What came first, the chicken or the egg

I am impressed by my opponent's’ts last few arguments and I admit he brings up a few good points. I shall refute these points so that my arguments will still stand. Rebuttals: My opponent: “I never said your argument was not true nor did I deny that it could actually be good evidence.” Perhaps you did not; however, you still tried to prove that my argument had no place in this debate. I, therefore, took it into my hands to defend my case. My opponent: “You on the other are indirectly saying that my statement the dinosaur came before the world because it starts with a d is invalid. By doing this you cancel your own "dictionary" argument yourself.” It is quite obvious that you did not read my arguments thoroughly enough to realize what my point was. I actually was saying that the dinosaur argument is perfectly valid if the person who created the debate did not specify if they were talking about the dictionary. Alternatively, the person creating the debate could have stated that there could be no abuse in semantics, definitions, etc. to avoid arguments such as the dictionary argument. You, however, did not do this. As a result, my argument still stands. Here is a quote from me that proves I stated the dinosaur argument is perfectly valid: “That argument is perfectly acceptable if the person who set up the debate did not specify if you are discussing the dictionary or not.” Please read the full paragraph again if you have to. My opponent: “You did not have to mention cavemen in order for me talk about them. That is just saying that I did not mention anything about ovaries so I don't where you got the idea from.” I am not entirely sure what you are trying to point out. Moreover, because this debate is not concerned with whether or not I did or did not mention cavemen, I will drop this. My opponent: “Cavemen and dinosaurs were said to be in the same era and thinking about chickens for a second, I would find it hard to believe that chickens which are about a foot tall could live around dinosaurs who are about a 1,000 feet tall. They would get stepped on and killed as will all other animal life.” Before I refute this, I will simply clarify some points to make myself understood. I stated that the Bible supports my arguments that the chicken came before the egg. Now, chickens were created (according to the Bible) on the fifth day. All land animals (including dinosaurs) were created on the sixth day. This is in Genesis 1:24-31. My opponent claims that chickens could not have lived with dinosaurs. He did not use any other arguments to back this up, so I all I have to do is prove that chickens could have lived during dinosaur times. They could have done so because there were many other small and tiny animals with similar defenses as the chicken; however, they still managed to survive. It is, therefore, only logical to assume that chickens could have lived during the dinosaur period. Moreover, chickens can fly away from any enemies or predators (as long as they are not domesticated, which they were not). In addition, the Bible states that chickens lived during dinosaur periods. My opponent states that chickens could not have lived during those times because they would have been killed (I already proved that wrong). Yet there are still chickens with us today; therefore, we can assume (using the Bible) that chickens could have lived during the times of dinosaurs. My opponent: “A theory can be proven and questioning the theory of evolution is saying that research about certain is a lie. Scientists have researched specific areas and found that new species evolve over time to adapt to their environment. By your argument, I am assuming you question the theory of evolution so that means you believe the dinosaurs just died and a new era of animals was instantly created. Then that era died at the same time and a new era of animals as created immediately and I find this hard to believe. I am not merely using an entire theory from the theory of evolution, but I am incorporating facts in as well.” First, let me clarify two main things. I am not stating that the theory of evolution is a lie. I am not stating that dinosaurs “just died” and a new era of animals was instantly created. To show these two main points, I will go through my argument once more (somewhat differently) and I encourage all readers to read it thoroughly to understand it. My opponent uses the theory of evolution to his advantage; however, this axe cuts two ways (so to speak). In other words, the theory of evolution can work in my advantage as well. We have already agreed that the theory of evolution is that reptiles laid eggs. Over time, they began to evolve. Finally, a reptile laid an egg that hatched a chicken. This makes it sound as if the egg came first; however, we have to consider if the egg hatched by the reptile was a chicken egg or a dinosaur egg. If it was a chicken egg, then that means the egg (a chicken egg, of course) would have come before the chicken. The only problem is that the egg laid by the reptile cannot be a chicken egg. Remember that my scientific argument stated a chicken egg needs a protein (ovocleidin) and without the protein the shell of the egg cannot form. Now, this protein is found only in a chicken’s ovaries; therefore, a reptile could not have laid a chicken egg (since reptiles cannot produce those proteins and only chickens can). So the egg laid by the reptile has to be a reptile egg, which means that the chicken came before the egg (the chicken egg, that is). As you can see, the theory of evolution supports me more than it supports my opponent. He has essentially given me an argument, and I thank him for doing so. Conclusion: I have refuted all of my opponent’s rebuttals. My opponent has not provided any arguments that the egg came before the chicken at all. I realize that he made an argument that was supported by the theory of evolution, but I showed how the theory of evolution supports me and not him. Because my opponent did not provide arguments that prove the egg came before the chicken, he did not meet the BOP. I, however, have provided evidence showing how the chicken came before the egg. This evidence appeals to religion (the Bible argument), science (the protein argument), and people who like a witty answer (the dictionary argument). Moreover, my argument concerning proteins has gone unchallenged throughout the whole debate. I, therefore, urge you to vote Con! Before finally ending this debate and putting it into the voting period, I would like to say that I enjoyed this debate very much and that my opponent did well. I wish him good luck in other future debates and I hope that he has enjoyed this one as much as I have.