do u ask such questions in ur life? i think as man is created adult(not born baby), the only answer is chicken before.\nwhat do u think?
120696
Definately the chicken. It is my belief that God created a mature universe. Adam was not created as a little boy nor was Eve created a little girl. Thus it is my belief that the chicken came before the egg.
666546
It's an age-old question, and one that is the very basis of religion.  It's incredible that we can understand both the creation of the universe and the creation of life itself.  We're very lucky to live in this time!\n\nGood comment for "brainless".
110984
How do we know that atoms aren't conscious?  If we are made of the same spacedust that everything in the universe is, albeit in a complex and dynamic arrangement, then perhaps all matter and even time itself has a form of existence and experience.  Maybe we are not even individuals.  Just because most people think they are making decisions for themselves doesn't mean they are just running on some form of autopilot.  I read that the part of the brain involved in complex decision making processes finishes neural activity sometimes up to two minutes before a person thinks 'they' have decided.   On the matter of whether God created us for his own sake, I think it would be alot more likely that people created the concept of God for their own sakes.  If we are in God's soup, I'd liken our fate more to that of a fly than a cracker.
638776
Taking the religious aspect out of homosexuality...think for a second how incredibly unnatural it is.....females were designed to produce offspring and that takes a male counterpart. If homosexuality was right and natural then how would we ever continue the human race??? Please name one other animal on this earth where a male is with a male......I know people would say you can't compare humans to animals but we are. We are the more intelligent species of animals but we are animals. Heterosexuality just seems a little more natural to me....
73125
this is a difficult question that really boils down to what you personally believe. i've wondered about it myself for sometime and have not come to a clear-cut conslusion.  you could have the "chicken or the egg" question as you already have or the tree falling in the woods-even if humanity did not exist...would god?
15792
Are you back?  \n\nSin is a creation of man.  Death is a misunderstood phenomenon commonly believed to be unavoidable.  \n\nChrist was just a guy.\n\nWe are all god.
590309
Genesis 1:27 says "So God created man in His own image:in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Genesis chapter 2 states that woman was taken out of man but prior to that in the verse above, God had stated what the end result will be. \n\nSo yes, the raw materials were different but the results are the same - both made in the image of God. Mind you, if woman was taken from man who was taken from the earth then she was ultimately taken from the earth as well.\n\nFinally, in Gen 2:7, "God formed man out of dust and breathed into his nostril the breath of life; and man became a living being." The same spirit that gave man life is the same spirit that made the woman a living being. The animals and plants were not treated in this way! Man and woman are different from the others because we were made in God's image to have dominion over all the rest of creation.
323521
Because not all apes turned into humans so some apes remained to keep reproducing. And just a question for the other answerers: If god created everything, surely he could have not created himself bringing up my point: Who created god, but then who created the thing, that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,that created the thing,.... that created god?
565973
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\n\nIts like you are asking who came before "FIRST" in race.\n\nI ask you , Who created "the one" who created God? and then so on ....There has to be some stop. Lets assume that this series is everlasting infinity.  In this case, we wouldn't be here. But we are here, that means there is a stop with a being who is UNCREATED. It is difficult for us to imagine something with no end and no beginning. but it is impossible for us to imagine our Creator had a beginning. \n\nYour question is like, my brother gave birth to a child, is it male or female? Its the Characteristic of male that he does not give birth. If he gives birth then he is not male. God is Eternal, because its characteristic of God that HE IS ETERNAL. If He is not eternal, that means He is not God. \n\nGod has to be Eternal then otherwise He would have a beginning. Suppose, we say God had a beginning, then there was a time when God did not exist. It means that he needed somebody else to make him exist. So there is somebody else who is God, not him. but as we agreed that there is only one God, therefore, there is no one else who make Him exist.\n\nWhen we say that God cannot be born, we are also saying that a creator cannot becomes his creation, because creation means what is in need of a creator. To be a creature of God, mean there had to be someone to create you. So if God becomes his creation, it means now he is in need of a creator. And this is absudity! As we know, A creation is not eternal. An eternal being is uncreated. We can conclude that the one God who is uncreated, has to be Eternal.\n\n\nIt follows by logical necessity that if God is one, and if He is eternal, Then obviously He does not beget , Nor is he begotten. Because if He beget, then He will have a child and the child will have to be God-like. So there will then be two Gods. Since we agreed that there is only one God, you cannot have two. OR If he was begotten, that means he would have father. Then the father will be older than him and more eternal than him. and we cannot have one who is more eternal than "ETERNAL"\n\n==============================...\n\n\n"Say: He is Allah, The One and Only. "Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.\n"He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him." \n[Quran 112:1-4]\n\n==============================...\n\nTHERE IS ONE CREATOR, AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS HIS CREATION. THATS IT. !!!
