If, as evolutionists have argued, there is a materialistic answer for everything, then these questions should be answered: 

How exactly did we arrive at two separate genders, each with its own physiology? 

Why sex? 

Is sex the product of a historical accident or the product of an intelligent Creator? 

Modified:

How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells?

Another misinformed theist thinking he had a eureka moment

1. Atheism is not a scientific claim

2. Evolution is a scientific claim

3. There are Christians that accept evolution theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

4. There are non-antheists that accept evolution theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

5. There are atheists that reject evolution theory



Now go back and ask a germane question or you're just rambling ignorantly sir

hopefulLandlord:
Another misinformed theist thinking he had a eureka moment

1. Atheism is not a scientific claim

2. Evolution is a scientific claim

3. There are Christians that accept evolution theory

4. There are non-antheists that accept evolution theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

5. There are atheists that reject evolution theory



Now go back and ask a germane question or you're just rambling ignorantly sir

Do you believe evolution theory?

hopefulLandlord:
Another misinformed theist thinking he had a eureka moment

1. Atheism is not a scientific claim

2. Evolution is a scientific claim

3. There are Christians that accept evolution theory

4. There are non-antheists that accept evolution theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

5. There are atheists that reject evolution theory



Now go back and ask a germane question or you're just rambling ignorantly sir

Anybody that accepts evolution theory is not a Christian.
It's a paradox to be a Christian and also evolutionist.

danvon:
Do you believe evolution theory?

Beautiful question, please answer it.

danvon:
Do you believe evolution theory?

I don't "believe" in evolution theory, no one "believes" in evolution theory. one either studies it well and "accepts" its true or one rejects its validity

Let me rephrase your question to "Do you accept evolution theory?" and my answer is that I'm undecided on it, why? because I haven't studied it enough to have an opinion on it

hopefulLandlord:


I don't "believe" in evolution theory, no one "believes" in evolution theory. one either studies it well and "accepts" its true or one rejects its validity

Let me rephrase your question to "Do you accept evolution theory?" and my answer is that I'm undecided on it, why? because I haven't studied it enough to have an opinion on it

Doesn't that make you Agnostic?

iamwhat:


Anybody that accepts evolution theory is not a Christian.
It's a paradox to be a Christian and also evolutionist.

I also agree with you fully bro but Christians who accept evolution theory begs to differ

danvon:
Doesn't that make you Agnostic?

how

I hope you're aware Darwin was never an atheist?

hopefulLandlord:
Another misinformed theist thinking he had a eureka moment

1. Atheism is not a scientific claim

2. Evolution is a scientific claim

3. There are Christians that accept evolution theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

4. There are non-antheists that accept evolution theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

5. There are atheists that reject evolution theory



Now go back and ask a germane question or you're just rambling ignorantly sir

Take a look at this germane question:

Where did males and females actually come from?
What is the evolutionary origin of sex?

How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells?  And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? 

Modified: I just realised you're not learned in evolution theory, so the question is not for you.
Am sorry for bothering you.

hopefulLandlord:

how

I hope you're aware Darwin was never an atheist?

If you don't accept evolution and you also reject creation please can you tell your own version of how we came into existence, whether Darwin was an atheist or not all I know is he inspired atheism

danvon:
If you don't accept evolution and you also reject creation please can you tell your own version of how we came into existence, whether Darwin was an atheist or not all I know is he inspired atheism

Expect an "I don't know" answer from him. He never seems to know anything when it matters the most. Questions like these either fly over his head or he writes up a dodgy response which attempts to shift you away from your question.

danvon:
If you don't accept evolution and you also reject creation please can you tell your own version of how we came into existence, whether Darwin was an atheist or not all I know is he inspired atheism

1. I never said "I don't accept evolution theory", I said I haven't studied it enough to accept nor reject it. don't strawman me again please

2. I don't know but I understand why man created gods like Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Olodumare, Chukwu etc as "I don't know" has always been a difficult answer to give to a question

3. Atheism is as old as man, Darwin existed in the 19th century

hopefulLandlord:


I don't "believe" in evolution theory, no one "believes" in evolution theory. one either studies it well and "accepts" its true or one rejects its validity

