Wolfbite: you're the first person I've seen online nail the definitions correctly.
I'm a Constitutional Libertarian.
TROLL - YOUR DEBATE IS ONLY AN EXPRESSION OF YOUR PREJUDICE, BIAS AND CLOSE MINDEDNESS. YOU ARE NOT INSPIRED AND ARE A FANATIC. AS A REASONED RELIGIONIST, I AM STANDING AGAINST YOU TO REFRAIN FROM YOUR SINGLE MINDED REPRESSED VOMIT.
I for one take the debates I engage in seriously but understand the farcical nature of the site as well. I accept the fact that this is a populous website targeting mainstream participants. If we are to engage in intellectually higher level debates, internet sites are not the quintessential forum to do so, there are other forums available, however, I've observed these forums as being limited in scope, democratic accessibility and expensive to attend.
I'm very accepting that www.createdebate.com is sufficient for the most part.
Be wary of the purely empirical responses of the nay sayers; we all absolutely have a reason to be here, and can choose to find the answers according to the dictates of our own conscience, that's why there are many religions and belief systems. Although I am a research engineer, I am terrified of a nihilistic fatalistic single scientific philosophy that may permeate the human spirit. We should believe in something because we CAN. Atheistic nay sayers can be as blind concerning the continuance of life and its purpose as religious fanatics are against the world of science.
The universe does have a reason...to allow us as humans to find the reason ;)
GCOMEAU and to all other debaters; in my opinion, the debate question is posited incorrectly but we probably understand the premise for the argument. The question is proposed as "WHAT PRINCIPLES AND MECHANISMS FORMED THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE WITHIN IT". I would like to refine the debate question as there are aspects of counter arguments and circular reasoning evident on both sides of the argument based on the binary debate question posited. The format is simple, I have a range of questions and would welcome respondents of all types to offer an opinion based on facts;
1. Does evolutionary biology explain the formation of the universe, its organization and ability to be life forming.
2. At what point in the formation of a biological life form does principles of evolutionary science begin? Explain it's path from subatomic structures to a living organism. The initial argument presented by GCOMEAU adequately describes the process at the molecular stage but DOES NOT go any further to describe the building blocks of life preceding it. Evolutionary biology as a mechanism has a starting point, please explain through reason, the mechanism by which these particles were made and formed of the particles that precede evolutionary biology mechanisms.
3. Could evolutionary biology possibly be ONE of other mechanisms that explains the formation of biological life forms, FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF SUB ATOMIC PARTICLES TO MORE COMPLEX MOLECULAR STRUCTURES"?
4. Does evolutionary biology REQUIRE a level of sapience, consciousness or intelligence in a biological life form down to the protein stage to allow the evolutionary steps to take place?
5. Is there any option in evolutionary biology to allow the possibly of intelligent design, as in the role of the particles that allow the possibility of more complex organisms to occur in nature through sapience, consciousness or intelligence, to have allowed for the mechanism of evolutionary advancement to be present on the basis of the formation of "natural forms of nature"?
I will respond based on arguments presented.
Ricedaragh - I know scientists do not close their eyes to evidence however, be mindful that scientists are human, have biases, it is the scientific method that is the foundation of obtaining proof in the natural world. This in itself has a flaw if we are over confident that our methods developed in the past 400 years can compare to 14 Billion years of laws developed or formed by whatever means one might consider in the natural universe. I have never known or read a white paper describing the possibility of forming or creating a LAW of GRAVITY from nothing by any scientist and would bet that you or I never will. The proofs in scientific observation and repeatability are dependent upon adequate tools for observation. This is why the Hadron Collider must be built to supersede the capabilities of the Fermilab Collider if we are hoping to find something like the "God particle". As science advances we become more observing of nature as our tools to do so improve. However, we are naturally limited by scientific empirical-ism in our observation of the universe when searching for "empirical" evidence and we need to be more in tune to the "circumstantial" evidence. The circumstantial method works well for determining the relationship of smoking and cancer, we have never observed the cancer gene being formed at the puff of a cigarette.
I concur Chuck and have enjoyed this debate very much thanks to you.
