthfulness, love or faithfulness is also a form of blasphemy but all forgiveable.

There is one exception. Blasphemy against the spirit shall NOT be forgiven. It's more serious. It reflects determined unbelief, the refusal after having seen all the evidence necessary to complete understanding even to consider believing in Christ. It reflects determined rejection of Jesus as the Messiah against every evidence and argument. It's knowingly rejecting Him and condemning Him. In the scripture context above it was those who spoke against the Holy Spirit who saw His divine power working in and through Christ but willfully refused to accept the implications of that revelation and in some cases attributed that power to Satan. They saw things like never before but refused to believe. In the face of every possible evidence of His messiahship they said no. God could do nothing more for them and they would therefore remain eternally unforgiven. That's why I said the only unforgiveable sin is unbelief.

Has nothing to do with denomination. There are true genuine Christians scattered about in many diff denominations. It's about relationship not religion.

[quote]If it can not be forgiven ever, no matter how repentant you are, then every Christian is going to hell.[/quote

Every Christian WAS going to hell before they were saved from it. That's what the whole idea of "saved" or "Savior" comes from. Saved from what? Eternal hell where we all deserve to go. The only difference between a Saint and a Sinner is a Savior. That's what it means to say "there go I but by the grace of God."

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ,

reply 17

it's quite simple really... without a chicken there would be no egg.

Do you actually understand how evolution works?

Quoting Wikipedia - Chicken or the egg,

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.^[8] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

So basically a red junglefowl and a grey junglefowl got busy and laid a chicken egg.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Do you actually understand how evolution works?

do you?

So basically a red junglefowl and a grey junglefowl got busy and laid a chicken egg.

because wikipedia said so you believe this? Notice the "was believed" part.

so you have to ask yourself..where did the junglefowl come from? Which came first? The junglefowl or the egg the junglefowl hatched from?

Successfully updated karma reason!

My apologies for the late reply, I don't really visit these forums often and have yet to figure out if it features some kind of reply/quote notification system. Anyway ...

Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ,

reply 21

Do you actually understand how evolution works?

do you?

So basically a red junglefowl and a grey junglefowl got busy and laid a chicken egg.

because wikipedia said so you believe this? Notice the "was believed" part.

so you have to ask yourself..where did the junglefowl come from? Which came first? The junglefowl or the egg the junglefowl hatched from?

Yes I do understand evolution. Not on a professional level, but I followed biology in secondary school. (Nowadays I just get thought Evolutionary Computation.)

The "was believed" part was in reference to the theory that the chicken was solely descendant from the red junglefowl. And the belief is past tense because it was replaced by the genetic evidence that shown it was actually descendant from both the red & the grey junglefowl.

The reason i believe Wikipedia is because it documents it sources very well. In this case they reference a peer reviewed scientific paper. (Identification of the Yellow Skin Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken) So this isn't just believing, this is as close to knowing as you can get without doing the research yourself. All references in a Wikipedia article are listed at the bottom, numbers in superscript surrounded by square brackets mark a reference in the actual text.

Regarding the descendents of the junglefowls. Some clicks though wikipedia teaches me that the oldest know to man fowl lived (now extinct) in the time of the dinosaurs (paper). Going further back than that will take you through a good part of evolutionary history of life in inverse chronological order. After that we get abiogenesis (a field of science that hasn't found a conclusive answer yet). So ultimately I don't know where chickens come from, but what I do know is that the egg was there first.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So basically a red junglefowl and a grey junglefowl got busy and laid a chicken egg.

Hybridization is tangential to evolution and not related to the discussion at hand.

Successfully updated karma reason!