Saturday, July 24, 2004
Monday, July 19, 2004
Howdy everyone. Since I don't feel like doing a real post I'm going to do an *drumroll* ASK DANIEL post!
What is an "Ask Daniel" post exactly? Well, you ask me a question in the comments about ANYTHING at all. As long as it's not too stupid (Ashley) or too long of a math problem (Kira) or about some really obscure band (Megan), I'll try my best to answer it!
Keep in mind that my responses will mostly be my opinion and won't necessarily be true or right.
Fire away.
edit: my fortune cookie actually HAD a fortune in it! it says: you will attend an unusual party. sounds interesting :)
Question 1, from Ashley: "Do you think I'm stupid?"
Answer 1: No. I do not think you're stupid. However, you have a knack for asking completely off the wall questions. Usually questions involving a penis and a talking piece of bacon. This "Ask Daniel" session will have nothing to do with talking bacon. God I hate them and their traitorous ways... As for your second, third, fourth and fifth questions, I think you know the answers to those.
Question 2, from Megan: "If the direction of the water swirl in toilets/sinks changes direction based on which hemisphere you are currently in, what does it do at the equator?"
Answer 2: Some people believe this is a myth, but it's true. The direction of the descent of water down a toilet/sink does indeed change direction based on which hemisphere you are on. This is due to a force called a Coriolis force. It's caused by the direction that the earth is rotating in relation to the water, which turns out to be the direction the water spirals down the pipes. Northern Hemisphere = counter-clockwise, Southern Hemisphere = clockwise. So what is the direction of the earthly rotation at the equator? If you think of the rotation of the earth on a large scale in comparison to a small toilet DIRECTLY on the equator the rotation is to the RIGHT. How weird is that? So what exactly happens when you flush? It's quite simple: the centripetal force of the earth (which has a large mass) combined with the right lateral motion of the descending water actually creates an outward force. How is it an outward force? Centripetal force is an INWARD force, but the theoretical counter force, and the force we think we feel even though it doesnt really exist, is an OUTWARD force called the centrifugal force. The centrifugal force pushes outward on the perpendicular right lateral force, causing an outward acceleration. Thus, when a toilet on the equator is flushed it sprays shitty water all over the flushee. That is why the equator always smells bad. Good question, Megan.
Questions 3, 4 and 5, by Kira: What is the sound of one hand clapping? Are you going to see Anchorman? Why do you expect me to ask more questions even though I ask a question in every email I send you?
Answers 3, 4 and 5: Since your first question is undeniably the hardest one to answer, I'll answer 4 and 5 first.
For 4: Yes, I will see Anchorman eventually. I just need to find someone who will go with me and then we can quote it annoyingly TOGETHER.
For 5: those e-mails are so few and far between now that I don't find it unreasonable to expect you to ask a question every few weeks when it used to be every few days. Plus, the scope of these questions can span much larger than the scope of the questions in our e-mails. The e-mail questions are about you or me, while the questions here are about ANYTHING.
For 3: Some people, for some dumb reason, think that one hand cannot clap. However, this ancient "riddle" doesn't take into account the resourceful mind of the Daniel. I tested out this question to find out what the sound of one hand clapping was, and the results may shock you. First off, it doesn't specify clapping against WHAT. So I clapped my hand against multiple objects and got different sounds. I clapped my hand against a glass on the table and it made a rather dull slapping sound followed by a loud glass shatter... oops, I guess I should have held the glass down. Then I clapped using a cat. That too was a dull slap, more like a thud actually. Followed by a loud cat shriek. Then I decided to clap using my stomach. It sounded a lot like the cat clap, but more of a slap than a thud. Followed by an "ouch" sound coming from somewhere near my face. I then proceeded to do a whole battery of test claps everywhere I went. And everywhere I went, with every changing surface and texture, I experienced new clapping sounds. And, as with the glass, the cat and my stomach, some of the claps had after sounds (which I have called "afterclaps"). So to answer your question... well, I can't answer it. The sound of one hand clapping is the amount of colors in a rainbow. It's forever changing given the circumstances in which it occurs. I have a developing theory that temperature and air density may play a role in the nuances of the clap and afterclap sounds. One hand clapping is to the clapping world as a prism is to light. It takes one thing and splits it into it's component parts, splaying them across the soundscape for you to experience individually if you just know where to look. I suggest you go around one hand clapping everything you see if you want to experience what one hand claps truly have to offer.
