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.