If the Universe is conscious and intentionally created mankind, then evolution is actually I.D.

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his argument. Well done again, Sir. Also, I would request my opponent answer the three questions I posed to him in round two. Beginning now, I immediately take issue with my opponent's first statement entering his argument. He says, "On the probability of lifeforms, my opponent only states this." My opponent then goes on to quote my section on the Miller-Urey experiment. Indeed, my entire round two argument was centered on the probability of lifeforms, stating that probability was high given the number of planets there are...a point I think you will agree my opponent did not address. It was my impression that my opponent's argument was not that it is impossible under perfect conditions for life to be spontaneously created, but instead that it was so unlikely that life had to have been intentionally created-an argument I statistically rebuked in round 2. THE FINE TUNED UNIVERSE My opponent claims, somewhat correctly, that I did not respond to the "fact" that our Universe is fine-tuned, somehow implicating a creator. Like my uninhabitable planet argument, the same applies to our Universe: The Multiple Universes theory is interesting, and also well-supported. It was first theorized when a group of scientists were testing radiation in the wake of the Big Bang, which should be spread evenly throughout the Universe...but it wasn't. They picked up faint traces from different areas, indicating other sources of radiation. Other Universes. (1) The discovery on New Science Magazine says "There could be countless other Universes;billions of them." Now, out of such an incredible number of Universes, likely all with separate molecular mechanics and forces, why is it so hard to believe just one would out of billions would be stable enough to support life, and have one out of trillions of planets capable of creating life. Once again, it is not only possible, but probable that life would be created in at least one area. It in no way indicates a sentient creator. A SENTIENT UNIVERSE This is where our debate gets weird. My opponent claims that consciousness is as fundamental to a universe as energy and space, which is ironic, as neither is fundamental. It could be argued nothing is. Lets start by defining consciousness: Consciousness (N.) The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. (3) Now, my adversary's entire premise of this debate is that the Universe itself is a sentient being. This is all too easily defeated by one simple fact: Sentiality requires variability. It requires change. What makes us living is our ability to vary in our action, interpretation, thoughts, emotion, and just about every other possible factor. But the Universe does not. Gravity does not suddenly suspend itself, much less to a living thing's benefit. Magnetism doesn't turn off or on. Every mechanic of our Universe stays the same. If the Universe was sentient, it would change. That is why the Universe cannot be conscious, sentient, or living. My opponent admits it himself, defining consciousness as "awareness provided through interaction with the environment." The universe is not conscious because it does not interact, it just is, like any inanimate object. Now having completed the argument within the debate parameters, let's discuss. The interesting thing about living things, especially humans, is that we seem special, endowed, when in cold reality, we are truly just machines. Every part of us is natural, and conforms to the mechanics of the Universe. Our emotions are simply chemicals from far-off supernovas exploding. The skin on our body is just a combination of molecules evolved from a common ancestor. Our brain is the same. There is nothing "special" or "created" about us. We are simply creatures evolved for the best chance of reproduction and survival of the species. There are no "changes" to the underlying mechanical field of the Universe in that we exist. We are subject, and created, by the forever steady, unchanging forces of the Universe. Now, here my opponent seems to be slightly confused, comparing force and consciousness. He says, "To be aware of something is to have that object exert a force on you". A lamp is not aware of anything, and yet everything in the Universe and beyond exerts a force on it. The Universe and it's electrical, mechanical, and meta-physichal forces do not change for us, because we are "living". In conclusion of this section, I would like my opponent to attempt to counter this: there is no part of our body, or any function of it, that is not simply the part of a crudely formed machine, just like every body in the Universe and beyond. CONCLUSION: The statistical arguments for the likelihood of at least one spontaneous generation of life still stands, and the Universe is not sentient because it doesn't change or react. I look forward to my opponent's next argument. Good luck, Sir! (1) (2) http://www.express.co.uk... (3) http://www.google.com...