Ricedaragh - in a court of law, circumstantial evidence is permitted as a case against or in favor of a judgment. This form of trial has been used to indict criminals, it has also been used to release those imprisoned. The principles of circumstantial evidence applies to science, whereby a theorem proposed can be considered as a "law" over time IF certain requirements are met. I'm not going to split hairs with you over some of your comments as your response was clearly an emotional reaction based on your subjective bias against the possibility of Intelligent Design. Please show me exactly where the circumstantial evidence presented fails and how the principle of "natural forms" is the same as the "flat earth theory". It is clear you do not have the slightest understanding of my argument. I purposely juxtaposed "natural form" and "evolutionary" principles in context and presented the argument that evolutionary mechanisms are valid and natural forms are valid. To doubt either is pure nonsensical. The challenge to the evolutionary biologists is that natural forms based on physics, although still circumstantial evidence, is leaning towards and in favor of the intelligent design mechanism. I recommend watching www.ted.com search for Dr George Smoot Experimental Astrophysicist (Nobel Laureate). He represents a growing movement in the physics scientific community using reasoning to attribute a form of anthropic influence in the universe. This cannot be explained purely by biological evolutionary science theory. The mechanism is valid but has limits and cannot explain the fact that the mechanism is not evidenced in the formation of sub atomic particle formation up to the protein stage of molecules. Here it is in a nutshell...the boundary layer between evolutionary fact and natural form fact in nature, exists. GCOMEAU recognizes this aspect of the argument. If evolution was the ONLY explanation for a life forming universe, we would see and observe the laws of evolution in the development of sub atomic particles, formation of atoms etc, we do NOT see this law in action at this level. This point can be supported by an analogy that maybe designed in my argument's favor, but I welcome any challenge to find the flaw in the reasoning; * I can purchase a lawn mower for the purpose of mowing my lawns. The fact that I purchased a lawn mower, a device organized and designed to mow lawns implies to me that the lawn mower was formed and designed for that purpose. I know I did not make it, design it, I just want to use it. This implies a natural form of nature based on some form of anthropic source such as subatomic, atomic and particle formation in the universe. Now, I start the lawn mower engine, it runs because I supplied it fuel (another form of nature) BUT, the evolutionary step takes over, the mechanism implied by nature for the advancement of life is such that the lawn mower now performs its task by cutting the grass on my lawn. This is clearly not a natural form of nature function excepting the physics principles involved. If I were NOT to periodically cut my grass, it would become over grown, weeded, and perhaps harbor more garden eating insects, rodents etc. By cutting and trimming it, the benefits to me are simple; 1. I am more socially accepted by my neighbors because I take care of my lawn 2. I reduce the potential for garden eating insects or rodents and so forth. The fact that my lawn mower is able to perform this function independent of the engineers and manufacturing process that formed it while in use is the premise of the argument. All too often, pure evolutionists neglect the physics observations in nature as part of the total view of nature. I like to say the "egg" precedes the "egg" since the building blocks were designed and manufactured for the purpose of being an egg, but can develop into a chicken at a later stage based on a cellular advancement mechanism akin to evolutionary development. I would have preferred a third category in this argument called "intelligent design" as opposed to "creationism" or "evolution" as I sit very comfortably in that category.
