Sex Could Not Have "Evolved"

Wrong -- Chicken eggs always come from chickens, so the chicken egg could not possibly have come first. Are you a child, you did not read what I said. Read it again if you want to have the smallest understanding of what I mean, or will that be too hard for you to understand? No it didn't -- that scenario is nothing but your own personal faith-based religious belief, but it is not observable science. don't get into science here, God is no where near observable science, please don't pretend he is, you are just going to embarrass yourself Yes it does have meaning. The fact that you have to say so is kind of sad. I never made that claim, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. You did make the claim that evolution did not create gender, so you are the one being logically unsound thank you very much. "We may have" is not observable science -- it is your faith-based religious belief. "It is possible" is not observable science -- it is merely your faith-based religious belief. I have no religion, so you are just plain wrong. Evolution is observable through what we uncover from the past. Have we found any acts of Hindu gods recorded, no. Have we found anything that leads anyone to believe your God is real threw logic or fact, no, you just have a faith based religion that stands no purpose in modern day society. 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. Any "facts" to go with these claims? Or are facts just made up too? Give me real evidence, not a YouTube link. Give me 5 studies to accurately prove this is true and I will have lost this point. No we couldn't. "Yes we could", does this seem like a smart answer to you or are you just to focused on your God to accept facts. There could be 2000 genders if we needed it happen. And is this not Heresy to your religion? You just said that we could not have 2000 genders, does that mean your God could not make us that way? And you call yourself a Believer 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. It in fact is not a brute fact, it is me saying that we did not get 2000 genders. So do you disagree with what you previously said? A confused person as well as a heretic, you really are stacking up your faults. Saying that "GOD IS REAL" does not make it fact, it just makes you seem childish. 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. At this point you are just using the Ad hominem fallacy, so I would stop thinking you know so much about debating. "Chosen???" Chosen by whom? The Intelligent Designer? Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =) Chosen by what we needed to survive where we lived. Thank you for letting me make such a good clarification. No I didn't say that -- stop lying. Yes, you did. You did not say it exactly like that I will admit. But I rephrased it. You can object as much as you want, it won't change the fact you are wrong. The above statement is your faith-based religious BELIEF, not observable science. A belief has no evidence towards it, like an abstract concept; that is a real entity that encompasses everything (seen and unseen) in the universe. This is a belief. What I said has many studies conducted to prove evolution exists. I never denied the existence of genders, dummy. now you are just cherry picking what I say. The full thing I said was that the there could be genders through evolution. Bad at arguing, confused, and a heretic (does it ever end). No it isn't. evidence is all I will say to these any more. I never made the claim the "everything" requires an intelligent designer, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part. If you would actually put up an argument or debate, I would know. Sadly you are too focused on trying to find loopholes in arguments so that you have an inkling of a chance to win. Yes, it is all just your opinion because you failed to provide any evidence for any of your wild and ignorant claims. I used logic, for an argument that is this easy I don't need studies. You lost the debate, and you lost it HARD: Thanks for your time! =) I have time to rebuttal, and you are the one losing at this point. Even what you say you have won, you are just admitting to your own ignorance through faith, just find a good medium between religion and fact (and don't be so jerkish to people who believe something different) and you will be fine. And really work out what you say before you say it, I should not ever be able to call someone a heretic, but you set yourself up. So thank you for a easily won debate, I can't wait for your hastily made reply that will be completely useless to drag yourself out of the hole you have dug yourself in. I hope you learn to understand the deference between faith and facts (hint, what I have said are facts, what you have said is faith, Deal with it.)