What came first, the chicken or the egg

First, I shall consult what my opponent calls, "gaping holes" in my arguments. Rebuttals: My opponent: "First, in the dictionary c does come before e but what does that have to do animals and eggs. " You ask (although there is no question mark) what does the letter "c" coming before "e" have to do with animals and eggs. First of all, we are not discussing just any animal. We are discussing chickens. In addition, please remember that in order to win this debate I must prove that the chicken came before the egg. I have done so by showing how the chicken comes before the egg in a dictionary; therefore, this argument is completely valid. Moreover, in round 1 you did not state what we could or could not use as arguments or if we could or could not use semantics. As a result, I can use any variety of arguments that prove the chicken came before the egg (providing that they follow the guidelines of this site). My opponent: "Its like saying that dinosaurs came first instead of the world because dinosaur starts with a d. " That argument is perfectly acceptable if the person who set up the debate did not specify if you are discussing the dictionary or not. Alternatively, the person who created the debate could have said, "There can be no abuse of semantics, definitions, etc. in this debate. We should all know what the resolution is talking about. " Again, you have done neither of these things; therefore, any argument proving that the chicken came first is perfectly acceptable. My opponent: "Second, I must say that God is a very good answer and I too believe in god, but the theory of god creating animals out of nowhere and there being dinosaurs and caveman contradicts themselves. " I am not entirely sure where my opponent has gotten cavemen. Nowhere did I state anything about cavemen (until this round). Moreover, I would like to point out that God is all-powerful, all knowing, and all wise; therefore, he can certainly create a couple of birds out of nowhere. There are, of course, people who claim that God is not real because it is impossible to be all knowing, all powerful, and all wise. We, humans, cannot understand God, because he is our creator. Does pottery understand the artist that created it? No, of course not. We can then apply this analogy to us. We are the pottery, and God is the artist (a crude yet effective analogy). Anyways, I do not want to get into the fact if God exists or not, as that is an entirely different debate. Besides, you yourself stated that you believe in God, so there should no longer be a problem. My opponent: “Third, The egg must hatch the chicken and according to the theory of evolution reptiles aid eggs which gave birth to birds so that same concept would apply to this scenario as well. ” While this may be a convincing argument, it is nothing more than a theory. My scientific argument, however, is fact and has been proven. (My scientific argument is that the shell of an egg requires a protein found only in chicken ovaries. ) A theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact [8]. A synonym of the word “theory” is idea. Another synonym is notion hypothesis. As you can see, a theory is something that is not yet proven and can still be corrected. A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation, something known to be true [9]. As you can see, a fact is something that has been proven and has already been corrected. My opponent uses the theory of evolution to his advantage. The theory of evolution, I assume, is that dinosaurs laid eggs, which hatched chickens; however, we now must ask ourselves, “Would the egg hatched by the dinosaur be a chicken egg or a dinosaur egg? ” Remember, we are discussing if the egg (we must assume a chicken egg, of course) came before the chicken. If the egg was a dinosaur egg, then my opponent’s one and only argument will have been rendered useless. If, however, the egg happened to be a chicken egg, it would go against my scientific argument. Remember that a chicken egg’s shell requires a protein found only in a chicken’s ovaries. I assure you that a reptile is certainly not a chicken, since chickens are birds; therefore, the reptile could not have laid a chicken egg. Rather, they would have laid a dinosaur egg (not a chicken egg) that hatched a chicken. This means that the chicken before the chicken egg. Moreover, it is my opponent's argument (a theory) vs. my argument (a fact). As I have shown earlier, a theory is nothing more than an idea or notion hypothesis whereas a fact has already been proven. This supports my argument even more. In response to my opponent’s last paragraph, I would like to point out that sources are not just to provide evidence, but also to show that your evidence is valid. Otherwise, I simply could have made up that argument that a protein found in the egg’s shell is essential to it and that it is only found in a chicken’s ovaries. I shall not expand upon this further, because the argument of whether or not sources are useless is an entirely different debate. Conclusion: I have refuted all of my opponent’s rebuttals and he has yet to address my scientific argument; therefore, my arguments still stand. This debate has turned out to be interesting and entertaining. I thank my opponent, again, for creating this debate. [8] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [9] . http://dictionary.reference.com...