Just be careful. Some people mistake one hand claps for slaps, but the key difference is a slap is meant to hurt, but a one hand clap is meant to make sound, the fact that they hurt is just a pleasant side effect. Thank you for your question! Any others from anyone?
Question 6, from Megan: When are you going to blog again?
Answer 6: When I feel like it. Besides, this post was made two days ago AND I updated yesterday and am updating now. So it's not like I haven't been blogging.
Questions 7, 8 and 9, from Kira: Why don't ducks chew their food? Did you miss me last night? What do you want to name our firstborn?
Answers 7, 8 and 9: Again, your first question is the most complex so I shall save that for last. Questions 8 and 9 both pertain to you in some way so I'll kinda answer them together.
For 8 and 9: Of course I did. But don't worry, I'm taking marksmen classes and I shouldn't be missing often within a few weeks. But I didn't miss you completely because you EVENTUALLY came back even if it was for a short time. I think you missed me more than I missed you ;-). For name of our firstborn... well I know you want Eve/Emma for a girl and Ryan/Christopher/Ryan Christopher for a boy. BUT I think I should get some say in the name. However, I also have no right to deny you naming the kid what you want. So we should compromise. I will modify the names you have chosen so they suit me but also keep the original sound that you like. For a girl I say Evel/Emmalicious (not because it sounds like delicious, but because it has malicious in it) and for a boy I say Ryanabolic/Christgopher/Ryanabolic Christgopher. Good? Good.
For 7: I don't feel like researching ducks so I'm going to go purely on gut instict for this one. Duck's don't chew their food because their beaks are made of marshallows. Marshmallows AREN'T, I repeat, AREN'T strong enough to chew most foods except maybe jello. Unfortunatley for ducks, Jello doesn't exist under water... well, maybe it does for a short time but then the water around it turns to jello which would be bad news for a duck if it did. This also explains the reason why Daffy Duck has a horrible, HORRIBLE lisp and why Donald Duck's voice sounds like a burp on a cheese grater. Their marshallow beaks (henceforth known as Meaks) are far too soft to create an easily audible sound as the air vibrations generated in their esophagi collide with the extremely maleable meaks. The wave form of their original voice gets distorted so badly it sounds like a dying yak. Anyway, I'm getting off topic... So, they don't chew because they have marshallow beaks. But they also don't chew because they have chute like throats. Their throats are like a flood gate that can be turned on and off at will. Food in the mouth? Turn the gate on! Food slides down their throats, sans chewing, and gets digested in their stomachs. It should be noted that their throats are lined with knives that effectively "chew" the food up before entering the stomach. The stomach, surprisingly, is made out of chewed gum. This creates an extremely confusing paradox... if a duck can't chew, how is it's stomach made out of CHEWED gum? The answer to this is simple. Five thousand years ago the great duck god, called Dog, actually had a beak made of stone. He loved Big League Chew and chewed it for seven years straight. By the time he was done chewing and collecting the gum he moulded ALL of the world's duck's stomachs for all eternity and placed it in a secret pond that only ducks know about. When a duck is born it naturally migrates to this magical pond and swallows it's stomach. End of story. Good questions.
ps: that gum bit isn't really true. I just wanted to gross Kira out. :-D
Question 10, from Alexis: Is Kira your wife?
Answer 10: I'd say no but she'd take offense to that. And I'm glad you like the name, I just hope she does.
