The Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution VS Creationism

Zero Energy Universe Before re-battling PRO first arguments, I want to quote the source the PRO provided - http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov......: "Because the universe has a finite age (~13.7 billion years) we can only see a finite distance out into space: ~13.7 billion light years. This is our so-called horizon. The Big Bang Model does not attempt to describe that region of space significantly beyond our horizon - space-time could well be quite different out there." This initially supports the argument I made in the previous Round, whereby science produces results and answers based on observations made. Science, according to the source provided by PRO, can only observe "13.7 billion light years" and try to define space and time within that horizon. However, that source accepts and acknowledges that space and time outside that scope can be "quite different". If there is something beyond the observable universe that science cannot reach, how can we argue about the energy (gravity and matter) of the WHOLE universe? If we imagine, that we are in the house, and within the house we have certain rules, that will 100% apply. We know that those rules will apply due to observations we have made. Based on those observations we could calculate and erect new statements and properties of that house. However, how can we ever state what is happening outside of the house, If we have never been/seen what is out there? That would go against observation method so commonly utilised by science. The house is the universe that we can observe, and everything outside the house is everything we can't. However, we do know, that house has rules, and those rules must have some origin, some REASON for their existence and presence. Just like universe must have a REASON and EXPLANATION for the question WHY, not only question HOW. I really cannot understand, why PRO has so much trouble thinking for a second that it makes sense, that whatever we see has been created for a reason, and must carry out a certain function, since anywhere you look inside of an urbanised civilisation has been created by human beings for a reason and to carry out a certain function. If this is because we have no evidence of creationism or divine action - we just as equally do not have any evidence, that the pyramids were built by human beings, yet we do believe, that they were. "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error." A zero can never be an absolute zero with a margin of error. "Well, in quantum fluctuations, the particles exist and immediately are annihilated; this is always the case." There is a difference between existing and then immediately not-existing and vice versa, and existing and not existing at the same time. No matter how slow "immediately is", there is still one event followed after another. We know that time's slowest unit is when all molecules come to a complete stop - that is also the concept of why there is the lowest temperature. Now, only and only if we can prove that quantum fluctuations, at that slowest unit of time can exist and not exist at the same time - then they can be said to exist and not exist simultaneously. PRO first says this: "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." PRO then says this: "From [+0,-0] = 0 quantum fluctuations, an unstable state, positive energy (+matter) and negative energy (-gravity) were inevitable [+1,-1] = 0." PRO, firstly, says to exclude quantum fluctuations from a "zero equation", and then, secondly, brings them back into equation. Moving on. "Right, I agree, this is what cosmologists, astrophysicists, and particle physicists literally have already done, like in the sources I have already provided." Once again, source provided by PRO only mentions observable universe (13.7 billion light years), but does not take into account everything beyond it. PRO: "space and time fluctuated in and out of existence with the sub nuclear particles". In the previous rounds, I already explained why this is almost impossible to conceive and understand. The argument here is what is more likely true. If we chose something we cannot understand as the likely more true, then there was no point for this debate at first place. Pro, by arguing my self acknowledged mistake by using word "WHO" ignores the fact, that I corrected myself in a previous round: "I do accept a possible bad phrasing, therefore (since I am not a science guy), I will ask "Where did the gravity come from?". PRO therefore chooses not to answer the latter question. In terms of the Big Bang Theory and how it came to be - I want to talk about Occam's razor theory developed by a brilliant genius William of Ockham. The latter created a premise, that denotes the following: "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected" Fewest assumptions. How many assumptions does the Big Bang theory requires? How many coincidences, circumstance and accidents that had to happen, in order for this world to exist? We need to think in millions here. Not only nothing gives the reason for the Big Bang actually happening, but merely describing the process of it, but the theory also has a lot of acknowledged mystery to it. Once again, the source that PRO provided states, that 74% of density in the universe consists of Dark Energy. It is just so conveniently happened to be, that the presence of that Dark Energy explains all flaws and holes in the theory of Big Bang, even though scientist are not certain of the origin, properties, reason and potential qualities of that stuff. How. Convenient. Therefore, if we think about what is more likely true - a ridiculous sequence of events, with a almost absurd probability of happening, or the fact that everything happened for a reason by a divine action - which is simpler? Which one has fewest assumptions? Which one is likely to be true more? 1.Abiogenesis. I respect PRO's thorough examination of my sources. What I do not respect, is the ignorance of the statements I provide. In the previous round I clearly stated, that it is possible to synthesise protein and I provided evidence, that it has been done artificially in a lab. I therefore, relying on that objective and accessible to anyone experiment and data explained, that with how difficult it was to create in a lab, it would certainly be nearly impossible for that process to happen naturally, by accident. It certainly is possible, and that science has proved. What science and PRO has not provided evidence for - is that abiogenesis is the reason for life on Earth. Or is PRO arguing, that if something is possible, it necessarily is true? To find some compromise in terms of Abiogenesis, PRO and CON could move on and move back for the reasons listed above. However, once again, in terms of what is more likely, which has fewer assumptions - process of creation would win the competition. 1. Evolution. I still hold on to what I have said before simply because it is true: "Creationism is known widely for accepting the idea of living beings evolving and adapting, and very rarely ever rejecting its concepts." PRO indeed has set up his own terms for Evolution, and I merely stated, that it is what PRO has decided for himself in the Round 3. I did not intend to argue, that Creationism is also responsible for evolution, I merely stated what is accepted in the world. Thus, I do not see how I have slipped. There is a difference between a theory of Evolution and the process of adapting and evolving. Evolution undermines a chain of species, where by Creationism would argue, that humans were merely adapting over the years. Also, scientist acknowledge, that we may not know about thousands of species that existed on Earth, due to the absence of any fossils, or of those fossils not yet being discovered. Perhaps, there is a fossil of a human being that will be older than the oldest we have up to this day. Just because we have not explained and evidenced something yet - does not mean it is not true. "Creationism is incorrect because the universe wasn't created" - is just as much of strong statement, as "Creationism is correct because the universe was created." PRO has no in turn demonstrated the event of Big Bang, the actual process of evolving, nor the Abiogenesis being the cause of human beings. This, perhaps, is a ridiculous statement to make, but I believe, that in this debate, I tried my best at Creationism opposing 3 of the biggest and most scientifically enhanced theories until now. I extend a great gratitude to PRO for creating this debate and for being patient. I maintain my resolution.