GCOMEAU - You have done a great job understanding the premise of my argument and I agree completely with your response with exception to some minor points of which I will address later. You've basically implicated yourself. The boundary between Biology and evolution and the "forms of nature" through Physics has a disconnect. For a pure evolutionist to state that there is NO God or Intelligent Design because all of nature, or the totality of the existence of organisms can be explained solely in evolutionary terms only is as misleading as creationist making the same statement in favor of creationism as the ONLY mechanism that advances organism advancement from ether. Dr's Steven Hawking, George Smoot, Michiu Kaku and many other Theoretical and Experimental Physicists imply a "life forming universe" anthropic universe principle that implies intelligent design. The mechanism of evolutionary advancement is a workable and valid mechanism beyond the Physics stage, of which you've acknowledged in your response. The forms of nature in Physics is a signature implying intelligent design, the building blocks that allow evolutionary mechanisms to be effective. Thank you for implicating yourself in acknowledging that such a distinction exists. Your gravitational/flu analogy has a flaw in favor of your argument and I would like to bring this to your attention; problem one: the subject isn't with gravity, it is based in the fact that the flu virus that causes the disease cannot exist with out the strong or weak nuclear forces of atomic structure, of which is a form of nature. Problem two: you understand what I've been arguing, in fact, I'm in favor and support much or your premise for your argument for evolutionary advancement, although you recognize the distinction between the Physics and the Biology (obvious distinction) you choose not to recognize that evolutionary advancement starts at a different stage and does not explain the possibility of intelligent design as the building block premise for which evolutionary advancement becomes possible. Problem three: I promote the premise that the universe is formed in such a way to promote life and is designed, I am not sure how you came to understand my points to the contrary. In short, I can only support scientists like Dr Richard Dawkins evolutionary arguments up until the point where he states there is NO GOD or a least the recognition of intelligent design, and that his view of the universe follows evolutionary theory from it's entirety, however possible that is, is a fairytale point of view in itself. I think you are a pure evolutionist and have addressed much of my commentary to address the underlying philosophy as such. Please acknowledge that I accept evolutionary advancement as a valid mechanism, but NOT at the expense of intelligent design as being the fundamental building blocks of nature that allows that mechanism to work. I see no distinction between the two other than the type of mechanism at work. I've supplied links supporting my argument in favor of intelligent design as the PREMISE for a life forming universe, please review before committing yourself to a response.
There appears to be a firm boundary between the evolutionary mechanism that is evident in speciation. I agree with GCOMEAU on the pro evolutionary argument with respect to protein and cellular level advancement, there is little to disagree with as far as evolutionary mechanisms that describe organism advancement, HOWEVER, a big problem for pure evolutionists is the question of the same evolutionary mechanism explaining the fundamental building blocks of nature, quarks, atomic components, molecules that provide the building blocks for amino acids, proteins, cells etc. The evolutionary mechanism that explains higher level building block development based on some simple rules in nature factually cannot apply to the deterministic properties at the fundamental building block level. I submit that organism advancement is a combination of both creationism and evolution. Organisms cannot evolve without the fundamental building block structure of atomic "forms of nature". These do not exhibit any form of evolutionary properties, but are deterministic. These "natural forms" are a product of intelligent design. An intelligent design in nature that allows each organism to exist, and to continue to improve based on the mechanisms of evolutionary theory. Please see scientific peer reviewed links for papers supporting "forms of nature" below. This argument is a "chicken before the egg" type argument. Pure evolutionists cannot argue against "forms of nature" building block mechanics in nature and pure creationist have no argument against the existence of evolutionary advancement in high level molecular or cellular organisms. It is the intelligent design point of view that explains BOTH points of view. That the two mechanisms co-exist and are not contrary to one or the other when viewed in perspective.
We can describe the "forms" of nature in simplistic terms, the FACT that the probabilistic view of life formation in the universe tend to complicate the argument in support of a life forming universe, the FACT that statistical anomalies tend to be guaranteed to successfully yield the right balance of hydrogen, carbon oxygen helium in nature (we know this from meteorites ex planet Earth) that the same make up is inherent in these materials as on Earth suggests Natural Law uniformity (as such so are the Laws of Gravity inherent in our side of the galaxy as in the opposite side of the universe were it possible to measure).
Cosmological, Experimental and Theoretical Physicists have an easier time understanding the natural forms of nature than perhaps, Evolutionary Biologists, Organic Chemists etc in MOST cases. The argument for natural forms in nature and its implication in the development of cellular construction as the precursor to biological evolution mechanisms are easier to understand with respect to the laws of nature (strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic and gravitational forces), inherent in atomic structure. Understanding this Newtonian (Principia philosophy) idea of classic Physics lends itself to intelligently designed, architect-ed or molecular forms in nature. Perhaps the modern biological evolutionary mechanism isn't the ONLY mechanism that can exist in the nature of biology. References www.youtube.com type "Dr Michael Denton" (Molecular Chemistry Professor) . See scientific papers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Secular Humanism by its very nature is despondent and fatalistic as far as continuance of one's existence is concerned. We have all benefited from scientific advancement, I am a research engineer and understand scientific thought processes adequately, but the indirect, non-observable philosophical questions that we are capable of perceiving are in no way close to being answered scientifically and requires a sense of a conscious level outside of intellectual reasoning only.