Question 11, from Ashley: Why don't you freakin' apply at Chili's already?
Answer 11: I did apply... and I called the manager and he was a dickhead to me and pretty much said I didn't have a chance. Remember?
Questions 12 and 13, from Ashley: Why don't you reapply at Chili's? What's your earlier memory?
Answers 12 and 13:
For 12: I don't feel like reapplying. Besides, I'm probably getting a job at Stater Bros.
For 13: Ummm, I don't have any FULL recollections of anything before the time I was sitting on the back deck with a phillips head screwdriver just stabbing the wood. My dad found all the stab marks the next day and asked me how it happened (he knew I did it) and I told him ants were eating the wood. I think I was like 3 at the time.
Question 14, from Megan: Why hasn't Alexis called?
Answer 14: Well... Megan. I've been avoiding telling you this but I think it's time. Alexis suffers from a rare but acute case of Alexitosis. It makes it impossible for her to call people on time and it also completely hinder her ability to be cool. There is no cure for it, but she's been able to cope with it her whole life so I think you should be a bit more understanding.
Final Question, Question 15, from Ben: Chicken or egg?
Final Answer, Answer 15: Well, now isn't this a vague question? What exactly are you asking? Which came first? Which tastes better in cake? Which one has a higher natural viscosity and would be better suited to grease up engine bores? Which breaks easier? It could be ANYTHING. So, in the interest of time and how bored I am, I'll answer each of those. I'll answer them in the order I presented them, except the "Which came first" question. That, being the end all be all of chicken and egg questions deserves to be last and to be given the greatest amount of thought.
Subquestion A: Which tastes better in cake? The answer to this one is EGGS! Obviously. That's how you make the cake, eggs are an ingredient in making cake batter! If you put chicken in your cake you are either really, really dumb or you just really really love chicken. And I suppose I wouldn't be able to fault you for either. Being dumb can't be fixed and chicken is damn tasty.
Subquestion B: Which has a higher natural viscosity and would be better suited to grease up engine bores? This one may seem easy but it has so many varying factors in it that it ends up quite complex. First of all it depends on if the engine is lead based or diesel based. The gas type matters because diesel based engines generally burn hotter and therefore need something with a higher viscosity to counter the increased friction which would, in turn, lower the burning temperature that would otherwise cause the engine to melt itself. In that case, eggs would work better. Plus you'd have a nice treat waiting for you whenever you're done driving. Scrambled eggs, anyone? However, You'd want to use a teenaged chicken for a lead based engine. Why teenager? They are the greasiest beings on the planet. A finely plucked teenage chicken could pump out three quarts of oil every fifty minutes if wrung properly. Five courts if he recently ate Pizza Hut. Just grab a blender, toss him in, hit pureé and dump him in your engine. Make sure you smear him around the pistons mostly and try to avoid chicken leakage into the main combustion chamber, that could spell disaster for even the most finely tuned of engines.
Subquestion C: Which breaks easier? You'd assume egg, wouldn't you? I find it all depends. Grab an old chicken whose bones have deteriorated beyond recognition and you've got yourself an easily breakable beaked brittle bone bag. Flick it once and watch as those bones shatter. Ahhhhh yes. On the other hand, you'd have to flick an egg pretty damn hard to crack it, but it can be done. I actually did a test though. I bought a chicken and I bought an egg and I threw them off of my roof. The egg hit the ground with a satisfying splatter but the chicken flipped and flopped and struggled in the air so valiantly that his clipped little chicken wings had displaced enough air to keep him from breaking upon concrete contact. So far the score is tied... Chicken broke easier once and egg broke easier once. I needed a tie breaker (haha get it?). I went out and rented myself an industrial sized cement pounder. You know, those things that pound recently laid cement so it evens it out and gets rid of any bumps. I placed the chicken from the previous experiment (since it survived unharmed) and a NEW egg (those things come in packs of 12! so much easier to experiment on than chickens. I couldnt find any twelve packs of chickens.) and placed them under the cement packer. What happened next was truly astonishing. Both the chicken AND the egg were crushed! TALK ABOUT INCONCLUSIVE!! However, given this data, and my previous data, the egg and the chicken are tied 1 for 1. I decided to use this break:no break ratio and apply it to their bodily structure ratio. I have concluded that chickens are actually eggs with a 1:1 ratio of similarity. Don't argue with me on this, it's backed by scientific data.
