The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Shanor
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Sex Could Not Have "Evolved"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Shanor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 346 times Debate No: 103409
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

SEX COULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED:

People ask: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Neither could possibly have come first, because chickens always come from chicken eggs, and chicken eggs always come from chickens. This is an insurmountable conundrum for the believer in atheist Dogma, but not for us Theists:

The conclusive answer is that the complete system of chickens laying eggs and chickens hatching from chicken eggs must have manifested together, simultaneously. There is no other rational option.

This also means that the complete system had to have been designed and initiated by a conscious, intelligent person or persons. Same goes for gender differentiation.

Here's a related short video
that provides more detailed explanation of these facts:

One of the many problems with the so-called "common ancestor" fantasy is that gender-differentiation could not possibly have evolved or developed gradually, from a creature that was not gender-differentiated, as the darwinist claims. This is because reproduction of gender-differentiated offspring is an "all-or-none" scenario. Gender differentiation must necessarily have manifested 100% complete, with both genders and all of their respective organs and behaviors fully represented, or it could have never manifested at all. Such simultaneous and complete manifestation of two different genders -- along with their matching yet differentiated sexual organs as well as their matching yet differentiated sexual behaviors -- would necessarily require an immense amount of planning and organization, from an extremely powerful and extremely intelligent conscious designer. https://www.youtube.com...
Shanor

Con

First and foremost, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" has an extremely simple answer to it. The egg. Chicken as we see them today slowly became as other beings passed down their traits through many many years. The egg for what became what we call a chicken came first as the chicken finally evolved to the form it is now. So the entire start of your argument has no meaning.

Your second claim that evolution could not have created gender is just as misguided. There are many reasons that gender could have popped up. First example, it takes quite a bit of energy to create new life, so we may have evolved to distribute the energy required. Second, we are social creatures so it is possible we evolved to require mates for reproduction. And third, it is fully possible this was just dumb luck. We could have 2000 genders (I am taking it you define gender as sex) but we just did not. Not everything has to be carefully planned. It is fully possible that a fair amount about us is not planned but rather chosen from what benefited us most at the time.

Just because there are some holes in a theory does not mean it should be discarded (or many religions would no longer exist). 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). God may exist, I am agnostic, I don't pretend to know if he is or isn't, but I do believe that evolution is a process that occurs within nature.

You are making many assumptions within your theory. First, there definitely could be genders as I have shown in my argument. Evolution is a powerful process that changes entire beings. Second, not everything requires an intelligent designer, quite a bit of where we are is just from dumb luck, not planning. If everything were planned by an intelligent designer, I would hope he would plan better then he did (but that is just my opinion).

I believe I have made my point here. So if you can poke some holes in my logic that is not just speculation we can continue.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

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! =)
Shanor

Con

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.)
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"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?"

The truth makes you angry. LOL SMH =)

No it didn't -- that scenario is nothing but your own personal faith-based religious belief, but it is not observable science.

Yes it does have meaning.

"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"

No I didn't, you liar.

", so you are the one being logically unsound thank you very much."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between sound logic and unsound logic.

"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"

Yes you do.

", so you are just plain wrong"

No I'm not.

"Evolution is observable"

No it isn't.

" through what we uncover from the past."

How do you "observe" the past? Magic? A time-machine? A crystal ball? You are a ridiculous and ignorant moron.

"Have we found any acts of Hindu gods recorded,"

There is only one God, and he is not a Hindu.

"...your God is real...."

There is only one God, and he is not mine -- you and I both belong to him, actually.

" threw logic or fact"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the logical and the illogical, and without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between fact and fiction.

"you just have a faith based religion...."

No I don't.

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.

Also, you failed to provide any evidence for your "luck," so my point that it doesn't exist is well-taken. Actually, your "luck" really is nothing but your own personal faith-based religious belief. LOLOLOLOL

"...God to accept facts."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between facts and falsehoods.

" There could be 2000 genders"

No there couldn't.

"your God"

There is only one God, and he is not mine. Actually, all of us belong to him.

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."

It's not a fact, but it is brutish.

" So do you disagree with what you previously said?"

Nope.