We live in a life-forming universe and has absolutism written all over it. The philosophical questions and answers for life require lenses of a spiritual nature.
This is an easy argument in favor of the debate question. Answer YES. Tell your child or any human being for that matter under any circumstance that there is a life after death, or a heaven if religious.
Religious argument: All positive belief systems have several characteristics in common. 1. To believe in a omniscient being 2. Adherence to or recognition of a code of conduct for moral behavior 3. That life is a continuance and has a purpose. One's human soul demands answers for its questions. The fact these questions can be asked indicates freedom of the soul and recognition of its existence in this universe. A child wants an answer to his/her question and often asks these questions at an early age, because they are self aware that they exist and acknowledge that there is a need to know and a need to obtain an answer that will help guide them going forward in their existence. Knowing or having a sense of existence and purpose brings joy and is to me a truism of nature.
Atheist argument : I am not an atheist, but have studied human secularist philosophy and would present a case in favor of the need to explain continuance of one's life after death to a child or and any other human being seeking an answer to this life question; 1. Neurological science provides evidence that the human brain is excited by neuron firing at the point of death (brain failure) and is supposedly the reason for mental images that imply out of body experiences or visitations by deceased family members etc. 2. Irrespective of culture, race or religion, the supposed reasoning behind this documented common experience is that the brain is designed to comfort the individual while the process of ceasing to exist is in the process. Somehow, this program has been handed down genetically, or by some coded method we are unsure of as an evolutionary step to maintain a form of order during the cessation experience. 3. The FACT that the human brain program takes over at the point of death to comfort the dying gives credence to the FACT that the human brain must ALSO be capable of comforting itself based on free will and choice PRIOR to the genetic triggered event. There is no distinction for the human conscience. As to when a response to the THE question should be given becomes irrelevant, the FACT it occurs at some stage in the time frame of mortality is the point in question, and a response to the question in favor OF some form of continuance follows the supposed evolutionary trigger.
The religious response makes far more sense. The thinking permeates 95% of the populations of the world. The remaining 5% in my opinion choose denial do not sufficiently consider the FACT that an individual conscience perceives this question by its very nature. This becomes a philosophical question that is poorly explained and limited by the natural constraints of modern scientific thought.
Wouldn't the debate question depend on the application of the medication? For pain and terminal illness I'm very happy we have medications to supply relief (sprains, joint pain, flu, fever, morphine and other powerful meds for major pains, terminal illness) and I'm sure these can be over used but less so than Psychotropic medications for mental illnesses such as anxiety, ADHD etc. No doubt these meds can help, but as far as understanding the limitations, long terms side effects and age group differences it should be disconcerting. It's no accident that the field of Psychology and Psychiatry for modest symptoms has increased dramatically since last century while interpersonal relationships amongst friends and families have been on the decline in the Western Industrialized nations. Less industrialized nations tend to rely more on homeopathic and family support solutions with high success. However, I've heard this trend is starting to shift as well (recent NPR report).
I agree with MKIced regarding your name. I love the 1st amendment and technically it still supports ALMOST any form of speech, with the limitation of "community" or "local" law based Statutory based laws in each state. If you live in one of those local regions where limits of a community does not limit this derogatory form of name (such as the internet) then you may be good to go, however, you may want to consider your civic duty and use voluntary restraint based on social mores to avoid limiting a future rule by a government entity that may place these limits on all of us in the future, based on your example and others who may not understand what community limits on free speech really means (of course not informing ones self on this point of law is also a form of unintended ignorance). With regards to your symbol of the Indian culture Swastika, I recognized it for what it was but can't help but think you're personal motives would be purely what you've stated. Your personality appears to be rather "unconventional" and you may look for ways and means to entice unsuspecting and of course, "ignorant" folks around you into some circumstance to your advantage. This of course is speculation on my behalf, but an educated guess I might add based on your name, your visual symbol or your personality with your tattoo, and your view in this debate with disregard to the social mores question of your name. One more point I'd like to make, don't entice double standards with your name. I love and respect Dr King's legacy; you are free to use the name obviously, but what you have forgotten is the legacy and resolve it took to uphold and renew Constitutional natural law rights we all have based on those who have gone before us. Allowing yourself the right because you are "black" negates any pretense of another race from using the same right of free speech to use the term, name or metaphor we as a society know is wrong. The fact that we are "human" pre-empts (but does not negate) of our difference of our color or race.
