Which came first, the Chicken or the egg?
Discuss.
In my opinion, it was the egg. PROVE ME WRONG.
Edit: By the way, I mean this literally and not as a metaphor for whether birth or animals came first, - I'm actually talking about Chickens themselves. Just so you know. Yeah.
In my opinion, it was the egg. PROVE ME WRONG.
Edit: By the way, I mean this literally and not as a metaphor for whether birth or animals came first, - I'm actually talking about Chickens themselves. Just so you know. Yeah.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
If you mean a chicken egg, as in, an egg laid by a chicken, the of course the chicken came first.
If, however, you mean an egg from which a chicken was born, then obviously the egg came first, as that could have been laid by one of the last of the earliest chicken ancestors.
But
what does the flying spaghetti monster count as?
Creationism, obviously. That's a foolish question.
In What's New Belzeebub?
Fetcher: Right. We'll need a chicken, then.
Nick: No... no, we'll need an egg. You have the egg first, that's where you get the chicken from.
Fetcher: No, that's cobblers. If you don't have a chicken, where are you going to get the egg?
Nick: From the chicken that comes from the egg.
Fetcher: Yeah, but you have to have an egg to have a chicken.
Nick: Yeah, but you've got to get the chicken first to get the egg, and then you get the egg... to get the chicken out of...
Fetcher: Hang on, let's go over this again.
Wait, that makes this make even less sense.
Obviously the key to this secret lies in
Ugh, pretty much exactly what I was going to say.
Also, if you're not even talking about chicken eggs, then the egg came much, much earlier since other animals laid eggs before there were ever birds. (What would have been the first, though? A fish? Something older?).
I'm not sure that necessarily makes a difference. Although it also depends on the creation story we're talking about and how the faith associated with said story views it (literal, non-literal, etc.), not to mention how individual practitioners might interpret these stories on their own.
But digging any deeper might well be unwise, so instead I'll say: ... Everyone forgets the damn rooster in all of this. Everyone.
Because it would be like saying that because I believe a bottle of ketchup was the first president of the United States after the revolution to liberate the 50 colonies from Space France, it's a possibility. That's stupid.
It's because the rooster doesn't matter or change anything.
But would said dubious detective duo have existed before they were born as a result of their time travelling shenanigans? If not then they you'd have to assume that they aren't actually going back in time, but rather to a different time in a parallel universe.
Why? Just... why?
That wouldn't work, because their trips though time change things.
@Whoever: With (several) creationist views (that I don't agree with nor mean to denigrate), the animals are created first then have children and thus lay eggs/procreate.
Edit: Uh, I mean my bad. I'm watching a movie and I can't multi-taskzombievery well.
There are only two conceivable ways in which space-time can function:
1) There is one dimension in which we exist, and any paradoxical circumstance created by your time-traveling shenanigans that, given time, would not be corrected, would cause said paradox to occur the instant you created it.
2) There are multiple dimensions of time, one for every possible outcome of choice, and time-traveling would have no effect on your native dimension, but rather create a new dimension for you to exist in no matter your choices.
This is to say that, for example, the Back to the Future movies don't make sense because you can't create paradoxes in a universe where multiple timelines exist, and the movies incorporate both at the same time.
...on another note, though, if a time-traveler had the ability to travel to before the creation of the universe (beyond whose boundaries time and space do not exist,) then said time-traveler, being outside of space and time, would have neither width, height nor depth, nor any linear concept of past, present or future.
To quote PariahKing:
I was replying to him with the same consideration in mind. I didn't really help in making this clear myself, though.
That was just me being facetious -- and looking back, not very successfully so.
I just deducted
I thought it was hilarious.
And yet not quite classy enough to not mention that you weren't going to mention it!
No you're not!
Also I expect an IM from you now
Well then, I think the answer is that a circle has no beginning.
Yeah, but chickens do. They hatch!:p
Eggs evolved a really, really long time ago, much longer ago than chickens, so I guess the egg came first.
In Sam & Max, the chicken came first, and then was replaced with an egg. Doesn't matter if time travel was involved or not, he was still there first.
Well... according to Featherly, he was placed here by the Mariachis, so, pretty much there's something here before him. I hope it wasn't an egg.
Stable time loops are so common in video games that I don't even think twice about them anymore.
When I draw one it does...but the end and beginning never meet up perfectly, and then I throw it in the bin along with the rest of my failed shapes, then I take a bottle of gin to bed and just cry and cry...
and then I eat some Cheerios