44612
Nice effort and beneficial.\nThey want to trace back the details of human generations which are vague.\nWell, they "search" for Adam, right?\nThey must believe in creationism rather than evolution.\n\nHopefully people will realise that we humans are all the same. We came from the same root. No more racist solicitation.\nThe theory of evolution is focused mostly on physiques. They do not care to think that men have minds and spirit.\nIt is clearly wrong to define us physically just like the animals. We are better than animals. \nMoreover, we are the best creations. \n\nI do not really get the picture with the female ancestor to date earlier than the common male ancestor. Could you explain to me about that?\n\nIt is weird for woman and man to live not in the same time. How could they reproduce?\n\nMaybe I will come back later. By the way, I think "boffin" means buffoons.\n\n\n\nThank you Kurdiatcha for explaining to me.\nI was not expecting you but the questioner herself but thank you.\n\nI would like to edit some more but have no time.\nHere's a little correction:\n\nWhat I meant by define us physically just like the animals is to take ONLY physique into acount.\n\nThe brain differs from the mind. Animals have brains but not minds. They have life but not soul.\n\nBrain is physique. Mind is defined as the ability to learn and understand things by self, not gifted.\nOf course, we need the help of God to understand about something.\nMind is also the sign of rationality of humans.\n\nI will continue later.\n\n\n\nSorry for keeping you waiting so long, Nelly. I had to take time to make a structure of my next explainations which are:\nThis is going to be quite a LONG lecture.\n\n\nHuman = (Physique) (Mind) (Life) (Soul)\nAnimal = (Physique) (Life)\n\nPhysique = Physique?\nIt is most probably. If to follow the law of balance; equation and relation, Human seems to have more advantages such as Mind and Soul, therefore their Physique must be less advantageous than that of Animal.\n\nLife = Life\n\nSoul = Mind (Feelings) (Life)\nMind = Soul (Life) (Physique)\nFeelings = (Physique) (Soul)\nMind ≠ Brain\nBrain = Mind (Physique) (Life) = Brain\nIn this context, Mind means the controller. Brain of Human and Brain of Animal are similar but not the same.\n\nMind = Soul\nMind + Soul (Animal) = Human\nMind and Soul are similar yet they are not one. Plus, they are parallel. Physique capsulizes Brain where in the Brain lies Mind. Life capsulizes Soul. The parallelism of both must be broken and should be met in order to achieve the same goal; finding God. \nOnce they have combined, the journey of finding God will be clearer.\n\nPhysique (Mind) + Life (Soul) = Human\nSoul + Mind ≠ Human\nPhysique + Life ≠ Human\n\nTherefore, Physique and Life make up Animal’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life and Life enlivens Physique. It is mutual symbiosis.\n\nPhysique, Mind, Life and Soul make up Human’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life, Soul and Mind, Life and Soul enlivens Physique, Mind controls Physique and Life, so does Soul. Soul controls Mind but Mind decides initially.\n\nConsider Human like a box (Physique) powered by Life externally. Inside the box, there is a ball of Soul and Mind; Mind takes up only the core while Soul is the ball inside out. With the ball, the box is generated internally.\n\nThe three parts: Physique, Life and Soul must be available in order for a Human to love but irrationally minded. Therefore, Mind is the only part of rationality. It is the only part of intelligence.\n\n\nThe above equations show the difference between Human and Animal. I know it is quizzical to you, so it is to me.\nThe sign with the small "l" is actually a small number 1, indicates Human.\n\nWell, if we to trace the generations of human, we must primarily try to understand human. If you do not understand anything, tell me. I will try to make you understand the equation. Even I do n
208537
Well if I were to guess, I would suppose it was the chicken. I gather this idea from the Bible which says that God created the animals and birds not just eggs for the birds or fowl...\n\nGood luck with your quest! I supppse if you are pondering the great mysteries of life, you might consider this question. If it's a stupid question I have sure heard it asked all of my life. \n\nI know a little bit about chickens, and unless there is a hen to sit on the nest of eggs,  the eggs  would never hatch! They would suffer from cold and then no nurturing if they did happen to hatch. I have watched mother hens and they know a lot when it comes to gathering their chicks up when they feel danger for them. The hen will give them a signal just so the young chicks could all gather around their mother hen so she could fluff her feathers and seem larger and more fomidable while protecting the hatchling chicks.\n\nNot a stupid question, I am only guessing at what I feel explains it for me :)\nruthie~
66153
well it really depends on your religion. If you believe in God and that he created all things in the beginning, it would be the chicken because he created the animals first. If you don't believe in God, then there's really no answer unless the chicken slowly evolved to be an egg breeder, so that means teh chicken came first
596763
The Bible does not tell us but they were created and not born of a woman. When God made them it is possible that they did not have one however, He could have given them one. Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
220537
If you believe that Genesis is the literal origin of the universe, then God created the Chicken.\n\nIf you believe in evolution, then a protochicken laid an egg, which hatched the first real chicken as we know it.
176006
So what's the question?\n\nHow did they do it? If so, I think we'd have to question whether there is actually any chicken in those nuggets before we ascribe greatness to them!
677031
You have a very troubled mind to ask a question like this. \nI would choose neither. \nI would still eat chicken (in fact just did for dinner)\nand sex with animals is just wrong.
317349
well, the first "chicken" would have represented a deviation from a species of wild hen in Southeast Asia bred to domestication (according to the research of paleolinguists tracing the first appearence of written reference to domestic chickens).  It's difficult to say when a domestication of a species reaches the point of speciation, but from the biological definition of speciation, it would be the point where the new breed is rendered incapable of procreating with its antecedent.\n\nRegardless, whatever bird may have been dubbed the "first chicken," it was certainly an egg before it was a chicken, and since it's the first chicken, its parents were not quite speciated and hence still only a mutated strain of hen.  So, the egg came first.\n\nAnd for all of you ardent creationists, domestic animals are the result of selective breeding by humans, so no, God did not create the chicken, no more than he created the domestic cow or cat or dog.  They are derivatives of naturally-ocurring species, but they have been bred by humans to the point where they are, at least in some cases, not capable of reproducing with their wild ancestors.  \n\nSo you can't just blurt out "God" and get away with not using your mind this time.