Sex Could Not Have "Evolved"

Someone wrote: "First and foremost, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" has an extremely simple answer to it. The egg." Wrong -- Chicken eggs always come from chickens, so the chicken egg could not possibly have come first. "The egg for what became what we call a chicken came first as the chicken finally evolved to the form it is now." No it didn't -- that scenario is nothing but your own personal faith-based religious belief, but it is not observable science. " So the entire start of your argument has no meaning." Yes it does have meaning. "Your second claim that evolution could not have created gender is just as misguided." I never made that claim, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "...we may have evolved...." "We may have" is not observable science -- it is your faith-based religious belief. "...it is possible we evolved...." "It is possible" is not observable science -- it is merely your faith-based religious belief. "And third, it is fully possible this was just dumb luck." No it isn't -- "luck" does not exist in reality. "Luck" is also just part of your faith-based religious belief system, but is not observable science. "We could have 2000 genders" No we couldn't. "...but we just did not...." That statement is what is known as a "brute fact," and if brute facts on your end are to be allowed in this debate, then also allowed shall be the following brute fact: Theism is "just true," and the belief in atheist Dogma is "just false." Do you really want to allow brute facts in this debate? Because if you do, then you have admitted the facts that God is real, that Theism is true, and that the belief in atheist Dogma is a false belief system. Let me know if brute facts are allowed, and if they are not, then withdraw your above brute fact. "Not everything has to be carefully planned." When babies shart their pants, it is not carefully planned. Similarly, your argument is exactly as carefully planned as when a baby sharts in his pants. "It is fully possible that a fair amount about us is not planned but rather chosen...." "Chosen???" Chosen by whom? The Intelligent Designer? Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =) "You have said that a omnipotent omnipresent being exists solely through circumstantial evidence that is actually not even real evidence for god (if you agree with my argument that is)." No I didn't say that -- stop lying. "I do believe that evolution is a process that occurs within nature." The above statement is your faith-based religious BELIEF, not observable science. "First, there definitely could be genders as I have shown in my argument." I never denied the existence of genders, dummy. "Evolution is a powerful process that changes entire beings." No it isn't. "Second, not everything requires an intelligent designer...." I never made the claim the "everything" requires an intelligent designer, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "quite a bit of where we are is just from dumb luck..." Nope -- your argument is dumb, but "luck" does not exist in reality. Rather, "luck" is merely part of your faith-based religious belief system, and is not observable science. "If everything were planned by an intelligent designer...." Again, I never made that claim, so that's a straw man on your part. "(but that is just my opinion)." Yes, it is all just your opinion because you failed to provide any evidence for any of your wild and ignorant claims. You lost the debate, and you lost it HARD: Thanks for your time! =)