Subquestion D: You are asking a very complex question here and the answer varies depending on my life philosophy. I will attempt to answer it from a few viewpoints so no one feels left out.
A Creationist would say: Both the chicken and the egg were created at the same time. God loves all of his creatures, that's why he put them in a shelly prison for the first few weeks of their lives, to teach them some respect. What is love without respect? I don't know either, but apparently God does.
A Darwinist would say: The chicken came first, at least a form of it did. Whatever creature it evolved from had slowly mutated over a long period of time until it closely resembled a chicken. Then it laid an egg and produced something that looked more like a chicken. So on and so forth until an actual chicken was born. However, you might think "but then the egg came first since a chicken came out of it!" BZZT WRONG! The NAME of an egg is the name of the animal it came from, not the animal that comes out of it. If a fish were to lay an egg that spawned a human would you make fun of that person for coming out of a human egg or a fish egg? Exactly.
A Buddhist would say: I want to be reincarnated as a chicken when I die. I want to be delicious and provide sustenance for all of earth's creatures. But in order to be a chicken I'd have to be an egg first. Hey man, that's the breaks.
An Amish person would say: What's a chicken? I only eat butter.
ps: if i have any philosophy wrong, dont freak out. i'm not a master on world beliefs and i never claimed to be. if your philosophy wasn't included: TOO BAD. Deal with it. and if you're amish and offended by what I have to say... WHY ARE YOU USING THE INTERNET?
That's all folks! I hope you enjoyed this rousing session of "Ask Daniel."
What is an "Ask Daniel" post exactly? Well, you ask me a question in the comments about ANYTHING at all. As long as it's not too stupid (Ashley) or too long of a math problem (Kira) or about some really obscure band (Megan), I'll try my best to answer it!
Keep in mind that my responses will mostly be my opinion and won't necessarily be true or right.
Fire away.
edit: my fortune cookie actually HAD a fortune in it! it says: you will attend an unusual party. sounds interesting :)
Question 1, from Ashley: "Do you think I'm stupid?"
Answer 1: No. I do not think you're stupid. However, you have a knack for asking completely off the wall questions. Usually questions involving a penis and a talking piece of bacon. This "Ask Daniel" session will have nothing to do with talking bacon. God I hate them and their traitorous ways... As for your second, third, fourth and fifth questions, I think you know the answers to those.
Question 2, from Megan: "If the direction of the water swirl in toilets/sinks changes direction based on which hemisphere you are currently in, what does it do at the equator?"
Answer 2: Some people believe this is a myth, but it's true. The direction of the descent of water down a toilet/sink does indeed change direction based on which hemisphere you are on. This is due to a force called a Coriolis force. It's caused by the direction that the earth is rotating in relation to the water, which turns out to be the direction the water spirals down the pipes. Northern Hemisphere = counter-clockwise, Southern Hemisphere = clockwise. So what is the direction of the earthly rotation at the equator? If you think of the rotation of the earth on a large scale in comparison to a small toilet DIRECTLY on the equator the rotation is to the RIGHT. How weird is that? So what exactly happens when you flush? It's quite simple: the centripetal force of the earth (which has a large mass) combined with the right lateral motion of the descending water actually creates an outward force. How is it an outward force? Centripetal force is an INWARD force, but the theoretical counter force, and the force we think we feel even though it doesnt really exist, is an OUTWARD force called the centrifugal force. The centrifugal force pushes outward on the perpendicular right lateral force, causing an outward acceleration. Thus, when a toilet on the equator is flushed it sprays shitty water all over the flushee. That is why the equator always smells bad. Good question, Megan.
