The Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution VS Creationism

Thanks for the debate Con.1. Zero Energy Universe:Perhaps I should make this point clearer. Zero energy refers to the flatness of space in the universe, and by flatness I mean ZERO spacial curvature; I'm not saying that the universe is two dimensional. Zero spatial curvature, flatness, has been measured by the WMAP, the probe that measures the ubiquitous background radiation in our universe."We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error."http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...What this means is that all of the distortion done to space by matter, which requires positive energy to be done, is exactly cancelled out by -gravity, which by its force is negative energy, leaving no spacial curvature in the universe.Our universe therefore has lots of positive energy, like all of the galaxies, planets, you, me, light, radiation, and particles distorting space, yet space remains flat.This speaks to negative energy (-gravity) pulling on matter, in the distortion of space, thereby canceling out the distortion's impact on space's curvature.The canceling out of (+matter) positive energy and (-gravity) negative energy maintains the flatness of space, and results in our zero energy universe.The "zero" in zero energy universe DOES NOT refer to quantum fluctuations, which is what nothing is, as Con has clearly misunderstood; this zero refers to the zero spacial curvature.Con asks:"in that case, if there is something, how can 0 amount to something? Is PRO trying to redefine maths?"My response:When you think of anything existing, do you ever think of it not existing at the same time as its existence?Well, in quantum fluctuations, the particles exist and immediately are annihilated; this is always the case.Quantum fluctuations are in fact a nothing state, because all sub nuclear particles and all their forces aren't stative; they fluctuate between existence and annihilation. I don't think any definitions of "something" should include "exists and doesn't exist simultaneously."Since this nothing state is unstable, it can't remain nothing; energy is inevitable. This is how the big bang originated.From [+0,-0] = 0 quantum fluctuations, an unstable state, positive energy (+matter) and negative energy (-gravity) were inevitable [+1,-1] = 0.This is likely how the big bang went down.Con quotes:"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."My response:Right, I agree, this is what cosmologists, astrophysicists, and particle physicists literally have already done, like in the sources I have already provided.Con quotes:"Moreover, when virtual particles momentarily appear within a vacuum, they are appearing in a space that already exists"My response:Yes, the study that I provided that demonstrates quantum fluctuations was done in our current universe which has lots of space.When there was no matter or gravity [+0,-0], there was no space however, space and time fluctuated in and out of existence with the sub nuclear particles; just as there was no stative matter in this nothing state, there was no stative space at [+0,-0].Space is contingent on matter. When there was no matter, there was no space. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...So [+0,-0] quantum fluctuations don't have stative time to allow for a creator to exist and then create. For there to be creation, there needs to be stative time and that didn't exist until after [+1,-1] the big bang, once there was stative matter.Con, by asking "who created," you smuggle in a "who" and a "creator" into your answer.I maintain that it's still begging the question because the question's presumptions create premises:P1 There was a "who" before gravityP2 Gravity was createdC1 A "who" created gravity.Then Con asked me "Who created gravity?"Con's desired answer was smuggled in.2. AbiogenesisCon claims that there was not enough time for the abiogenesis that I've described to have taken place.Con's proof?www.panspermia.org says:"it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to probably find one [useful protein for life]"My response:What Con didn't quote was what his source said about how they generated these numbers."After making some helpful assumptions...it would take...something like 10^500 trials."http://www.panspermia.org...Yeah, without panspermia.org providing numbers irrespective of their assumptions on proteins, I could just as easily assume numbers for the odds of finding useful proteins.Also, panspermia.org is incredibly biased as their entire goal is to promote the theory of cosmic ancestry, which contends with abiogenesis; this is likely why they assumed those particular numbers.In the Miller-Urey studies, they found left handed proteins aplenty and the study lasted a week.Check my sources, all of the lab replications of the experiment didn't take long at all to find useful proteins for life.Given my citations, it is completely plausible that abiogenesis had enough time in earth's history to take place and result in cellular life.Con should now say "Moving back" instead of "Moving on"3. EvolutionCon slips up:"Creationism is known widely for accepting the idea of living beings evolving and adapting, and very rarely ever rejecting its concepts."My response:Do you remember the definitions of this debate that include the phrase "rather than by natural processes" for creationism?Evolving and adapting are natural processes, Con. You agreed that creationism is "rather than by natural processes."Therefore, creationism DOES imply that life was created in its current form...Con slipped up here.I invite all readers to please check my sources from the 2nd and 3rd rounds that explain why it's more likely that evolution is true and why African monkeys on the South American continent were more likely NOT created there, rather evolved and traveled there.I stand by the source that I cited on the floating islands...there's lots of evidence for this stuff.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...To conclude:1. Quantum fluctuations are an unstable nothing state that allowed for the big bang, when there was no space.Space was very small at the big bang, so the little matter from unstable fluctuations was proportionally powerful, and thus lead to expansion.Our universe's spacial curvature is zero; this is the zero energy universe.2. Abiogenesis has been demonstrated to occur in different pre-biotic earth atmospheres, and these experiments have yielded USEFUL proteins in few trials, and in short amounts of time.RNA can emerge from these catalyzing amino acids, so replication of useful proteins was able to occur.3. Evolution has mountains of evidence, as I've provided in rounds 2 and 3, and junk DNA has been shown to be used in chromosomal functions.4. Creationism is incorrect because the universe wasn't created, life originated without a creator, and the current biodiversity of life on earth negates that these forms were created this way. Con has not demonstrated creationism at all.I maintain the resolution.