The chicken came before the egg.

I'm not sure if Pro read my argument properly because if he / she did then they would have noticed that in the same section that refuted your 3rd argument I also posed my theory and demonstrated how Pro has actually agreed with my theory. If pro cannot decide on one specific theory it shows that he has no real idea of how the chicken came first. He has just found a few theories and provided very little evidence to prove their point. Whereas, I have rebutted all of pros theories and also presented mine. Pro has only given theories and has failed to refute my case. I have used evidence and since pro has said that I haven't I will use some more evidence to prove that I am right. '"The egg takes precedence. Many characteristics of the modern avian egg"namely an oblong, asymmetrical shape and a hardened shell"were in place before birds diverged from dinosaurs about 150 million years ago. "A lot of the traits that we see in bird eggs evolved prior to birds in theropod dinosaurs," says Darla Zelenitsky, of the University of Calgary.' I have not only provided scientific evidence. I have also shown how it makes sense in terms of the Darwinian theory. Pro has used God as evidence - this does not make sense because there is no real convincing evidence that God exists if Pro could prove this then he'd become famous and the atheist population would significantly decrease. I do not believe in God and many others don't either so unless you can provide some evidence the majority will believe (including me) I will not except the existence of God as a legitimate theory to use in this debate. Pro has also attempted to use the Evolutionary theory to help present his case. In order for the chicken to be born it must have been in an egg. A major mutation could change the egg of a different bird into the egg of a chicken (thus creating the chicken). The egg of the chicken is first because as science has proven a chicken comes out of an egg (fairly simple). It is possible that Pro's theory that the chicken mutates over time is true but that doesn't change the fact that eventually a chicken came out of an egg. Pro's continuation of his theory suggesting that the "almost there chicken" 'became 100%, genetically, and physically the modern chicken' this is a possibility but this is not as likely as the theory posed by me. Furthermore, Pro hasn't provided any evidence to why this would happen and my theory wouldn't. In response to Pro (bias) conclusion I would like to point out that Pro believes he should win because some religions believe his first point relating to God. His theories contradict each other because he has used the evolutionary theory and Gods creation story. Pro's claim that majority of religious people believe the chicken came before the egg cannot be taken into account because no source has been provided. This means that we have to assume that this claim is false. I don't understand Pros distribution of points. Sources - Me (no sources by pro) Convincing argument - Me (contradicting arguments) Conduct - Tied Spelling and Grammar - Tied (unless there are any spelling mistakes that I missed) VOTE CON!!! Sources http://www.smithsonianmag.com...