2006-07-17 09:34:37 · 12 answers · asked by alchemist 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Without the hen, the egg would not exist. Whether you believe in God or not (which I definitely do), logic tells you this. The egg requires the heat of the hen in order to survive. If the egg was first, neither would exist today because the baby chick inside would not have lived; therefore, it could not have hatched and become the chicken or the hen that it became. Thus common sense says that the hen came first. Whether you believe that it just magically appeared one day from its former nonexistence without any cause, or you believe God or giggles the fairy created...is irrelevent. However, if you do believe in God, then the Bible clearly states that the animals came first, and then they reproduced. A baby cannot care for itself. It needs a mother in order to live and thrive. The chick would be nothing without the hen.
2006-07-17 09:43:27 · answer #1 · answered by EarthAngel 4 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Well, lets see.... the Hen cannot become a hen without first becoming an egg, but the egg cannot become an egg without the body of the hen...
So maybe by accident they became one of a mixed breed... of some kind... Although if that happened then in fact the egg would have to come first...
But if you look at this in a religious point of view, then the Hen would have in fact came first... do to the fact when God created the world... He created grown animals so that they could mate to form new animals... So no matter which way you look at it... Your questions may never have a specific answer... It just depends on how you feel about it.... Have a wonderful day!!!
2006-07-17 09:52:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The egg. Seriously. I don't think this is a tough question at all if you think about it.
A chicken, by its very definition, must be hatched from an egg. So, no matter what the stage of evolution you're talking about, the chicken could not be a chicken without having been hatched. It might have resembled a chicken, but by today's definition, it was not a chicken. Therefore, the egg came first.
Moreover, I've never known a bird of any kind be born without being hatched from an egg. What probably happened was that dinosaurs, from which birds are said to be direct descendants of, evolved and chickens were developed via the evolution of various egg laying creatures.
Also, some experts say that certain dinosaurs may have even had feathers.
2006-07-17 10:33:12 · answer #3 · answered by Philthy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The egg, if you think about it the first animal that could be recognised as a chicken must have come from an egg, as the thing that layed the egg would have been further down the evolutionary chain.
Creationism is rubbish, evolution for the win!
2006-07-17 10:49:26 · answer #4 · answered by AndyB 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hen
2006-07-17 10:58:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has to be hen. As eggs cannot lay eggs.
2006-07-17 23:57:50 · answer #6 · answered by rajiv s 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
most creationists would agree the egg. all life forms
have the egg as part of the reproduction process except
the simplest ones like amoeba. therefore as God began
the process of forming the animals the first, simplest
ones, laid eggs. more complicated ones developed with
time and the help of intelligent design.
2006-07-17 09:43:42 · answer #7 · answered by agedlioness 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The phone... U call the restaurant and then decide if u want eggs or chicken for lunch
2006-07-17 09:44:41 · answer #8 · answered by dd 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
depends, are you an evolutionist or a creationist? evolutionists would say the egg, creationists would say the hen
2006-07-17 09:37:34 · answer #9 · answered by kentuckygrown 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the egg cuz it probably involved from another animal who became extinct like the dinasours
2006-07-17 09:48:24 · answer #10 · answered by zestful12 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