<
Making the rounds of controversial and heated debate once again
these days is that time-honored question:
<

<
First, let's analyze the situation using some good ol' common sense.
<
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* chicken around to lay an egg to make that chicken),
and without an egg there can be no chicken, since even numbskulls
-- the brainwashed boys 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 --
couldn'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 have to be around to 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 --- is
that the chicken must've been carrying the egg when it crossed the
road -- the subject of that other brain-twister, "Why Did the Chicken
Cross the Road?" -- meaning that the only reasonable answer to
"Which Came First: The Chicken or the Egg" is that it's a dead heat.
<
Both obviously arrived at the first time, either the chicken carrying
the egg or the egg containing the chicken or vice-versa, or
versa-visa.
<
The only remaining question is where both the chicken and/or the
egg had come from, which is a bit more complicated than "Which
Came First: The Chicken or the Egg? -- but that, too, will be easily
solved, same as other great mysteries of life, if I have a day or two
to think about it, and after consulting with my good friends Larry
King, Stephen Hawkins and Howard Stern.
<
Ed Conrad, Professor of Literature and Concise Writing

<
<  Man as Old as Petrified Eggs Found Between Coal Veins
< EMAIL-- edconrad@farmer-in-the-dell
<