The Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution VS Creationism

Thank you, Con, for your Round 1.Here is my second Round. 1. Big Bang Theory I do agree to the fact, that matter and gravity are the two factors that cancel each other out. Just like - 6 would cancel out + 6 in math to give 0. The question is, where did these factors come from? Who created the concept of gravity? Gravity works and functions in a certain way, and the question is who created that way? The idea of matter and gravity being created on its own without external divine action is simply inconceivable. I understand, how you describe when we strip something entirely we will be left with these fluctuations. However, those fluctuations has had to come from somewhere as well. After all, everything you have described, like atoms, molecules, patterns, even planets - everything can be built into something and stripped into nothing. That reminds of LEGO constructor, which was created by human. We would not just think, that LEGO was always there, for an infinite amount of time and space, bending the laws of space and continuity. Also, without time or space, nothing can "come out of and into existence". Coming out or coming into existence is a process and process has to take place and time. Therefore, this statement is self-criticizing. Once again, it has been proved indeed, that space expands with every second and that distance between relatively stationary stars increases over time. "With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation." Absolutely. Just like human body, on a scale of an atom would be filled with 95% of nothingness. At least it would seem, like there is nothing there, where in fact, as PRO said, there would be those fluctuations floating around. Abiogenesis There is a vastly known criticism of abiogenesis that is related to the duration of this process. DNA-based life is thought to have developed on Earth beginning around 3.8 billion years ago, giving pre-cellular life forms about 1 billion years to carry out random processes of encoding useful proteins and assembling them into the precursors of cellular life. 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" This date is practically impossible to fit in the life span of our planet, in order to make it happen on Earth, and above all, to connect it our own existence. Therefore, unless requested by CON, I see no further need to argue about Abiogenesis. Evolution "Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life." http://rationalwiki.org... Therefore, I do not rationally see how Evolution can be more likely than Creationism. As I said before, I try to modify the idea of Creationism to fit my rational understanding of it. Evolution has nothing to do with the way life emerged - simply how it existed, evolved and upgraded through time. Creationism, on the other hard, speaks about the start of the Universe, as we know it today, and life as well. However, as a part of CONs preliminary conditions, I will show how Creationism could explain existence of living organisms. Specifically the idea of intellectual design. First of all, I would like to draw some criticism of Evolution. Many people seem to forget that Evolution is a theory after all, and even Charles Darwin, creator of Darwinism and one behind inspiration of Neo-Darwinism himself acknowledged flows in this theory of evolvement of living beings. One of the main criticisms is the failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. "What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn't given us the slightest hint. If anything, the mystery has deepened over time." http://www.judgingpbs.com... Another interesting "flaw" in evolution, is the absence of explanation for how some of the fossils were discovered in the place, were geographically it should not have been possible to be discovered at first place. "there are many examples of terrestrial organisms existing and appearing in locations where no land-based migratory route is apparent" http://www.evolutionnews.org... And of course, the most obvious one, that was even raised by the character of Will Smith in "I, robot" - "humans show many behavioural and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage: music, art, understanding and perception of self-existence and the world around us" In defence of Creationism in a matter of creating human beings and organisms - the idea of how complex our organisms are could serve on its own a lot of thought provocation. There could have been no God, there is no need for one. There could have been entirely another race, who created us using a DNA code and genetics, which is why we carry so much data in a single cell of DNA. Because evolution precludes a lot of rules, that should be followed by nature, and in reality some of them ARE NOT (as I have provided in the example above of criticisms of evolution). If we were simply created, than we have no rules of or limits on the way we conduct new thoughts, on the our feelings (which are not explained by evolution as well), or things like art and music. Seeing something in nothing, as I have mentioned before. I see nothing impossible in conceiving an idea that one day in the past someone has created a human being, just as human now do create machines (that are already, in limited ways and numbers, are able to duplicate themselves and sometimes even reach a level of basic cognitive thinking). Therefore, since I cannot provide any direct evidence, I can only draw attention of the readers to how we create life (be it organic or non-organic) in machines, or by cloning DNA, and maybe even modified human beings in a near future. In fact, I would like to rely on the following source and its presentation of the use of junk DNA as a proof of us being creations. "Non-coding sequences, originally known as "junk DNA", were discovered years ago, and their function remained a mystery. The overwhelming majority of Human DNA is "Off-world" in origin." "Once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known, "the researches wrote in a scientific journal Icarus. "Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature. http://ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.co.uk... This is the end of Round 2.