Usually, if i ever think about this question, maybe to stop myself from going crazy, i land on the same conclusion as the first post in this thread stated. However, if you're talking about it with other people and in terms of philosophical arguments, then there is always going to be someone else looking at it in a different way according to their beliefs and knowledge of abstract concepts like evolution. My new conclusion is that the question is only half a question and this is why people have been debating and arguing about it for years and years. It's only half a question because it lacks context. I have always agreed with the principal that to get the right answer, you must first ask the right question. "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" lacks context and is only half a question so i'm resigned to not giving it much thought ever again.
For clarity, a simpler example of a question that lacks context would be one astronaut in space asking another astronaut in space for the time. He could look at his watch and say "It's 3:25pm" but then all the other astronauts would argue that it wasnt because they came from different time zones. The full question could be "What is the time in Greenwich, London?". This is a full question which can be answered without provoking too much disagreement.
A three hundred word question which requires a one word answer can be more powerful than a 2 word question which requires an essay as an answer.
You had to ask
