| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 12/19/2005 : 18:49:01
the egg that comes from a chicken
or
an egg which will hatch a chicken
 |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Carl |
Posted - 12/22/2005 : 11:11:20
In any case, I met him and got his autograph twice (the first time years ago, the second time recently), na-na-na-na-na!! ;)
 "Yo! Ho Ho! Merry Christmas!" |
| VoVat |
Posted - 12/22/2005 : 09:44:59
Hey, Pratchett didn't invent the basilisk. In fact, I'm not sure one ever appeared in his books, although there have been some references to similar legends.
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| Carl |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 07:15:42
You've been reading too much Pratchett, again, VoVat!
I can define a chicken leg. It's the leg of a chicken, tastes nice fried, and could possibly be riddled with bird flu.
 "Join the Honeycult!"
|
| VoVat |
Posted - 12/21/2005 : 07:13:39
quote:
An egg which comes from a chicken will not neccessarily hatch a chicken.
True. Under certain conditions, it'll hatch a basilisk.
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| Little Black Francis |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 21:43:08
The chicken came first because it is a mutant penguin. I thought everybody knew that.
... Childbirth is no more a miracle than eating food and a turd coming out of your ass. |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 17:07:35
.......................................
|
| Daisy Girl |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 16:56:03
To me a chicken egg would be an any egg layed by a chicken.
But only those fertalized by a rooster would contain a chicken.
I have an analogy but I don't want to gross you out. Think about women and what happens to their eggs when they get fertilzed or not. It's the same for the chicken right?
*Ewww* This is so ackward, I can't imagine explaining the birds and bees to kids without blusing . |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 16:52:58
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
That's not so much funny, as rancid
But it may create Darwin's old-age 'gene'!
Hank the 8th was a duplicated man
-bRIAN |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 16:18:55
That's not so much funny, as rancid |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 08:13:43
Funny...I was just talking about scrambled eggs yesterday. I came up with a rather odd recipe:
scrambled eggs sprinkled with a lot of white granulated sugar, and peanuts and canned tuna folded into them.
Hank the 8th was a duplicated man
-bRIAN |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 08:00:08
Actually, you should have vegetables first, you wouldn't want to dive straight in to the chicken, and roast potatoes you should also savour.
 I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 07:43:11
ah, I see what you're getting at. The first chicken came before the first chicken egg. But without that definition, the egg came before the chicken.
Anyway, the man always comes first.
That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.
|
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 07:16:28
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
I would define a chicken egg as one laid by a chicken, therefore the egg had to come before the chicken.
actually, the chicken would have come first..
|
| Llamadance |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 07:13:48
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
LLama dear, thats *always* right.
ahem.
that's ;) [/pedanticbastard]
I would define a chicken egg as one laid by a chicken, therefore the egg had to come before the chicken.
Could this be extended to 'what is human sperm? Sperm that makes a human or sperm that comes from a human?'
That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.
|
| starmekitten |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 06:43:34
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
so why is the question of which came first so famous and well known?
Because most people are too stupid to realise it's a really easily answered question?
I always took it to mean, did the chicken lay the egg (as in, would there be egss without the chicken), or did the chicken come from the egg (would there be chickens without the egg), nothing to do with the nature of the egg and the chicken came from the egg. No definition required. It's not a catch-22, the only catch is limited thinking.
I see your point, honestly, but being right I know the answer so it's all moot.
hehe
|
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 06:00:01
you're kind of missing the whole catch-22 of the chicken or the egg question then starme. i'd say most people know eggs exist outside the context of chickens, so why is the question of which came first so famous and well known? because most people assume a chicken egg is meant by egg, and so the question poses much more of a problem.
even if you don't want to make an assumption, how would you answer the explicit question "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" - surely a definition would be required then?
|
| starmekitten |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 05:52:49
If you're making assumptions then the chicken came first following this logic, but if you're making assumptions then it's no logic at all. The chicken had to have hatched from an egg in the first place, the type of egg is irrelevent, there would be eggs without chickens but there would be no chickens without eggs. The egg is the important factor in this question, the type of egg is pedantic detail. |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 05:48:34
what dear? i don't get it. i did say we were assuming the egg in question meant a chicken egg though, if that means anything.. otherwise you could say dinosaur eggs came first, or something. boring
|
| starmekitten |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 05:43:53
I think a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, I also think the definition of a chicken egg is irrelevent in this context. Eggs came before chickens, the first chicken came from an egg. The first "chicken egg" came from a chicken but this supposition is not a parameter in the question of what came first. Eggs came first.
LLama dear, thats *always* right. |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 05:25:46
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
"the egg that comes from a chicken" = "an egg which will hatch a chicken"
So that's Darwin's theory.
 I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| Llamadance |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 05:25:29
Following that reasoning, I would say that it wasn't a chicken egg. And Tre's right, she sometimes is.
That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.
|
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 05:03:03
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
That isn't what I said, I said the egg came first. I think your definition of the egg confuses the issue more than clarifies it. Honestly though, I'm right. Always am.
let me make it clearer. this is at least how i understand it. at one point something genetically close to a chicken laid an egg, the dna of which had mutated into what we now know as as a chicken.
so, was that egg a chicken egg because it would later hatch a chicken, or is it not a chicken egg because it came from something that wasn't a chicken?
so, i wasn't putting words in your mouth. i just wanted to know if that's what you thought and were following the above logic, or if you came to answer via other means.
|
| Monsieur |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 04:42:02
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeseman1000
An egg which comes from a chicken will not neccessarily hatch a chicken.
I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid
Let us define (A) "the eggs which will hatch a chicken", (B)"the eggs which come from a chicken" and (C) "the chicken eggs"
Obviously, (B) is included in (C) . As a chicken egg necessarily comes from a chicken, (C) is included in (B). Therefore, (B)=(C).
So, we can say that PixieSteve's first proposition is true.
As Cheeseman brilliantly pointed out, (B) is not included in (A), ie there is at least one element of (B) that is not an element of (A). Therefore (B) is different from (A). We previously proved that (B) = (C). That implies that (A) is different from (C).
So, only PixieSteve's first proposal is correct.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 04:21:01
That isn't what I said, I said the egg came first. I think your definition of the egg confuses the issue more than clarifies it. Honestly though, I'm right. Always am. |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 04:01:06
so you think a chicken egg is an egg which will hatch a chicken?
|
| starmekitten |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 03:17:17
the egg came first, I thought everyone knew this |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 03:09:02
yes DARWIN, i thought this definition was pretty crucial to solving the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg (assuming the egg is a chicken egg) using the evolutionary approach.
|
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 01:20:12
An egg which comes from a chicken will not neccessarily hatch a chicken.
I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| darwin |
Posted - 12/19/2005 : 19:38:05
"the egg that comes from a chicken" = "an egg which will hatch a chicken" |
