Which came first/empty or full

[Delirious]

Since I don't want ANOTHER evolution/creation thread to be an eyesore, and that doing one just for the glass won't suffice...I want a 'dual' thread for more interesting reading

Which came first? The chicken, or the egg? (Explain why your choice came first)

And is the glass half empty or half full? (Explain why again, and don't limit it to optimistic/pessimistic reasons)

We were having fun with this at work, so I wanna have fun here with it

PLEASE only check 1 or 2 check boxes...

 

[McLaren]

Personally, I think its half empty because when you fill a drink to the top and drink it all. The half is now empty.

Although, I think's different for a another situation.
When you pour a glass only half way because you don't want a full glass, its half full.

 

[Max_DC]

The egg came first because eggs exited before birds ( chicken ) lived on earth...
The half emty / full question is only about optimistic / pessimistic views in my opinion...

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Which came first?

Bad Thread Ideas...or

Users with bad Ideas for Threads

 

[JParker]

Regardless of which belief background you come from the chicken came first. It either evolved from another species and then began the egg cycle. Or, it was created.

With the Glass: Both. It depends on what the person put in it.

 

[Slick Rick]

Or depends if your drinking from it or filling it up!
The chicken was first, it was a mutant from whatever gave birth to it.

Cool thread Android 17. I hope it does well!

 

[Max_DC]

Regardless of which belief background you come from the chicken came first. It either evolved from another species and then began the egg cycle. Or, it was created.

The chicken was first, it was a mutant from whatever gave birth to it.

Cool thread Android 17. I hope it does well!

No the egg came first... since eggs existed before birds existed ( early dinsosaurs for example )... So the egg came first... even if you say "chickenegg" the egg came first, because the mutant ("the first chicken" if you want) has to be born first...
genetic mutation > mutation begins to grow in the egg > "birth" > chicken

 

[Slick Rick]

But what laid the egg then?
The mutilated chicken was born which laid the egg.

 

[Touring Mars]

Or it was created..

here we go again...

Maybe chickens evolved to lay eggs (don't think so), or more likely a species has evolved that has always laid eggs, and gradually became chickens... I'd go for the later i.e. eggs first, chickens second (and also what Max_DC is saying)

My old flatmate Emily could never eat chicken and egg in the same meal... how weird is that? It's not like they knew each other or anything...

My glass is always half-full when it's my round, and always half-empty when it's yours

 

[Famine]

But what laid the egg then?
The mutilated chicken was born which laid the egg.

Egg before chicken. Chicken before Chicken's Egg.

Oviparous species are abundant. The ancestors on the chicken lineage were likely oviparous. Thus chicken ancestor laid an egg which gave rise to proto-chicken, which laid an egg which gave rise to the chicken. Only over several thousand generations and several tens of thousands of years.

 

[Slick Rick]

here we go again...

My old flatmate Emily could never eat chicken and egg in the same meal... how weird is that? It's not like they knew each other or anything...

What, was she alergic or something?

 

[JParker]

Egg before chicken. Chicken before Chicken's Egg.

Oviparous species are abundant. The ancestors on the chicken lineage were likely oviparous. Thus chicken ancestor laid an egg which gave rise to proto-chicken, which laid an egg which gave rise to the chicken. Only over several thousand generations and several tens of thousands of years.

I was waiting for you. So, chicken then chicken egg, right? It's a matter of semantics.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Egg before chicken. Chicken before Chicken's Egg.

Oviparous species are abundant. The ancestors on the chicken lineage were likely oviparous. Thus chicken ancestor laid an egg which gave rise to proto-chicken, which laid an egg which gave rise to the chicken. Only over several thousand generations and several tens of thousands of years.

The Chicken egg question is meant to be a circular argument, but there was undoubtedly eggs before Chickens, as Famine is pointing out by specifying Chickens egg.
Crocodiles lay eggs and are a much older species So I am going with egg...
The first chicken did not hatch from a chickens egg...but it would have laid the first chickens egg...so then the answer would be chicken...oops.

btw I'm guessing that Oviparous is something to do with egg laying species, but I don't know if that means only calcium coated eggs or leather like eggs as well, or even soft jelly like fish eggs.

 

[Famine]

Oviparous = Lays eggs (any variety). Viviparous = Gives birth to live young.

Literally they mean "eggs come out" and "live stuff comes out".

 

[Joey D]

Actually many people think bird evolved from dinosaurs so I would say that eggs came first because I think that many of the birds came from dinos. Nothing created them, things evolved.

Also the glass has about half left, if you say its half full you sound stupid or something.

 

[Burnout]

Chicken came first.

I don't really feel like explaining myself (it would probably begin a debate), but it really depends on the writer's personal beliefs. A creationist (being the primary believers in such an opinion, however, shared amongst many other beliefs) would say Chicken, evolutionist (again, shared with many other beliefs) would say Egg.

Glass is half empty if it was filled up completely then in some way reduced to(or poured for that matter) to the state of being half-empty(as in, half was poured out, you can only go down when you're all the way up). If you only filled it up halfway then it is half-full.

 

[Touring Mars]

What, was she alergic or something?

No, it was more like a 'mother and child on the same plate' idea that freaked her out...

 

[Emohawk]

..., but it really depends on the writer's personal beliefs. A creationist ... would say Chicken, evolutionist ... would say Egg.

Well, to a creationist, it could go either way. Did God create the egg first, which then gave rise to the first chicken, or did God create the chicken first, which then laid the first egg?
So the evolutionist point is semantic, and the creationist point is irrelivant.

As for the glass arguement, I agree with the contextual interpretation as stated by several people now.

 

[Slick Rick]

No, it was more like a 'mother and child on the same plate' idea that freaked her out...

