Creshock.........I figured there were many species of bird between the chicken and it's reptile ancestors......I was just too lazy to research to find the exact species........so I just took it all the way back to birds evolving from reptiles because as you stated, it's a moot point......both come from eggs.
Tired Hiker also never stated that the question was specifically about chickens and eggs. Without Tired Hiker elaborating on the question, it is left up to interpretation. You are the one with the arrogant posts asking if people are "special" because they interpret the question differently. Contrary to your popular belief, you are not all knowing and your statements have no more value than anybody else's.
Tired Hiker did specificly say chicken and egg. Are you high? Those are two specific things. Hell....he didn't even say birds....he was really specific by stating exactly which species of bird he was enquiring about. It was a simple question with a simple answer. You for some reason or another wanted to put deep philosophical meaning into the question. If I ask you which came first, Chevy or Ford......you can interpret that anyway you wish. It doesn't change the fact that I asked a specific question about two specific things.....which has one correct answer...just as Tired Hiker did.
I don't believe it's a popular belief that I am all knowing, it's actually probably in the minority. It just so happens that I do know the answer to this specific question. You do not need to "know all" to answer a simple biology question. I do beg to differ on your last statement. If a multiple choice question is asked.......I give the correct answer while someone else gives the wrong answer......then my statement does infact have more "value than anybody elses". See my Chevy/Ford analogy. If you said Chevy, you are clearly wrong and my correct statement of Ford has more value.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
Creshock.........I figured there were many species of bird between the chicken and it's reptile ancestors......I was just too lazy to research to find the exact species........so I just took it all the way back to birds evolving from reptiles because as you stated, it's a moot point......both come from eggs.Tired Hiker did specificly say chicken and egg. Are you high? Those are two specific things. Hell....he didn't even say birds....he was really specific by stating exactly which species of bird he was enquiring about. It was a simple question with a simple answer. You for some reason or another wanted to put deep philosophical meaning into the question. If I ask you which came first, Chevy or Ford......you can interpret that anyway you wish. It doesn't change the fact that I asked a specific question about two specific things.....which has one correct answer...just as Tired Hiker did.
I don't believe it's a popular belief that I am all knowing, it's actually probably in the minority. It just so happens that I do know the answer to this specific question. You do not need to "know all" to answer a simple biology question. I do beg to differ on your last statement. If a multiple choice question is asked.......I give the correct answer while someone else gives the wrong answer......then my statement does infact have more "value than anybody elses". See my Chevy/Ford analogy. If you said Chevy, you are clearly wrong and my correct statement of Ford has more value.
Hmmm... so it's one correct answer to a question that has been debated for years? Just because you see the question a certain way, it does not make you right. "The" egg instead of "an" egg clearly can assume that the question is about a chicken's egg. Well now, that depends if you define a chicken's egg as an egg producing a chicken or an egg laid by a chicken. There is more than one way to interpret a question. And nowhere did Tired Hiker give specific qualifiers, he just repeated an older question. As you keep ignoring, the older question is not literally about chickens and eggs. The question is not about biology. Therefore it cannot just be answered by a "simple biology" answer. Your Ford and Chevy analogy does not apply, because Neither Ford nor Chevy produce the other in the same relationship as what we are talking about. You are the only person in this thread to tell others that they are wrong. And in a philosophy thread nonetheless. It reeks of being a pompous ass.
1. Storm, 'tis not childish banter. Surely you expect some debate in a philosophy forum? Childish banter would be me calling him a poo-poo head.
2. good call Creshosk. glad you put the time in on it....
3. Here's a post Oswald I should have posted the other day.......but I was having too much fun with you.
As you keep ignoring,the older question is not literally about chickens and eggs. The question is not about biology. Therefore it cannot just be answered by a "simple biology" answer. Your Ford and Chevy analogy does not apply, because Neither Ford nor Chevy produce the other in the same relationship as what we are talking about. You are the only person in this thread to tell others that they are wrong. And in a philosophy thread nonetheless. It reeks of being a pompous ass.