Let me rephrase your question to "Do you accept evolution theory?" and my answer is that I'm undecided on it, why? because I haven't studied it enough to have an opinion on it

It's clear you don't have any tangible contributions that's why you're paying much attention to words. What's the difference between believe and accept in the context he used it? does it even matter ? did you understand his question or not ?

hopefulLandlord:


1. I never said "I don't accept evolution theory", I said I haven't studied it enough to accept nor reject it. don't strawman me again please

2. I don't know but I understand why man created gods like Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Olodumare, Chukwu etc as "I don't know" has always been a difficult answer to give to a question

3. Atheism is as old as man, Darwin existed in the 19th century

If you have beliefs you must base it on something no matter how crazy, the 'I don't know' response sounds Agnostic to me

hopefulLandlord:


1. I never said "I don't accept evolution theory", I said I haven't studied it enough to accept nor reject it. don't strawman me again please

2. I don't know but I understand why man created gods like Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Olodumare, Chukwu etc as "I don't know" has always been a difficult answer to give to a question

3. Atheism is as old as man, Darwin existed in the 19th century

Atheism is as old as man ?
Where did you get that information from ?

mohemos:


Take a look at this germane question:

Where did males and females actually come from?
What is the evolutionary origin of sex?

How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells?  And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? 

Modified: I just realised you're not learned in evolution theory, so the question is not for you.
Am sorry for bothering you.

Brilliant questions I must say.

Even when evolutionary scientists attempt answering questions such as yours they have been known to include a lot of words like, "PERHAPS", "MAYBE", ","WE THINK" , etc.

All remarks based on assumptions and not realities.

This evolutionary process if it was a gambling man must have been a very lucky gambler to have given males and females exactly what both genders require for procreation and not more or less.

The clincher is the half and half number of chromosome somatic cells found in male and female which shows that only when they are combined that a human is formed. Why not give the female All or the male All? Why this interdependency as if both genders had a chromosomal meeting where their differences were tabled and assets shared EQUALLY.

Not a third to the woman and two third to the man or in any other fractions BUT EQUALLY.

indeed evolution must be a very lucky fellow.

iamwhat:

Atheism is as old as man ? Where did you get that information from ?

induction

hopefulLandlord:


1. I never said "I don't accept evolution theory", I said I haven't studied it enough to accept nor reject it. don't strawman me again please

2. I don't know but I understand why man created gods like Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Olodumare, Chukwu etc as "I don't know" has always been a difficult answer to give to a question

3. Atheism is as old as man, Darwin existed in the 19th century

You don't know but you understand people that know ?

How can someone that know nothing understand people that know something ?

How do you know their believes are false when you don't have your own belief and against what would you base the falsehood of their believes ?

iamwhat:


You don't know but you understand people that know ?

How can someone that know nothing understand people that know something ?

How do you know their believes are false when you don't have your own belief and against what would you base the falsehood of their believes ?

I've scrutinised their hypothesis and found it wanting, illogical and basically untrue

iamwhat:


It's clear you don't have any tangible contributions that's why you're paying much attention to words. What's the difference between believe and accept in the context he used it? does it even matter ? did you understand his question or not ?

it makes a whole lot of difference bro, religious claims need no evidence at all and that's "belief" AFAIK

hopefulLandlord:


induction

I need a detailed answer not a monosyllabic answer like this.

Scholars dated Atheism to 5th century and the first athiest was Diagoras of Melos....

What information do you have that proves athiesm is earlier than 5th century ?

Thanks!

hopefulLandlord:


I've scrutinised their hypothesis and found it wanting, illogical and basically untrue

Found it wanting based on what existing yardsticks and untrue based on what comparison?

How sure are you that even the yardsticks and comparisons you would view them with are not in themselves untrue because you can only call something untrue if you have that which is true as your yardstick. So do you have it?

If you have it then kindly produce it for us to see because so far all you have been showing has been "I don't know" which is a far cry from truth.

Also you can only call something illogical if logically what you have to compare it to is fail proof and solid logically.

Is logic definite or is it an open loop that can spring eternal regress?

Show me one logic that is fail proof and proven to be a closed loop.

iamwhat:


I need a detailed answer not a monosyllabic answer like this.