Questions 3, 4 and 5, by Kira: What is the sound of one hand clapping? Are you going to see Anchorman? Why do you expect me to ask more questions even though I ask a question in every email I send you?
Answers 3, 4 and 5: Since your first question is undeniably the hardest one to answer, I'll answer 4 and 5 first.
For 4: Yes, I will see Anchorman eventually. I just need to find someone who will go with me and then we can quote it annoyingly TOGETHER.
For 5: those e-mails are so few and far between now that I don't find it unreasonable to expect you to ask a question every few weeks when it used to be every few days. Plus, the scope of these questions can span much larger than the scope of the questions in our e-mails. The e-mail questions are about you or me, while the questions here are about ANYTHING.
For 3: Some people, for some dumb reason, think that one hand cannot clap. However, this ancient "riddle" doesn't take into account the resourceful mind of the Daniel. I tested out this question to find out what the sound of one hand clapping was, and the results may shock you. First off, it doesn't specify clapping against WHAT. So I clapped my hand against multiple objects and got different sounds. I clapped my hand against a glass on the table and it made a rather dull slapping sound followed by a loud glass shatter... oops, I guess I should have held the glass down. Then I clapped using a cat. That too was a dull slap, more like a thud actually. Followed by a loud cat shriek. Then I decided to clap using my stomach. It sounded a lot like the cat clap, but more of a slap than a thud. Followed by an "ouch" sound coming from somewhere near my face. I then proceeded to do a whole battery of test claps everywhere I went. And everywhere I went, with every changing surface and texture, I experienced new clapping sounds. And, as with the glass, the cat and my stomach, some of the claps had after sounds (which I have called "afterclaps"). So to answer your question... well, I can't answer it. The sound of one hand clapping is the amount of colors in a rainbow. It's forever changing given the circumstances in which it occurs. I have a developing theory that temperature and air density may play a role in the nuances of the clap and afterclap sounds. One hand clapping is to the clapping world as a prism is to light. It takes one thing and splits it into it's component parts, splaying them across the soundscape for you to experience individually if you just know where to look. I suggest you go around one hand clapping everything you see if you want to experience what one hand claps truly have to offer.
Just be careful. Some people mistake one hand claps for slaps, but the key difference is a slap is meant to hurt, but a one hand clap is meant to make sound, the fact that they hurt is just a pleasant side effect. Thank you for your question! Any others from anyone?
Question 6, from Megan: When are you going to blog again?
Answer 6: When I feel like it. Besides, this post was made two days ago AND I updated yesterday and am updating now. So it's not like I haven't been blogging.
Questions 7, 8 and 9, from Kira: Why don't ducks chew their food? Did you miss me last night? What do you want to name our firstborn?
Answers 7, 8 and 9: Again, your first question is the most complex so I shall save that for last. Questions 8 and 9 both pertain to you in some way so I'll kinda answer them together.
For 8 and 9: Of course I did. But don't worry, I'm taking marksmen classes and I shouldn't be missing often within a few weeks. But I didn't miss you completely because you EVENTUALLY came back even if it was for a short time. I think you missed me more than I missed you ;-). For name of our firstborn... well I know you want Eve/Emma for a girl and Ryan/Christopher/Ryan Christopher for a boy. BUT I think I should get some say in the name. However, I also have no right to deny you naming the kid what you want. So we should compromise. I will modify the names you have chosen so they suit me but also keep the original sound that you like. For a girl I say Evel/Emmalicious (not because it sounds like delicious, but because it has malicious in it) and for a boy I say Ryanabolic/Christgopher/Ryanabolic Christgopher. Good? Good.
