Well if god is organizing it from the dust than the chicken. If we are talking about evolution, the DNA that resulted in the chicken would have been a result of conception so the egg was first.
It was probably some partially feathered lizardy chickeny kind of thing with scales, a toothed beak, a stubby tail, and would lay eggs...which contained something ever-so-slightly more chickeny.
Not false just irrelevant. Since in biology there is a generalized tendency to categorize, before it was a chicken it wasn't a chicken. Granted pinpointing the exact time that a chicken became a chicken is pointless, but understanding that it hasn't always been a chicken is a nice piece of information to have.
I second jacob's and Awake In Tucson's idea. A creature laid an egg and it hached, and laid an egg, and so forth until the egg thingy became more and more a chicken. Ham comes before egg on a sandwich.
Silly you...when are you gonna realize that it all depends upon the whether the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year or not multiplied by the rate that it was slowing down if rolled back by 4.6-billion years!
Just where the heck have you been living under a rock or something lately!!!
Amphibians started laying eggs on land long before the dinosaurs. Eggs are merely a form of gestation. A chicken does not "come from" an egg. An embryo is sheltered by an egg...but the embryo itself exists apart from the egg and its dependence on the egg is only for a head start in development. That represents the hypothetical possibility of the embryo developing WITHOUT the egg (I mean egg in the chicken-egg sense, not "egg" as in an ovum...different "egg"). Since it's hypothetically possible for a chicken embryo to develop with some surrogate means besides an egg, it follows that the egg itself is not the ultimate source of the chicken. The embyro was formed by the fusion of an ovum and sperm...otherwise called "gametes" which are a lifecycle state produced by meiosis, which is the mixing and then separation of the (usually 2) sets of parent DNA (there are some organisms, ie some plants, that the mature form is a gamete, and the combined-DNA form we are is only a secondary transient form for them...to reproduce). So, a chicken comes from the gametes of of a mom and dad chicken. Duh. But removing the egg itself as a necessary condition removes the argument that some third party MUST have CAUSED either the original chicken and rooster or the original egg. The truth is that all chickens came from parent chickens, not eggs. Knowing that each generation of chickens has progressively divergant DNA gives us a mechanism for the evolution of chickens from earlier ancestors. It's simple. each generation is slightly different than the last. Over many generations they are majorly different, and after enough generations they aren't even chickens anymore. If we doubt this hypothetical mechanism...we can go look at fossils and observe the transition from ancestral forms to modern forms, to name one way of testing the theory.
As for eggs, they evolved progressively as egg-layers did. Their fossils are out there too. There were no chickens when amphibians first laid eggs on land, but we can observe the progressive advent of bird fossils and their eggs evolving from early amphibians.
The irony of the "which came first" question is that it is SO answerable. It's not even hard. Creationists will act like it's some big enigma, a huge stumbling block that confounds science in its tracks. Well science is confounded all the time...but not by that.