The Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution VS Creationism

The Big Bang and Quantum Fluctuations I want to point out that PRO constantly keeps mentioning in this section of his argument. "As a property of matter interacting with space, which both originated at the big bang [+0,-0]-->[+1,-1]." PRO keeps mentioning how matter and gravity cancel each other our, by summing up to a complete 0 - nothingness. He then claims again, that nothing is actual quantum fluctuations. However, in that case, if there is something, how can 0 amount to something? Is PRO trying to redefine maths? Or is he simply, for the sake of his argument, excluding quantum fluctuations from his 0 energy manifest? I would like to quote the following source http://www.icr.org...;to explain, how the theory of 0 energy can be debunked:"To verify the claim that the total energy content of the universe is exactly zero, one would have to account for all the forms of energy in the universe...add them together, and then verify that the sum really is exactly zero. Despite Hawking’s intelligence and credentials, he is hardly omniscient. The claim of a 0 energy universe is based, not on direct measurements, but uponinterpretation of the data through the filter of the Big Bang model. " "Moreover, when virtual particles momentarily appear within a vacuum, they are appearing in a space that already exists. Because space itself is part of our universe, the spontaneous creation of a universe requires space itself to somehow pop into existence." In other words, there is no actual, objective evidence, that the sum of all energy in the Universe is 0, at least due to the fact, that we cannot even observe all of that Universe. I quote PRO here: "Without our universe, in this nothing state, space and time are not stative". PRO said NOT STATIVE and not NON EXISTANT. Space can be non stative, but to be non stative, it has to exist. If it does exist, then that only proves the point that I made, that was criticed by PRO. Therefore, my statement that "come out of and into existence" remains valid. "Beginning of the question". PRO provided the definition: "Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true". 1) I tried to look through various sources and materials, and did not find an example of how a question could be a premise. I have asked a question: "Who created the [functions] of gravity?" Maybe PRO can tell me how a premise can a question, when by definition it is not. 2) The idea of beginning of the question is that the conclusion of the premise is included in the premise as well. Therefore, a valid example would be: "Everyone wants to buy Fallout 4, because it is the hottest game at this time!". Clearly, this statement gives no answer to why Fallout 4 is popular - it merely takes a premise and rephrases it as the same conclusion. I do not see how "Who created the [functions] of gravity?" fits under that description. If I wrote "Someone must have created the gravity, because the gravity looks like it has been created" - that would be a beginning of the question. I do accept a possible bad phrasing, therefore (since I am not a science guy), I will ask "Where did the gravity come from?" Also, if PRO choses to ignore my part of the question, rephrases them as he sees fit EXAMPLE: " Ignoring the "who," I'll answer the "how" gravity works and functions in a certain way." , then he should not accuse me of ignoring abiogenesis. Talking about "Personal Incredulity". Here is the full definition from the source PRO supplied. "These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false." "appear to be obvious and yet still be false". It does not look like PRO at any point of his argument accepted, that the obvious can be false. Therefore, as PRO would not accept that obvious can be false, the fact that I may not accept that incredible could be true should not matter at all, since the opposites will cancel out. I would like PRO to argue the following "Our understanding of the laws of physics is based on observation. For instance, our knowledge of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy come from observations made from literally thousands of experiments. No one has ever observed a universe “popping” into existence. This means that any laws of physics that would allow (even in principle) a universe to pop into existence are completely outside our experience" If PRO could provide observation of the universe popping into existence, then "I'll concede this debate and request that you receive a Nobel prize." 2. Abiogenesis Without further comments: "In other words, without the presence of critical enzymes, the assembly of the building blocks of life would take far too long for any form of complex life to have developed on planet Earth. " http://www.allaboutscience.org... "Critics of abiogenesis say that simply isn't enough time for inorganic matter to become the theorized pre cellular life. One estimate suggests it would take 10^450 (10 to the 450th power) years for one useful protein to be randomly created" http://www.panspermia.org... http://news.discovery.com... I am not arguing, that abiogenesis is impossible. I arguethat it could not have happened in the 3 billion years span, that the life on Earth has existed. After all, PRO provides evidence of abiogenesis happening with in a scientific lab, with required temperatures, molecules, covalents and ions and etc - in one phrase - fitting conditions. However, it is highly unlikely, as I provided in the sources above, that it happened in 3 billion years. Moving on "creationism implies that all of the diversity we see in biology was in fact created that way, not evolved from earlier forms; this must be addressed." That is something PRO has decided for himself. Creationism is known widely for accepting the idea of living beings evolving and adapting, and very rarely ever rejecting its concepts. I did not set it up this way. PRO has used the following source as reference multiple times in his argument: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... An article from this website - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... - says there are 3 theories for origin and evolution of genetic code. Henceforth, that there are only theories on genetic code's origin, and no fundamental stated fact or proof of its origin. Therefore, it still validates as the flaw of evolution, NOT abiogenesis. Here is why. In this large document a word "abiogenesis" is mentioned 0 times. However, the word "evolution" is mentioned 166 times. Therefore, if PRO could explain, how "This is clearly a criticism of abiogenesis, not evolution" - that would be great. SIN: PRO asks a question from CON, and then answers it himself in the source that CON provided below the statement. I want to remind the reader, that the point of this debate is to find what is most "LIKELY TRUE". PRO says: "Studies...suggest that [platyrrhines] could have been able...to survive without water for at least 13 days...considering winds as the key accelerating force of floating islands, the Paleogene Atlantic water barrier could have been crossed...in 8 days at 50 Mya." This statement to be true, requires a lot of circumstances to line up. From the same source that PRO provided, the article continues: "To survive a transoceanic journey, however, protoplatyrrhines had to be preadapted to strong seasonal variations in water availability in their original...environment. Once on the sea, their brains would have physiologically interpreted the rarity of water as the beginning of the dry season, and the group would have switched its diet to alternative foods, i.e., everything available on the floating island." It would be hard to understand and explain how all of that could have possibly happened at such a low probability.Moving on I stated: "offer no APPARENT survival advantage". I did not say there wasn't any. Art and music are very subjective for each individual. Does this mean, that people evolve separately from each other? Why all other properties and qualities granted to us by evolution are practically identical? Also, religion would fall under that category. Religion is known as one of the most common reasons for wars. Again, I do not see how that is advantageous to our own survival. I can imagine how understanding the world around us leads to a survival. I also understand, how it can ruin our survival, whereby we destroy our environment, completely terminate many types of animals, cutting trees, and how we become more and more savage, as we move along our existence. I can provide just as many arguments to prove disadvantage of understanding the world around us, so do not "come on" me. To all of these questions: "What was the mechanism this entirely other raced used to impart their agency in the creation of humans? You mentioned that they used DNA, but how did they use it? Where did this race come from, and are they also DNA based? Did this race also create the other organisms on earth, and if so, why did they put Ape DNA in our 2nd chromosome?" I quote PRO: "Con assumes that because something is inconceivable to him, that it must not be possible; this is an argument from personal incredulity, and it is fallacious." Junk DNA: "This interpretation leads them to a farfetched conclusion: that the genetic code, “appears that it was invented outside the solar system already several billions years ago.” http://news.discovery.com... "Scientists believe that the human DNA is arranged in such a precise way that it reveals a “set of arithmetic patterns and ideographic symbolic language”. " http://www.ancient-code.com...