Scholars dated Atheism to 5th century and the first athiest was Diagoras of Melos....

What information do you have that proves athiesm is earlier than 5th century ?

Thanks!

The first atheist was NOT diagoras of melos, that's a massive misconception

Jainism for instance is said to have been founded around 500BC or so and its a religion that does not believe in the existence of creative deity. by induction we know that once an idea starts, its rejection starts too. eg non Christianity is as old as Christianity

hopefulLandlord:


I've scrutinised their hypothesis and found it wanting, illogical and basically untrue

Am happy you scrutinized them and it was clear to you that their believes are false.
For you to know that something is false that means you know the truth, please could you tell me the truth about creation ?

hopefulLandlord:


The first atheist was NOT diagoras of melos, that's a massive misconception

Jainism for instance is said to have been founded around 500BC or so and its a religion that does not believe in the existence of creative deity. by induction we know that once an idea starts, its rejection starts too. eg non Christianity is as old as Christianity

Lack of belief in a creative diety does not imply lack of belief in a diety or deification.

Jainism does believe in God, not as a creator, but as a perfect being.

hopefulLandlord:


The first atheist was NOT diagoras of melos, that's a massive misconception

Jainism for instance is said to have been founded around 500BC or so and its a religion that does not believe in the existence of creative deity. by induction we know that once an idea starts, its rejection starts too. eg non Christianity is as old as Christianity

Thanks for the information, I'll read about it.

iamwhat:

Am happy you scrutinized them and it was clear to you that their believes are false.
For you to know that something is false that means you know the truth, please could you tell me the truth about creation ?

This is fallacious, one doesn't need to provide a counter hypothesis to reject another hypothesis
this is why the court of law deals with "Guilty and not guilty"

They don't go "Mr iamwhat, we've found you not guilty of the charges brought against you, therefore Mr Danvon is guilty of those charges instead" The connection of your innocence is unrelated to Mr Danvon's

hopefulLandlord:


The first atheist was NOT diagoras of melos, that's a massive misconception

Jainism for instance is said to have been founded around 500BC or so and its a religion that does not believe in the existence of creative deity. by induction we know that once an idea starts, its rejection starts too. eg non Christianity is as old as Christianity

Per the bolded you are wrong. You cannot reject what you were never offered. In the ancient times they believed in gods or dieties but not Yahweh.

They deified objects and beings already so were not atheistic by inference. They simply rejected any other god that either was not theirs or did not agree with theirs.

hopefulLandlord:

This is fallacious, one doesn't need to provide a counter hypothesis to test another hypothesis
this is why the court of law deals with "Guilty and not guilty"

They don't go "Mr iamwhat, we've found you not guilty of the charges brought against you, therefore Mr Danvon is guilty of those charges instead" The connection of your innocence is unrelated to Mr Danvon's

Wrong again. A court of law can find you innocent or guilty based on a pre existing law or ruling on a trial of similar instances.

For you to say you have found something to be untrue this means you did an assessment and comparison and you cannot assess anything based on nothing. There are always existing standards to every assessment.

Here you are trying to throw a red herring at everyone. Where is the truth you have which you used to show others were untrue.?

You do not just provide a hypothesis. On its own a hypothesis is based on something prior to its origination and is always used to test another hypothesis that probably was there before it came and when proven to be true it becomes a law or absolute truth so any and every other hypothesis which comes after it can be assessed using the hypothesis which has now become a law or absolute truth.

hopefulLandlord:

This is fallacious, one doesn't need to provide a counter hypothesis to reject another hypothesis
this is why the court of law deals with "Guilty and not guilty"

They don't go "Mr iamwhat, we've found you not guilty of the charges brought against you, therefore Mr Danvon is guilty of those charges instead" The connection of your innocence is unrelated to Mr Danvon's

Maybe I should rephrase the question , you don't know a crooked line until you see a straight line, what ideology are you comparing with when you say creation is false you must have a better idea

danvon:
Maybe I should rephrase the question , you don't know a crooked line until you see a straight line, what ideology are you comparing with when you say creation is false you must have a better idea

Expect another red herring.