<
> A source of heated debate once again over in talk.origins is that
> time-honored question:
> <
> < WHICH CAME FIRST? THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?
> <
> First, let's analyze the situation using some good ol' common sense
> which is sorely lacking at t.o (along with honesty and integrity).
> <
> UNDENIABLE FACT NO. 1: The chicken *couldn't* have come first
> before the egg because, according to the ground rules, there had
> to be an egg from which to hatch the chicken.
> <
> Obviously, if there hadn't been an egg, there could *never* have been
> a chicken.
> <
> Since we all know chickens hatch from eggs.
> <
> UNDENIABLE FACT No. 2: The egg couldn't have come first -- before
> the chicken -- in this particular scenario because, according to the
> ground rules, there had not been a previous chicken to have laid the
> egg from which a chicken arrived via the conventional means of having
> been hatched from an egg.
> <
> If a chicken, however, *didn't* lay that egg -- not necessarily the
> chicken in question, but a different chicken (even though the rules
> say there was *no* other chicken around to lay an egg to make that
> chicken), and without an egg there can be no chicken, since even
> numbskulls -- the brainwashed twits over at talk.origins, for example
> -- are aware that chickens come from eggs.
> <
> Ditto for the chicken. Since there theoretically was no egg from which
> the egg hatched to eventually become a chicken -- after first becoming
> a chick. However, without an egg, logic dictates that there could not
> have been a chicken (or, for that matter, an egg, since the egg in our
> theoretical question was *still* an egg and had not yet become a
> chicken).)
> <
> But let's look at it from *another* less-complicated angle.
> <
> Say there was a chicken that *had* laid an egg that had become a
> chicken after hatching from the egg, but the evidence later clearly
> indicates that there had been no chicken around to lay any eggs from
> which the chicken had hatched to lay more eggs to hatch many more
> eggs to create many more chickens.
> <
> The problem is compounded by the undeniable fact that the chicken
> in question, which under normal circumstances would lay some eggs,
> *did not* lay the egg that is subject of debate in "Which Came First?
> The Chicken or the Egg," since the egg -- at least in theory --
> could o't have been laid by that chicken (the chicken in question),
> unless of course the chicken had been around longer than the egg.
> <
> However --and here it begins to get complicated -- in this particular
> situation, this particular chicken could not have come first --
> *before* the egg -- since chickens come from eggs, and the egg could
> not have come first, since chickens lay eggs that eventually wind up
> as chickens who, in turn, lay more eggs to create
> more chickens.
> <
> It stands to reason that the chicken could not have become a chicken
> if there was no (chicken) egg, and no egg could ever become a chicken
> if there hadn't been a chicken around to lay the egg that in turn
> would result in a chicken, whether or not this particular chicken --
> which does not necessarily have to lay an egg -- would eventually lay
> more eggs to hatch more chickens.
> <
> The only obvious answer -- other than creation or evolution or a BIG
> GUY IN THE SKY -- is that the chicken must've been carrying the egg
> when it crossed the road.
> <
> Obviously, and you can ask the twits over at sci.phytsics.relativity
> or the chicken farmers at alt.farmer-in-the-dell, the only reasonable
> and sensible answer to the question "Who Came First?
> The Chicken or the Egg" is that it's a dead heat.
> <
> Both obviously arrived at the same time, either the chicken carrying
> the egg or the egg containing the chicken or vice-versa, or
> versa-visa.
> <
> Tommorow we'll be answering that time-honored question: "Why Did the
> Chicken Cross the Road?"
> <
> Ed Conrad
> Professor of Literature and English Usage
> Penn State University
>
>> >
I am sure you know what you mean!
What is all that crap after your message.
This is surely one of those messages that do the rounds.
>