Saying that "GOD IS REAL" does not make it fact,"

I never made that statement, so that is nothing but an ignorant straw man logical fallacy on your part.

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"

Poor kid -- you don't know what an ad hominem logical fallacy is! LOLOLOLOLOL

"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"

The above text is not even a sentence. "Choice" is a conscious activity, and it requires a living, conscious, and intelligent agent. Who is the conscious, living, and intelligent agent that you are positing as part of your argument when you assert "chosen?" The Intelligent Designer, of course! Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

. Thank you for letting me make such a good clarification.

No I didn't say that -- stop lying.

"Yes, you did."

No I didn't: You committed a straw man logical fallacy when you claimed that I did, and you also lied. Have you no shame, little girl???

"I rephrased it."

Your rephrasing was YOUR statement, not mine. You claim that YOUR statement was mine, but that claim of yours was nothing but a lie and a straw man on your part. You are REALLY bad at this, little girl! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

"you are wrong."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between right and wrong.

"The above statement is your faith-based religious BELIEF, not observable science.

A belief has no evidence towards it,"

Exactly, and you have provided zero evidence for any of your foolish and ridiculous atheistic claims.

"What I said has many studies conducted to prove evolution exists."

No it doesn't.

I never denied the existence of genders, dummy.

"now you are just cherry picking what I say"

No I'm not.

The full thing I said was that the there could be genders through evolution"

That statement is merely part of your faith-based religious belief system, not observable science.

No it isn't.

"evidence is all I will say to these any more."

That is not even a sentence. Do you have a learning disability? (Serious question).

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"

Without God, there could be no logic.

You lost the debate, and you lost it HARD: Thanks for your time! =)

"ignorance"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between wisdom and ignorance.

"religion and fact"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between fact and falsehood.

"faith and facts... facts..."

Again, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between facts and fictions.
Shanor

Con

I will not bother trying to teach you any logic at this point. You have lost, you are just trying to hold on because you are too stubborn to accept defeat. You both refuse to accept my logic and refuse to state your own. I will not answer this not because I can't, but because you will not change your ignorant (and quite hermitic to too your own God lol) beliefs. You need to accept that you cannot say that's a lie without logic or some sort of bases for it. As well as understanding that one, I am agnostic, look up the definition if you want. And two, you have no evidence, you cherry pick what I say to make it sound like you have an actual argument, and then waste my time trying to say I am not arguing what you asked. Get off this site if you want to waste peoples times. Go somewhere where people will agree with you rather then argue because you don't want an argument, you just want to assure yourself that you are right. Get over yourself. Your God may or may not exist. You are not smart for thinking you can say you win. You only win if other people vote that you win. It is not your decision. And I seriously hope you learn to understand just how ignorant and idiotic you sound. You created a horrible argument. I would have to guess I have won, good day sir/mam, and I hope to never have to bother arguing with you again.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by fzbw9br 8 months ago
fzbw9br
Pro wrote: Neither could possibly have come first, because chickens always come from chicken eggs, and chicken eggs always come from chickens.

you lose the ability to SEE evolution in action.

all chicken eggs come from chickens, but not all chickens come from chicken eggs. Eggs, yes, but NOT chicken eggs.

the process of mutation caused a being similar to a chicken to lay an egg... but the mutation in the embryo caused that form to alter to a chicken.

this is simple science... we learned this in grade 7
Posted by Shanor 11 months ago
Shanor
Then what is the "real" god per say.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
You lost the debate -- thanks for your time! =)
Posted by Shanor 11 months ago
Shanor
It took me about 3 minutes to pull apart your argument. Do you want some more time?
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
You may need more than three days: Maybe I'll withdraw from this version and re-post it with more days, just for you. How many days do you need? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL =)
Posted by Shanor 11 months ago
Shanor
I get three days to write my argument, I hope we can hurry this up so it does not take weeks, but we do have that much time if we need to.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
I'm new here, so I'm not quite sure how this works yet....

Someone accepted my debate challenge, but didn't write anything.

This means that I win the debate by default, right? =)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaShanorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Once again, as usual, Pro spouts out some contemptible trash and refuses to listen to his opponent. Apologies to anyone who's roped into a debate with this prick.