Better talk to rharrington31 about that.
Just out of curiosity though, according to evolutionary theory reproduction was by cell division, easy and plentiful. If evolution is about ‘reproduction,’ why did we ever evolve past such an efficient form of it?
Also, how did we get from cell division to male – female reproduction. You would need an organism with fully evolved female genetalia to evolve at exactly the same time and the at the same place as an organism with fully evolved male genetalia of the same species, in order to reproduce, and this would need to happen all WITHIN ONE GENERATION!

Now you could posit that genetalia evolved gradually over time, and I could then ask what benefit an underevolved, non-functioning penis is but I’m not interested in an autobiography

Post your arguments, I will be glad to tackle them. But first, perhaps you could tell us how you account for the very concept of 'argumentation.' Argumentation presupposes universal laws of logic. How do you account for them according to your worldview?

No. It is your claim that God is necessary. I need not claim the contrary to refute your claim.


No. It is your claim that God is necessary. I need not claim the contrary to refute your claim.


Well, if my logic is ‘misguided’ then you obviously ascribe to ‘guided’ or ‘proper’ logic. I am still waiting for you to tell us how you account for the universal, abstract invariant laws of logic according to your worldview. (Note that I originally asked this 2, and a half years ago – still no response).[/quote]
It is your claim that God is necessary. We need not claim the contrary to refute your claim.

Actually, you claim the contrary by default. You make claims about my reasoning being fallacious, but you have yet to account for the laws of logic at the foundation of your claim.

Actually, you claim the contrary by default. You make claims about ethics and science, but you have yet to account for the ethics and uniformity of nature at the foundation of your claim.

Actually, you claim the contrary by default. Still though, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview? (Don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath).

See there you go again spouting off things that you know nothing about.
There is an answer to your question, though it takes a book to answer it.
The book is called The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.
Put it on the list of books you won't read.

I won't attempt to shorten the answer for you because you'lljust come back with something inane like, "well then how do you account for the unchanging laws of blah blah blah".

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.


Are you really crediting all major scientific developments of the past few hundred years to the rise of atheism?


Thanks. Yeah, I said evolution, what I meant was the commonly held view of the origin of basic life.

That is like saying I choose to ignore gravity, because it limits my research on why objects fall.




Nope.

Yep, all of us.

Hmmm, you put faith in a book for your answers? How quaint

If you want to start a new thread on Evolution, great. That's my specialty. Until then, I will answer these questions and these questions alone with the mutual understanding that they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

We filled different niches.


Mating increases variation thereby increasing the rate of adaptation.


Wow, now you're over 100 years behind in Evolutionary Biology. The first sexual species was likely able to reproduce by both on its own and by sexual means. The more able it became to reproduce sexually and less dependent it became on spawning its own, the more variation and therefore adaptability, and therefore survival and ultimately more reproduction, and speciation.


Yes, Canuck. I have an under-evolved (whatever you think you mean by this), non-functioning penis.

Whoops, I predicted you'd have another smug and hollow reply that had nothing to do with my statement,
but this was close enough.

I do not "claim the contrary by default".

Now support your assertion. It's your thread about your site about your assertion. Now support it.

Not unitl you account for the logic with which you expound ANY theory.

Which is more efficient, cell division, or male – female reproduction?

And the benefit of non-functioning genetalia again?

A bold admission. I was only making a joke, but seeing as you have affirmed it, I both apologize, and will try my best to refrain from mockery.

Sure you do, unless of course, you are claiming that there is no such thing as logic, in which case we can end this discussion right now.

I learn fast.

Does anyone else see the endless loop that this statement and response will lead to?

It's got a "Who's on first?" kind of feel to it.

True.