For 7: I don't feel like researching ducks so I'm going to go purely on gut instict for this one. Duck's don't chew their food because their beaks are made of marshallows. Marshmallows AREN'T, I repeat, AREN'T strong enough to chew most foods except maybe jello. Unfortunatley for ducks, Jello doesn't exist under water... well, maybe it does for a short time but then the water around it turns to jello which would be bad news for a duck if it did. This also explains the reason why Daffy Duck has a horrible, HORRIBLE lisp and why Donald Duck's voice sounds like a burp on a cheese grater. Their marshallow beaks (henceforth known as Meaks) are far too soft to create an easily audible sound as the air vibrations generated in their esophagi collide with the extremely maleable meaks. The wave form of their original voice gets distorted so badly it sounds like a dying yak. Anyway, I'm getting off topic... So, they don't chew because they have marshallow beaks. But they also don't chew because they have chute like throats. Their throats are like a flood gate that can be turned on and off at will. Food in the mouth? Turn the gate on! Food slides down their throats, sans chewing, and gets digested in their stomachs. It should be noted that their throats are lined with knives that effectively "chew" the food up before entering the stomach. The stomach, surprisingly, is made out of chewed gum. This creates an extremely confusing paradox... if a duck can't chew, how is it's stomach made out of CHEWED gum? The answer to this is simple. Five thousand years ago the great duck god, called Dog, actually had a beak made of stone. He loved Big League Chew and chewed it for seven years straight. By the time he was done chewing and collecting the gum he moulded ALL of the world's duck's stomachs for all eternity and placed it in a secret pond that only ducks know about. When a duck is born it naturally migrates to this magical pond and swallows it's stomach. End of story. Good questions.
ps: that gum bit isn't really true. I just wanted to gross Kira out. :-D
Question 10, from Alexis: Is Kira your wife?
Answer 10: I'd say no but she'd take offense to that. And I'm glad you like the name, I just hope she does.
Question 11, from Ashley: Why don't you freakin' apply at Chili's already?
Answer 11: I did apply... and I called the manager and he was a dickhead to me and pretty much said I didn't have a chance. Remember?
Questions 12 and 13, from Ashley: Why don't you reapply at Chili's? What's your earlier memory?
Answers 12 and 13:
For 12: I don't feel like reapplying. Besides, I'm probably getting a job at Stater Bros.
For 13: Ummm, I don't have any FULL recollections of anything before the time I was sitting on the back deck with a phillips head screwdriver just stabbing the wood. My dad found all the stab marks the next day and asked me how it happened (he knew I did it) and I told him ants were eating the wood. I think I was like 3 at the time.
Question 14, from Megan: Why hasn't Alexis called?
Answer 14: Well... Megan. I've been avoiding telling you this but I think it's time. Alexis suffers from a rare but acute case of Alexitosis. It makes it impossible for her to call people on time and it also completely hinder her ability to be cool. There is no cure for it, but she's been able to cope with it her whole life so I think you should be a bit more understanding.
Final Question, Question 15, from Ben: Chicken or egg?
Final Answer, Answer 15: Well, now isn't this a vague question? What exactly are you asking? Which came first? Which tastes better in cake? Which one has a higher natural viscosity and would be better suited to grease up engine bores? Which breaks easier? It could be ANYTHING. So, in the interest of time and how bored I am, I'll answer each of those. I'll answer them in the order I presented them, except the "Which came first" question. That, being the end all be all of chicken and egg questions deserves to be last and to be given the greatest amount of thought.
Subquestion A: Which tastes better in cake? The answer to this one is EGGS! Obviously. That's how you make the cake, eggs are an ingredient in making cake batter! If you put chicken in your cake you are either really, really dumb or you just really really love chicken. And I suppose I wouldn't be able to fault you for either. Being dumb can't be fixed and chicken is damn tasty.