I absolutely agree Tujae. I'm Nthdegreeman, libertarian, strong engineering and physics background. Would love to discuss points of interest with you at your convenience.
I am a proponent of Natural Law theory and enjoy reasoned debate.
I remain neutral on this part of your argument as it appears there are two points framed in the same response. The question of responsibility for another in terms of the druggie should only go as far as the ability of that person to have life by your means, all else (liberty, the pursuit of happiness and I would add, property of ones own sovereignty) is the solely the responsibility of the individual. This is Constitutional Theory at the very heart and center. The second part of your response is rather evolutionary (philosophically) and in some ways is accurate ONLY when we do not live the "golden rule" of Constitutional Theory (Naturalistic OR obviously Religious ontologically). One should obtain an appreciation for Natural Law and Constitutional Theory for its reasoning and logic in terms of how we are expected to treat another human being and their rights, be free from government interference and in turn, obtain an understanding of how we are treated from others in all forms of civic law. Modern society is in disarray in regards to this principle. That being stated, if you were kind and generous enough to help another of your own free will and choice, do you think and feel that there would be another human being willing to do the same to you in your hour of need?
We are our brothers keeper. In terms of Natural Law, we originally voluntarily assisted others in society (Constitutional principle), Judeo Christian and Islamic religious laws absorb Natural Law principles such as this, and a myriad of other cultures have this principle in Communalism (not Communism where "coersion" by government is the support system) or tribal life styles. Even from an evolutionary point of view, we must have a support system in biological terms, it happens in the animal kingdom, however, to the debate creators point, we should not be "forced" to support another individual by coerced taxation or other involuntary means of societal (social mores) behavior.
Would it be possible to think of life at least in terms of "we are on this earth to LIVE (because that is the reason precluding our ability to die) and then we "DO" something (actively engaged in reproducing our life form in MOST cases, learn about life experiences, LOVE each other etc) then we die? On the chance you're just being cynical for the moment, I don't think Bon Jovi ( I love the band incidentally) have cornered the Fatalistic market on philosophy. Could you explore your basic reasoning any deeper? There effectively isn't any reasoning, only emotional rhetoric, think about what you've just stated.
So you support Nihilism? we live in a Fatalistic world although evidence all around us in nature presupposes a "life forming universe"?
I naturally concur both in intellectual reasoning but more importantly, in terms of spiritual comprehension.
Let me pre-empt those who would see my statement as a contradiction of the debate, it clearly isn't. Reason: The debate is philosophical, ontological, there is no right or wrong answers, but we can judge our responses in context of the main point of the argument itself.
I can understand your "generalized" meaning but it is a form of circular reasoning. Think about you have just described; you critique' a general identity of "someone" who wanted to know what it is they are meant to be doing" (there are aspects of reason to this statement although it is rather disjointed and generalized). I'm assuming your describing the philosophers, religionists in GENERAL terms) yet you've proceeded to implicate yourself in the very same thought process, of which is not necessarily a negative aspect of your argument. It only implicates your train of thought in the process that you are self described along with the "someone" described in your earlier point of your argument. I will vote that your response is more "illogical" than commonsense but respect your opinion immensely if not assuredly.
And then? I like what you're describing, if it's that positive do you think it would continue as far as our existence? If something so positive in our existence, wouldn't it continue EVEN in terms of evolutionary biology philosophy terms, the perpetuation of our species continues but as an entity, the same biological entrainment as well?
I agree with this portion of your statement, but I doubt you see the elemental laws of nature as anything other than a form of competition in and of itself, that allows for the to repeatible pattern of nature in this and other parts of the universe. This would be an implausibility statement. But I'd prefer to let you respond if that were the case.
