The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

life being nature, there is no, before life

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 3 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 73424
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

vi_spex

Pro

anything that comes first is nature, natural
tejretics

Con

I accept. I would like to note that the BoP is on Pro to prove that nature came after life.

Definitions
Life - "the characteristic distinguishing physical entities that have biological processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate." [1]
Nature - "the natural, physical, material world or universe which ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic." [2]

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

life is sensory experience, as im dead without my senses

life is nature, nature is life
tejretics

Con

Pro is merely paraphrasing the resolution in different words, and, therefore, has not constructed a positive case. Pro must fulfill their BoP. Nonetheless, I shall construct a negative case.

My negative case is based on this structure -

P1. The universe was created 13.7 billion years ago (approx.)
P2. The universe is the basis of nature.
C1. Nature was formed 13.7 billion years ago.
P3. Life was formed 3.6 billion years ago (approx).
C2. Nature originated prior to life.

C1) Nature was formed 13.7 billion years ago

The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from its earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. [1] There are multiple observational proofs that support the BBT scientifically. Notable amongst them is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB), thermal radiation left over from the Big Bang of cosmology. [2] This thermal radiation is seen as a faint background glow using a sensitive radio telescope in the space between celestial bodies. The glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. In the absence of Big Bang, there would be no reason to expect a uniform, long-wavelength background radiation in the universe. [3]

Cosmic Microwave Background - from my Big Bang debates

This is a satellite picture of CMB radiation as negative space in the universe. The CMB glow and the rest of the universe seem to be approximately homogenous and isotropic; this is a prediction of the Big Bang.

In 2014, a measure of the B-mode polarization CMB signal at 150 GHz was published in the POLARBEAR experiment. The B-mode polarization is proof of primordial gravitational waves, as predicted by Einstein in 1915. [4] These primordial gravitational waves contain thermal energy similar to the primordial energy of the baryon-plasma sea that was the universe approximately 13.5 billion years ago. [5]

The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure: the stars and galaxies of today.” [6]

Temperature fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

This graph shows the temperature fluctuations of the CMB detected over different angular scales on the sky, offering further proof of the temperature detection of the CMB. That the CMB is of cosmological origins acts as a scientific consensus. [7]

Another indicator for the Big Bang is the organization of the known universe with galactic evolution.

Galaxies are also dynamic entities, changing over time. Like with large scale structure, the broad strokes of galaxy formation follow a path of ‘hierarchical clustering’: small structures form very early on and these merge to form larger structures as time goes on. Within this larger framework, some galaxies will develop secondary features like spiral arms or bar-like structures, some of which will be transitory and some of which will persist.” [8]

The developing of secondary features is called galactic evolution. No cosmological theory except the BBT can explain galactic evolution. [9]

Stronger evidence for the Big Bang is the abundance of light elements, such as helium, in the universe.

“Like in the core of our Sun, the free protons and neutrons in the early universe underwent nuclear fusion, producing mainly helium nuclei (He-3 and He-4), with a dash of deuterium (a form of hydrogen with a proton-neutron nucleus), lithium and beryllium. Unlike those in the Sun, the reactions only lasted for a brief time thanks to the fact that the universe's temperature and density were dropping rapidly as it expanded. This means that heavier nuclei did not have a chance to form during this time. Instead, those nuclei formed later in stars. Elements with atomic numbers up to iron are formed by fusion in stellar cores, while heavier elements are produced during supernovas.” [8]

He-3 and He-4 are abundant in the universe, and this is the best physical explanation. [10] Therefore, the Big Bang cosmological model is probably true. The Big Bang cosmological model states that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. As the BBT is true, this prediction is the most likely time for the origin of the universe.

C2) Nature originated prior to life

The earliest identified organisms were minute and relatively featureless, and their fossils look like small rods, which are very difficult to tell apart from structures that arise through abiotic physical processes. The oldest undisputed evidence of life on Earth, interpreted as fossilized bacteria, dates to 3 Ga. [11] The earliest possible origin for life, according to a biological consensus, is around 3.8 billion years ago. [12] As life originated 3.8 Ga at the earliest, while the universe originated 13.75 billion years ago, the resolution is securely negated.

Conclusion

Most biological evidence suggests life originated billions of years after the formation of the universe, and approximately 1 billion years after the formation of the Earth. Therefore, life originated after nature. The resolution is negated.

References

[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl...
[4] http://goo.gl...
[5] http://goo.gl...
[6] http://goo.gl...
[7] http://goo.gl...
[8] http://goo.gl...
[9] http://goo.gl...
[10] Astrophys. J. Suppl. 97:49-58, 1995. (http://goo.gl...)
[11] http://physwww.mcmaster.ca...;
[12] http://www.nature.com...;



Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

creation requires a creator

the universe is a concept, not real

matter can at best transform, no beginning and no end, only now

if big bang happend it was just a transformation
tejretics

Con

Even if the Big Bang is a transformation, my arguments still demonstrate how nature originated before life. These arguments by Pro are irrelevant to the resolution, and Pro has still not fulfilled their BoP. I have fulfilled my share of the BoP. I extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

nature is life
tejretics

Con

"Nature is life" is a bare assertion, with no evidence to support the claim whatsoever. The definition of nature and my arguments contradict this non-semantic assertion by Pro. I, therefore, declare this argument null and void as Pro's BoP remains unfulfilled. I extend all my arguments. The resolution remains negated.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

without nature there can be no life, therfore nature is life


everything that physically exist is either natural or mechanical

tejretics

Con

Pro has made no attempt to refute my claims or fulfill their BoP. All of Pro's arguments have been bare assertions, with no demonstration or proof whatsoever.

I extend all my arguments, and shall not refute bare assertions. The resolution remains negated. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
Congrats on your free win Con.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
vi_spextejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not support any of his assertions/arguments, which were refuted by Con. Pro did not refute Con's well supported arguments. Pro failed to use capitalization or proper grammar/punctuation, which made it difficult to follow. Con used the only sources.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
vi_spextejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro only offered bare assertions. Con had evidence and sources.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
vi_spextejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Tied overall. | Grammar- Pro had many grammar mistakes, so Con takes this one. | Arguments- Con. Pro provided arguments but they weren't well constructed like Con's. Con's were well constructed and blew Pro out of the water. Pro didn't rebut any of these arguments, and Con rebutted most of Pro's. | Sources- Con. Con used the only sources in the debate. |