Creationism's Claims Are Valid

Thanks for taking the debate Pro. I have two problems with Pro's arguments. 1. Pro did not argue for the validity of "specific acts of divine creation," and instead argued for inaccurate "natural processes." 2. Though the words "originate" and "create" are similar in meaning, the origins of the universe do not necessitate creation. 1. Did Pro mention anything divine? Nope. The definitions clearly define Creationism as "specific acts of divine creation." Nowhere in Pro's 1st 10,000 characters was any mention of divinity or any specific acts thereof. Pro's one claim of Creationism was Pro's own hypothesis "that the universe was originated by a force of creation." This force's divinity was neither stated nor supported by Pro. Furthermore, the definitions clearly define Creationism as "rather than by natural processes." What's Pro's proof for Creationism? Natural processes! Pro mentions, "the big bang...building blocks...more complex beings...evolution" Not only is this counter to the agreed definitions, without Pro providing some "specific act of divine creation" behind these natural processes, Pro does not demonstrate Creationism's claims to be valid. Pro needs to show divinity in order to fulfill the definition of Creationism. 2. Yeah, I said it...the universe was not created simply because it has an origin. Understanding what "nothing" is demonstrates why saying the universe was created is somewhat nonsensical. "Something" is a physical concept that is best explained by physical sciences. Physically speaking, to be something, at the most basic level, something must have particles/atoms/wavelengths/energy/matter/radiation. The absence of all of these basic characteristics of "something" leaves us with "nothing." The absence of all of these physical properties, nothing, is a matter of particle physics. Particle physics has been observing and testing nothing for a while. The very science used to explain what something is, has discovered that nothing is a vacuum of empty space with no matter, no energy, no radiation, no particles, and no atoms, BUT there is a detectable physical field; its existence is ubiquitous. http://aether.lbl.gov... You might be thinking...Hold on! A physical field would be something! A physical field can't be nothing... I know...I know it sounds contradictory, but this physical field isn't a steady state of something at all. It's empty, it's void of matter or energy, it doesn't radiate, it has no atoms or full particles, it doesn't have any wavelengths of light...nothing. What's interesting, but demonstrably true, is that this faint physical field in nothing is created by constant subatomic particles and their counter parts, antiparticles, popping into existence from nothing and just as quickly popping out of existence by annihilating each other constantly. This is called quantum fluctuation. The above video is from a legit particle physicist, Lawrence Krauss, who explains the demonstrated concept very well. In this nothing state, these subatomic particles exist and don't exist at the same time...doesn't sound like something to me. Particle physicists are correct in calling this state nothing. This state of nothingness is actually unstable; it can't remain nothing for long, such that with the many subatomic particles and antiparticles popping in and out of existence all of the time, energy is inevitably expressed. Energy is just the other side of the coin to matter, and this means that if subatomic particles appearing from quantum fluctuations eventually lead to an expression, not a creation, of energy, then matter can originate from this unstable quantum nothingness. So Pro's claim that "the universe was originated by a force of creation, which began what we experience as space time" is inaccurate, because "nothing" is not a force of creation, rather it is a fluctuating unstable state that allows for the expression of--NOT the creation of--matter/energy and...GRAVITY. Our universe's total energy is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of (+) matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of (-) gravity. Our universe is a zero-energy universe, and this is an understood principle in modern physics. http://www.livescience.com... From the big bang, we start at a potentially energy dense state the size of a subatomic particle in the quantum fluctuations. There is no (+) matter/energy or (-) gravity. I like to express matter and gravity as a set: [ (+) matter, (-) gravity] In quantum fluctuations, which is an unstable state of nothing, the set would be expressed as [+0, -0] which of course equals 0 total energy. No energy or gravity to speak of. But at the big bang, a dense state the size of a subatomic particle, (+) matter/energy were expressed, not created, and so was (-) gravity. The total energy set of expressed matter and gravity as the universe expands could have looked like: [ +1, -1] = 0 and then [ +2, -2] = 0 and then [ +3, -3] = 0 and so on as the universe expands... [ +10, -10] = 0 and then [ +1000, -1000] = 0. Still 0 total energy, but we have some expressed (+) matter, which is positive energy, and its exact counterbalance of expressed (-) gravity, which is negative energy. So the big bang's required massive amount of positive energy would be counterbalanced by the amount of negative energy in the form of gravity...total energy = 0, kind of like quantum nothingness. The Big Bang originated from [+0, -0] = 0 total energy, and the universe exists at [+1000000000000, - 1000000000000] = 0 total energy. I'm just using hypothetical numbers, but I'm trying to illustrate the concept of lots of (+) matter and energy being cancelled out by lots of (-) gravity as a set. Our zero energy universe has a total amount of energy that never changes, and thus is NEITHER CREATED nor destroyed, per the 1st law of thermodynamics. So, simply because the universe has an origin, does not mean that it was created; the universe was expressed positively and negatively [ (+) energy , (-) energy]. Though Pro may disagree with using the adjective "valid" to contrast Creationism, given what we understand about the facts of the big bang and the origins of our universe, positing "specific acts of divine creation" for the origins of our universe does not have "sound basis in fact," and therefore leaves me reasonable in rejecting the validity of Creationism's claims. I reject the resolution, because Pro has not met their burden of proof to show how specific acts of divinity have a sound basis in fact, nor has Pro explained how an EXPRESSION of positive and negative energy (the big bang) is a specific act of divine CREATION. "Expression" and "creation" are different terms with different meanings.