Typical girl thing

 

[Burnout]

Well, to a creationist, it could go either way. Did God create the egg first, which then gave rise to the first chicken, or did God create the chicken first, which then laid the first egg?

God created chicken first. He created all animals live. Read Genesis if you're interested.

As a firm believer, or Creationist, I can say that. Besides, the egg wouldn't get to the point of hatching without something taking care of it, and to the Creationist there isn't that "maybe genetic mutation" that took care of the egg before it hatched it a chicken. There wasn't anything else to take care of the egg, thus there had to be chicken first.

 

[Touring Mars]

God created chicken first. He created all animals live. Read Genesis if you're interested.

6000 years ago, right?

edit: I had egg for breakfast and chicken for dinner. I guess egg came first...

 

[Famine]

As a firm believer, or Creationist, I can say that.

Which, of course, doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

[Burnout]

Which, of course, doesn't make it any less wrong.

Rather than beginning a debate on this, if you will, "invitation", I'm going to go ahead and simply say that it's entirely dependant on any given person's personal beliefs.

Call it stating the obvious if you'd like; I call it the bottom line. 👍

 

[Famine]

Rather than beginning a debate on this, if you will, "invitation", I'm going to go ahead and simply say that it's entirely dependant on any given person's personal beliefs.

Call it stating the obvious if you'd like; I call it the bottom line. 👍

"Beliefs" don't come into it. Whether you believe the truth or not doesn't alter the fact that it IS the truth. If you HAVE to believe it in order for it to be the truth to you, it indicates that it is, in fact, NOT the truth.

Nevertheless, there's a big, fat thread called "Creation vs. Evolution" you can read with all that malarky in it.

 

[Touring Mars]

Oh goody! I was hoping that thread would kick back into life

 

[Burnout]

"Beliefs" don't come into it. Whether you believe the truth or not doesn't alter the fact that it IS the truth. If you HAVE to believe it in order for it to be the truth to you, it indicates that it is, in fact, NOT the truth.

Nevertheless, there's a big, fat thread called "Creation vs. Evolution" you can read with all that malarky in it.

Evolutionism, as much as everyone hates to admit it, is founded solely on unproven beliefs, or as they like to call it, “safe presumptions”.

Methods used to sometimes attempt to backup these founding presumptions are often proven to be half of the time wrong, varying in results, thusly completely inadequate as a forms of testing on such a topic.

Besides, think about how “laws” in science are created. They are simply uncontested theories that, through many years, turned in to a what it is now. An idea one guy had that some other guy thought was believable, so on so fourth, has now turned into a “law” that, no matter what (such as what you’re saying), is correct.

Unfortunately it isn’t.

However, like you said, there is a rather large thread on that subject, so to move on…

Chicken came first!

 

[Touring Mars]

Evolutionism, as much as everyone hates to admit it, is founded solely on unproven beliefs, or as they like to call it, “safe presumptions”.

Methods used to sometimes attempt to backup these founding presumptions are often proven to be half of the time wrong, varying in results, thusly completely inadequate as a forms of testing on such a topic.

Besides, think about how “laws” in science are created. They are simply uncontested theories that, through many years, turned in to a what it is now. An idea one guy had that some other guy thought was believable, so on so fourth, has now turned into a “law” that, no matter what (such as what you’re saying), is correct.

Unfortunately it isn’t.

However, like you said, there is a rather large thread on that subject, so to move on…

Chicken came first!

That is almost the complete opposite of reality... theories are created, and are contested until they fall apart... thus, a new theory is created that adequately explains what the previous theory couldn't... as a theory, Evolutionary theory still cannot fully explain the actual phenomenon of evolution itself... the theory is continually being refined to explain with greater accuracy the reality of how species evolve..

there are, of course, some examples of poor science, and poor theories that should be thrown out completely, that have no basis in scientific fact, like creation theory... but that is a whole different thread...

 

[Burnout]

Evolutionary theory still cannot fully explain the actual phenomenon of evolution itself...

So then you admit it.

It's built on a belief, as they cannot explain how or why what they believe happened.

I rest my case.

 

[Duke]

Evolutionism, as much as everyone hates to admit it, is founded solely on unproven beliefs, or as they like to call it, “safe presumptions”.

Methods used to sometimes attempt to backup these founding presumptions are often proven to be half of the time wrong, varying in results, thusly completely inadequate as a forms of testing on such a topic.

Besides, think about how “laws” in science are created. They are simply uncontested theories that, through many years, turned in to a what it is now. An idea one guy had that some other guy thought was believable, so on so fourth, has now turned into a “law” that, no matter what (such as what you’re saying), is correct.

Unfortunately it isn’t.

You don't appear to have any idea how science works.

On the subject of "half empty/half full", that depends on whether you're filling it or drinking from it.

If you're filling it from the pitcher of lemonade your wife made, it's 'half full'. If you're drinking the lemonade after mowing the lawn on a hot day, it's 'half empty'.

 

[Famine]

Evolutionism, as much as everyone hates to admit it, is founded solely on unproven beliefs, or as they like to call it, “safe presumptions”.

Methods used to sometimes attempt to backup these founding presumptions are often proven to be half of the time wrong, varying in results, thusly completely inadequate as a forms of testing on such a topic.

Besides, think about how “laws” in science are created. They are simply uncontested theories that, through many years, turned in to a what it is now. An idea one guy had that some other guy thought was believable, so on so fourth, has now turned into a “law” that, no matter what (such as what you’re saying), is correct.

Unfortunately it isn’t.

*ring*


*ring*


*ring*


Hello?

Oh, Burnout. It's for you. The Real World is calling on the Clue Phone.