As you stated, the question is quite old. The question (as all philosophical questions) is not intended to be answered. Philosophical questions are not designed to be answerable......they are merely intended to encourage thought on the subject. This makes the ideal philosophical question one that can never be answered.
Here's where our differences lie. At the time this question was first proposed, it was a great philosophical question. It was believed by all that chicken's must hatch from an egg......but eggs that produce chickens must be laid by a chicken. It was percieved as a never ending life cycle with seemingly no beginning......but we all know everything has to begin somewhere........hence the great question. Unfortunately for philosophy, as our knowledge as a civilization grows, some questions get answered and become moot to philosophy. A question that is now answerable holds nothing for philosophical thought. Darwin came along and low and behold.......we now understand the evolution of species. We now understand there is no such thing as a seemingly endless life cycle with no beginning...........the beginnings of all life cycles are offshoots from others. You keep saying that the question is not literally about chickens and eggs but it was. It was literally about chickens and eggs.......as there seemed to be no beginning to the life cycle, making it a great question to ponder. Unfortunately, science has increased our knowledge in this area (blame Darwin, not me) and the question is answerable.......and it is a simple biology answer. The question had a good run.....centuries.......but alas we finally answered it, time to move on to a new question to wrap your head around. I took 2 courses in philosophy in college and I kid you not.........we covered this very question the second week of the first course.......about how and why philosophy changes, the answer ofcourse is knowledge gained.
pompous ass?
- points to title -
me?
Agreed. This is a answerable question, people just like to think that its unanswerable by tradition. They like the mystery it brings being unanswerable. This question is made to make the person think about the cause and effect problem. If A happened first, but A needs B to happen. Which one happened first ? Anyway there is better ways to formulate a question like this, not What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Agreed. This is a answerable question, people just like to think that its unanswerable by tradition. They like the mystery it brings being unanswerable. This question is made to make the person think about the cause and effect problem. If A happened first, but A needs B to happen. Which one happened first ? Anyway there is better ways to formulate a question like this, not What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Nobody said it was unanswerable. I am saying that there are different ways to interpret the question. The lack of qualifiers on the question allows it to be interpreted differently. I agree with Evil's explanation based on his point of view, but I look at the question differently. And if I interpret the egg to be specifically about a chicken's egg, and I believe that that the egg is not a chicken's egg unless it is laid by a chicken, I say the chicken came first. My explanation is not wrong. Neither is Evil's. It's just two different interpretations. I argue with his telling others that they are wrong, not his answer.
And if I interpret the egg to be specifically about a chicken's egg, and I believe that that the egg is not a chicken's egg unless it is laid by a chicken, I say the chicken came first. My explanation is not wrong. Neither is Evil's. It's just two different interpretations.
if you interpret that the egg must be laid by a chicken, how was this ever a philosophical question? You already know that a chicken must exist first because by your definition, it must lay the egg. You already knew that Chickens were decendants of other species. So how does this qualify as philosophy to you? If you truly believe that long, long ago when this quesiton was first posed that it meant "egg that was laid by a chicken, absolute"........where does philosophy come in to play? the very question says that the chicken laid the egg.......therefore the answer is in the question. Not very philosphical.........and absolutely encourages no thought at all on the subject with your new interpretation. The answer is given in the question.
In order for it to be a philisophical question then the Egg and the chicken would have to be symbols, and nothing more.
Interpreting the being either a literal chicken or a literal egg then as ED points out it's no longer a philisophical question. But a scientific/semantic argument.
If you suppose it to be a chicken's egg then it is Storm's semantic observation.
If you leave it open as to what the egg is then as ED points out that narrows it down to a single answer: The Egg.
Tired Hiker was really tired the day he made this thread....
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
It's not made to be answered, it's there for like EvilDead said, to encourages thinking. But if it is, why are you ending the train of thought, EvilDead? Why are you crashing the plane of contemplation?