Okay, I'll try to respond to some of the most relevant arguments/critics/questions so far:
Moneymind: I don't see why you have to come to insults, that alone should be enought for people not to like you as a candidate, nevertheless, since you claim to have some serious background on evolution, I am curious to know what those arguments are. I would say, that even if you're not picked, you should advice the one who is going to debate me by PM or by any other way you see fit, for I would like every single argument to be on the table. As for the 2 on 2, I meant God on my side and "Random" on the other side, you can also take this as me and my arguments VS someone else and his/her arguments.
Devils Advocate: I believe this shouldn't be about convincing people, that sounds more like an emotional approach and my intend is to use the LOGICAL aproach. If one, or many is/are going to be convinced to the weight of one side, it should be based on reason and not in emotional speaches.
ParkingPlaces: 1) The opponent should be able to pick whatever he likes, as long as it's good to prove his/her point. 3) Since some members already showed interest in taking part of this debate, I believe this debate is going to prove you my capacity or incapacity to defend my opinions, nevertheless, nobody is going to lose anything (I think). 3) Hopefully the debate will last enough.
Sun_king: Hopefully the winner will be decided by everyone, individually; There is not unnaceptable evidence, for each evidence presented, the other must offer his/her interpretation and we will see which evidences are stronger. The God shall be YHWH, but it is also valid that the atheist offers evidence of another deity, even Santa if he likes to persuade me. In my case, I will be pointing only at YHWH.
HAL: "Probabilities of God's existence" since it cannot be proven His existence or non-existence.
The Wannabe: I commit myself to follow the debate until the very end, and also to admit my mistake if the weight of the other side is heavier than mine.
Jetson: I'm planning to work on this debate first, then we will see what happens there. If I find this place and this debate agressive, emotional, hostile, and so on, I shall leave it. That's for certain, but as long as it work, I will continue until the end, then, if I win, I will go to IGI. They have options for different debates also, like the validity of certain religions, which I'm not going to miss in any case.
Okay, the rules shall be the same as the comunity rules, and of a civil conversation. I would also like that you guys pick someone capable of answering on a regular base, I would really hate to wait days for a reply. No double post should be allowed either, and everyone MUST offer arguments, not just wait to "destroy" the other's arguments, so basically we start offering arguments, then we reply, offering more arguments if there were to be more, and trying to destroy arguments.
So, I believe we can have a quick vote, maybe (if you guys agree) we could take a day for people to vote, then tomorrow we can start.
People, please choose who will be.
