The Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution VS Creationism

Thanks Con, for your 2nd round arguments; I love LEGOs.1. The Big Bang and Quantum FluctuationsIn the first round, I had mentioned quantum fluctuations, which, I will reiterate, are sub nuclear particles that fluctuate in and out of existence because of antiparticles simultaneously doing the same thing; the forces between them fluctuate as well.Quantum fluctuations are as real as microorganisms, and, I must emphasize, are ubiquitous; the physical concept "nothing" is made of quantum particles and their forces fluctuating all of the time.About quantum fluctuations Con asserts:"those fluctuations...had to come from somewhere as well"My response:That's a perfectly valid assertion when talking about physics on a macro scale, because all physical things we see come from other physical things we see.When talking about physics on a quantum scale however, one particle can exist in two places at the same time, come into existence from nothing, be affected by things done to other particles (entanglement), and be annihilated randomly. So, unlike on our macro physics scale, where something must come from something else, on a quantum scale, annihilation and existence serve as the fluctuating variables responsible for "where things come from."http://physics.aps.org...If you try to imagine pure nothingness in your brain, like as nothing as you can get to...even that has quantum fluctuations in it; quantum fluctuations are ubiquitous, and there is no nothing without quantum fluctuations.Con continues:"Who created the [functions] of gravity?"My response:This is called begging the question, because the conclusion is affirmed in the question.https://www.google.com..."Who" implies an intelligence, and "created" implies a creator, thus the answer "intelligent creator" is smuggled in to the question; an intelligent creator is the answer one is looking for by asking "who created?"I'm a science guy, so I'll answer "How did gravity originate?"As a property of matter interacting with space, which both originated at the big bang [+0,-0]-->[+1,-1].Con also asks:"Gravity works and functions in a certain way, and the question is who created [it] that way?"My response:Ignoring the "who," I'll answer the "how" gravity works and functions in a certain way.Gravity is the distortion of space by matter, so any particular functions of gravity are such because of matter's properties and their interaction with space.Con gets fallacious:"The idea of matter and gravity being created on [their] own without external divine action is simply inconceivable."My response:This is called the argument from personal incredulity.https://en.wikipedia.org...Con's lack of imagination has no bearing on whether or not matter and gravity can originate without a creator.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.Con asserts again:"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."My response:Without the big bang at [+0,-0], in a quantum fluctuation, a sub-nuclear particle exists and is simultaneously annihilated by its antiparticle, and this pseudo moment allows for the fluctuated existence/nonexistence of space and time and the forces between the sub-nuclear particles.Without our universe, in this nothing state, space and time are not stative; they fluctuate in and out of existence contingent on the sub nuclear particles.After the big bang, we have matter and gravity, so space and time can remain and be stative allowing for processes and other temporal concepts.2. Abiogenesis Con points out:"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"My response:Well without any source to back this estimate up, we have no reason to believe it is accurate, nor can we verify its calculations.Con says:"unless requested by [Pro], I see no further need to argue about Abiogenesis."My response:All you have to do to refute someone's claims is say that there is an estimate from an unidentified source with random numbers that suggest there's not enough time for abiogenesis? Come on Con.So, I'm making a formal request to Con, to further argue abiogenesis, because I provided countless peer reviewed studies on abiogenesis and Con hasn't attacked a single one; if Con wishes to not further argue abiogenesis, then Con drops the claims I derived from my sources.3. EvolutionI agree with Con that abiogenesis is a completely different thing than evolution, but I must argue for evolution in this debate, because 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.Now remember, Con pointed out that "abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things," but Con mentions about evolution:"I would like to draw some criticism of Evolution...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?"My response:This is clearly a criticism of abiogenesis, not evolution, which Con made a clear distinction between, earlier in round 2. However, I'm all about "what creates life out of inanimate substances?" so I shall defend abiogenesis in my evolution defense, because con set it up that way.Had Con looked at my sources from round 2, Con would have the answer to their question.1. Amino acids, organic compounds that make up genetics and other life contingencies, can be produced naturally from inorganic compounds.http://www.pnas.org...2. Amino acids can themselves fold into a shape that is biologically active, and catalytic.http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...3. In a pre-biotic network of catalyzing amino acids, RNA, which is used for genetic replication, can emerge as the "dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Also, I invite anyone to check Con's source "judgingPBS.com" to enjoy its pseudo-scientific, biased hilarity.Con points out:"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."My response:Ok Con, what species were the fossils, where should they have been found, and where were they found?Since Con didn't mention what fossil we're talking about, I went ahead and read the source that Con provided.Con's source mentions a species of South American monkeys called platyrrhines, and it struggles to understand how they could get from Africa to South America with no land bridge.On a floating island in the Atlantic, "paleowinds and paleocurrents were favorable" so a study "tested whether a journey on a hypothetical floating island over the Paleogene Atlantic Ocean exceeds the survival limit of a genetically viable group of...protoplatyrrhines.""Studies...suggest that [platyrrhines] could have been able, with a body weight averaging 1 kg, 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."http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...So, because of floating islands in the Atlantic ocean 50 Mya, platyrrhines were able to reach South America from Africa.Con continues:"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."My response:I smell an argument from personal incredulity...Again, just because one can't imagine a survival advantage, doesn't mean that there aren't any.Music and art are forms of communication, and our ability to communicate in a variety of ways aided in our societal fortitude; this fortitude leads to group protection and production.Con you can't imagine how "understanding the world around us" lead to a survival advantage for humans?How about understanding irrigation and gravity to harness water?How about understanding which plants healed which ailments to literally help us survive longer?Come on Con.Con claims that humans are so complex that:"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."My response:Ok, Con, I'll bite. 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?Con, if you could source this information and demonstrate that some other race created humans, I'll concede this debate and request that you receive a Nobel prize.Con then brings up junk DNA:"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."My response:Check Con's source.It's literally called "UFO Sightings Hot Spot Blog."Con, why should we consider your source valid?Junk DNA is just noncoding DNA."Noncoding DNA [are] functionally important signals for the regulation of chromosome assembly."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...On to Con...