life being nature, there is no, before life
I accept. I thank vi_spex for this debate. I would like to note that as Pro is making the positive claim, they have full BoP.
As the resolution is grammatically rather incomprehensible, I interpret it as: As nature is life, there was no nature prior to life.
BoP is with Pro.
Life - "... a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having biological processes (such as signaling and self-sustaining processes) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate." 
Nature - "the phenomena of the physical world collectively." 
show me life is not nature
Shifting BoP is not an argument. I have already shown that the BoP is with Pro. Pro has committed the fallacy of negative proof, a logical fallacy that takes the structure of: "X is true as there is no proof against X." 
The Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Theory (BBT) states that the universe is in a state of constant expansion, beginning as a hot, dense, millimeter-long point that expanded with immense speed.  The BBT is proven by the detections of the Cosmic Microwave Background in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. CMB is thermal radiation left over from the Big Bang itself. In 2014, the B-mode polarization, a CMB, was measured at 150 GHz in the POLARBEAR experiment.  The BBT predicts that the universe was created approximately 13.7 billion years ago. 
Life Came After the Big Bang
The earliest evidence for life dates back to 3 billion years ago.  Therefore, life came much after the universe.
As the universe is nature by definition, the resolution is negated.
you are trying to tell me.. that i should prove you are not a machine.. thats not something i can do buddy, you are light on my screen and a story in my mind
matter can only transform, make an apple nothing, i dare ya. matter is eternal, no beginning, and no end, only now
if big bang happend it was at best a transformation
All of Pro's claims are bare assertions. I would like to note that the conservation of energy can be violated via. quantum mechanical fluctuations, as explained in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.  The presence of a gravitational singularity can also breach the conservation of energy, as well as quantum field theory.  Conservation of mass is breached by mass-energy equivalence. 
Pro has still not fulfilled their BoP. The resolution is negated.
 Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. p. 54. [http://tinyurl.com...]
 Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. pp. 115-116. [http://tinyurl.com...]
make an apple nothing..
1. The violation of COE/COM is restricted to "matter/energy cannot be created."
2. Only quantum fluctuations can do this, not me. Pro seems to think I'm a quantum fluctuation.
The resoluton is negated.
This is completely irrelevant to the resolution. Theism and belief have nothing related to life and nature in this context. It seems Pro has already conceded. Vote Con.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|