Well I draw the line at the point where scientific theories come into play Shakya. For Religion from the moment someone starts quoting a bible or a Koran verse they cross the line.
I know all science is based on philo but the answer being science is certainly not always true.
To me philosophy is actually the opposite. Philo answers questions science can't.
everything that involves metaphysics isn't answered by science
The egg is assumed to be a chicken' s egg. This is an obvious assumption since the question itself implies a link between the two.
If one assumes the egg to be a chicken egg then one must define what a chicken egg is:
[list][*]If: A chicken egg will hatch a chicken
An animal that was not a chicken laid the chicken egg which contained the first chicken. In this case the egg came first.
[*] If: A chicken egg is the egg that a chicken lays
A chicken (that hatched from a non-chicken egg) laid an egg (a chicken egg). In this case the chicken came first.[/list]
Originally posted by Atlantis001
This is no philosophical question, that has no answer as many like to believe. Obiviously was the egg ! There were creatures that carried eggs before the chicken, fishes, and insetcs, for example, and they came much before the chicken.
Originally posted by Fire
I know all science is based on philo but the answer being science is certainly not always true.
That's a good point, science can be wrong but religion can not and philosophy doesn't care, so;
1. Science = The egg, but we'll double check the lab results.
2. Philosophy = Both, for it is the pondering of the question that matters.
3. Religion = The chicken, and if you disagree, then you will burn in hell for eternity.
I think that I can answer this...
When we say "what came first the chicken or the egg?" the answer is quite simple. Since is obvious we're talking about a particualr chicken and a particular chicken's egg the answer is the chicken came first. Since a chicken's egg cannot be lay by itself the chicken came first. Also eggs cannot lay other eggs. We need a chicken.
Now if you excuse me I'm gonna grab the egg and make me some breakfast.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. Science = The egg, but we'll double check the lab results.
2. Philosophy = Both, for it is the pondering of the question that matters.
3. Religion = The chicken, and if you disagree, then you will burn in hell for eternity.
roflmao
I like Storm's analysis. And with the question that she changers it too, the egg must be the answer.
Originally posted by WindDancer
I think that I can answer this...When we say "what came first the chicken or the egg?" the answer is quite simple. Since is obvious we're talking about a particualr chicken and a particular chicken's egg the answer is the chicken came first. Since a chicken's egg cannot be lay by itself the chicken came first. Also eggs cannot lay other eggs. We need a chicken.
Now if you excuse me I'm gonna grab the egg and make me some breakfast.
Well said.
There was once a bird that was almost a chicken but wasn't. One day the 'chicken like bird' laid an egg that had a mutant embryo. This embryo hatched and grew up having an advantage over other 'chicken like birds'. It mated with a 'chicken like bird' and had hatching's that where almost chickens, not 'chicken like birds' or chickens, but something in between. Thousands of years pass and other mutants change the 'chicken like bird' into a chicken.
BTW there are hundreds of types of chickens, which one are we talking about?
It's a semantics argument. . . Like Storm said:
The chicken evolved from the red jungle fowl.
Jungle fowl -> Egg -> Chicken
If you define the egg as a jungle fowl egg,(because the jungle fowl layed it) the chicken came first.
If you define the egg as a chicken egg (because a chicken came out of it), the egg came first.
Originally posted by The OmegaBecause you misinterpreted the bible, and didn't read everything within it it with an open mind, but merely to gain information to use against those you disagree with.
Then why didn’t he start acting until 6000 years ago?
Originally posted by Creshosk
It's a semantics argument. . . Like Storm said:The chicken evolved from the red jungle fowl.
Jungle fowl -> Egg -> Chicken
If you define the egg as a jungle fowl egg,(because the jungle fowl layed it) the chicken came first.
If you define the egg as a chicken egg (because a chicken came out of it), the egg came first.Because you misinterpreted the bible, and didn't read everything within it it with an open mind, but merely to gain information to use against those you disagree with.
I would define the egg by the animal that layed it, not the animal that came from it.