Subquestion B: Which has a higher natural viscosity and would be better suited to grease up engine bores? This one may seem easy but it has so many varying factors in it that it ends up quite complex. First of all it depends on if the engine is lead based or diesel based. The gas type matters because diesel based engines generally burn hotter and therefore need something with a higher viscosity to counter the increased friction which would, in turn, lower the burning temperature that would otherwise cause the engine to melt itself. In that case, eggs would work better. Plus you'd have a nice treat waiting for you whenever you're done driving. Scrambled eggs, anyone? However, You'd want to use a teenaged chicken for a lead based engine. Why teenager? They are the greasiest beings on the planet. A finely plucked teenage chicken could pump out three quarts of oil every fifty minutes if wrung properly. Five courts if he recently ate Pizza Hut. Just grab a blender, toss him in, hit pureé and dump him in your engine. Make sure you smear him around the pistons mostly and try to avoid chicken leakage into the main combustion chamber, that could spell disaster for even the most finely tuned of engines.
Subquestion C: Which breaks easier? You'd assume egg, wouldn't you? I find it all depends. Grab an old chicken whose bones have deteriorated beyond recognition and you've got yourself an easily breakable beaked brittle bone bag. Flick it once and watch as those bones shatter. Ahhhhh yes. On the other hand, you'd have to flick an egg pretty damn hard to crack it, but it can be done. I actually did a test though. I bought a chicken and I bought an egg and I threw them off of my roof. The egg hit the ground with a satisfying splatter but the chicken flipped and flopped and struggled in the air so valiantly that his clipped little chicken wings had displaced enough air to keep him from breaking upon concrete contact. So far the score is tied... Chicken broke easier once and egg broke easier once. I needed a tie breaker (haha get it?). I went out and rented myself an industrial sized cement pounder. You know, those things that pound recently laid cement so it evens it out and gets rid of any bumps. I placed the chicken from the previous experiment (since it survived unharmed) and a NEW egg (those things come in packs of 12! so much easier to experiment on than chickens. I couldnt find any twelve packs of chickens.) and placed them under the cement packer. What happened next was truly astonishing. Both the chicken AND the egg were crushed! TALK ABOUT INCONCLUSIVE!! However, given this data, and my previous data, the egg and the chicken are tied 1 for 1. I decided to use this break:no break ratio and apply it to their bodily structure ratio. I have concluded that chickens are actually eggs with a 1:1 ratio of similarity. Don't argue with me on this, it's backed by scientific data.
Subquestion D: You are asking a very complex question here and the answer varies depending on my life philosophy. I will attempt to answer it from a few viewpoints so no one feels left out.
A Creationist would say: Both the chicken and the egg were created at the same time. God loves all of his creatures, that's why he put them in a shelly prison for the first few weeks of their lives, to teach them some respect. What is love without respect? I don't know either, but apparently God does.
A Darwinist would say: The chicken came first, at least a form of it did. Whatever creature it evolved from had slowly mutated over a long period of time until it closely resembled a chicken. Then it laid an egg and produced something that looked more like a chicken. So on and so forth until an actual chicken was born. However, you might think "but then the egg came first since a chicken came out of it!" BZZT WRONG! The NAME of an egg is the name of the animal it came from, not the animal that comes out of it. If a fish were to lay an egg that spawned a human would you make fun of that person for coming out of a human egg or a fish egg? Exactly.
A Buddhist would say: I want to be reincarnated as a chicken when I die. I want to be delicious and provide sustenance for all of earth's creatures. But in order to be a chicken I'd have to be an egg first. Hey man, that's the breaks.
An Amish person would say: What's a chicken? I only eat butter.
ps: if i have any philosophy wrong, dont freak out. i'm not a master on world beliefs and i never claimed to be. if your philosophy wasn't included: TOO BAD. Deal with it. and if you're amish and offended by what I have to say... WHY ARE YOU USING THE INTERNET?
That's all folks! I hope you enjoyed this rousing session of "Ask Daniel."
