The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
its the egg... please prove me wrong.
Page:
its the egg... please prove me wrong.
Sorry, can't do that as you are correct. The egg came first.
To be honest, it depends on your defenition of egg. Is an egg the egg of what laid it, or of what is inside?
You see, the way evolution goes, something would have evolved into a chicken from a non-chicken creature. The non-chicken lay an egg from which a chicken hatched.
So, the egg that the non-chicken hatched, does that count as the first chicken egg, or is that, in fact, a non-chicken egg? If so, then the first real chicken egg was the one that the first chicken laid, so in this case, the chicken came first.
You see, the way evolution goes, something would have evolved into a chicken from a non-chicken creature. The non-chicken lay an egg from which a chicken hatched.
So, the egg that the non-chicken hatched, does that count as the first chicken egg, or is that, in fact, a non-chicken egg? If so, then the first real chicken egg was the one that the first chicken laid, so in this case, the chicken came first.
Interesting. Don't believe any of the stuff you wrote about Evolution, but what I do agree about is the chicken stance. I wrote about that a couple of days ago, right before loki said he would shut down the next chicken/egg debate...
No matter whether someone believes the Evolution theory or the Creation theory, it should still be the Chicken either way.
Meka Dragon wrote:
> To be honest, it depends on your defenition of egg. Is an egg the egg
> of what laid it, or of what is inside?
>
> You see, the way evolution goes, something would have evolved into a
> chicken from a non-chicken creature. The non-chicken lay an egg from
> which a chicken hatched.
I was discussing the EXACT same thing with someone on msn the other week. I've forgotten their SR name.
> To be honest, it depends on your defenition of egg. Is an egg the egg
> of what laid it, or of what is inside?
>
> You see, the way evolution goes, something would have evolved into a
> chicken from a non-chicken creature. The non-chicken lay an egg from
> which a chicken hatched.
I was discussing the EXACT same thing with someone on msn the other week. I've forgotten their SR name.
Why is it always the chicken and the egg?
What about the radio or the speaker . . . or some thing . . .
I couldn't think of any thing else
What about the radio or the speaker . . . or some thing . . .
I couldn't think of any thing else
Galacticdramon wrote:
> No matter whether someone believes the Evolution theory or the
> Creation theory, it should still be the Chicken either way.
Precisely. Except the Creationist stand point, makes a lot more sense.
Observe;
1) The Chicken was CREATED
2) The Chicken had eggs
Now isn't that simpler?
> No matter whether someone believes the Evolution theory or the
> Creation theory, it should still be the Chicken either way.
Precisely. Except the Creationist stand point, makes a lot more sense.
Observe;
1) The Chicken was CREATED
2) The Chicken had eggs
Now isn't that simpler?
Neither came first. God just zapped them into life 'n' stuff.
Go knock one out with your crucifix Bible face!
Page: