Creationism VS Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution

Since I actually have a burden of proof in this argument as Con, let me start by saying: Creationism's claims are likely not true, and The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are all likely true. I reject the resolution. Here's why: 1. Quantum nothingness, a zero energy universe, and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation are evidence of The Big Bang. 2. Repeatable results of landmark experiments that demonstrate naturally occurring inorganic-->organic reactions, and the fact that amino acids have the ability to react with each other to create biologically active material are evidence of Abiogenesis. 3. Two ape chromosomes fusing to make our 2nd chromosome seals the deal on the idea that humans came from older apes, and are now modern bipedal apes...as mechanistically explained and repeatedly and accurately predicted by Evolution. 4. No demonstration or replication of Creationism's claims physically, contingent on physical reality, or logically means there has been no evidence provided for Creationism. ***** 1. The Big Bang -Quantum Nothingness "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/radiation. Anything that one could consider to physically exist, even light or radiation, is made up of one of these basic characteristics of something. The absence of all of these basic characteristics of something leaves us with a vacuum of empty space. The absence of something physical, nothing, is a matter of physics. Quantum 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. http://daarb.narod.ru... 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--not full protons, neutrons, or electrons--popping into existence from nothing and just as quickly popping out of existence (quantum fluctuation). http://science.jrank.org... In this nothing state, these subatomic particles exist and don't exist at the same time...doesn't sound like something to me. 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 popping in and out of existence all of the time, energy is inevitable. Lawrence Krauss, particle physicist, puts it very well in the above two and a half minute video. Energy is just the other side of the coin to matter, and this means that if subatomic particles appearing from quantum nothingness eventually lead to the manifestation of energy, then matter can come from this unstable quantum nothingness. The Big Bang is a highly potentially energy-dense state the size of one of these subatomic particles in quantum nothingness. The Big Bang is something from nothingness. -Zero Energy Universe How could these faint particles create such a massive amount of positive energy as exhibited by the big bang? With the help of gravity. Well, the total amount of energy in the universe 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. This is called the zero-energy universe. http://www.astrosociety.org... From the big bang, we start at a state the size of a subatomic particle, that popped into existence in quantum nothingness. The total energy of (+) matter + (-) gravity = 0. I like to represent matter and gravity as a set: [ (+) matter, (-) gravity] Since matter is positive energy, we'll represent it with (+) Since gravity is negative energy, we'll represent it with (-) Right at the big bang, before expansion, matter and gravity could be represented as [+0, -0] which of course equals 0 total energy. At this point, there is no (+) matter in the quantum nothingness and no (-) gravity. But after the big bang, a dense state the size of a subatomic particle, matter and energy were expressed, and so was gravity. So how can this much positive energy come from the faint physical field? Because there was enough gravity to allow it. So at the very beginning of expansion from nothingness, the total energy set of matter and gravity 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 (+) matter which is positive energy and its exact counterbalance of negative gravity 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 came 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 negative gravity energy 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. This would allow for such a massive dense energy state from quantum fluctuations. -Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation 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. http://aether.lbl.gov... All of this cosmic background microwave radiation, which is a "black body" as it absorbs all intercepted electromagnetic radiation, is nearly a uniform glow between stars across the universe, and would be a proven indicator of an expandable hot dense state such as the big bang being the cosmos' origin. http://www.mpg.de... The small variations in the microwave's uniformity, show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot dense state that has expanded to the current size of the universe. These variations have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of subatomic particles in a vacuum of space, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk... Yeah, that link is from Cambridge...I know, argument from authority...go to page 9 of the PDF which is page 2 of the preface. So The big Bang is likely true, given quantum nothingness, a zero energy universe, and cosmic microwave background radiation. 2. Abiogenesis. -The Miller Urey and Replicated Experiments In chemistry, a compound is organic if it is covalently bonded to carbon. If the compound is not covalently bonded to carbon it is inorganic. So the distinction between inorganic and organic in chemistry can be very small if you're dealing with carbon compounds. All the Miller Urey and replicated experiments did was show that with naturally occurring atmospheric gases, inorganic compounds can become organic compounds. http://www.scientificamerican.com... So let's see how extreme the results are. Here's an inorganic carbon compound, cyanate HNCO Here's an amino acid, Glycine C2H5NO2 Is it that much of a leap to say that natural atmospheric pressures likely in earth's history could help spawn a shift from HNCO-->C2H4NO2? Ok well then the idea of inorganic-->organic shouldn't seem that radical. A claim from people who have not looked at the replicated studies of the Miller Urey is that too much oxygen, which would be present in earth's atmosphere, ruins the results of inorganic-->organic. This is true, but any lowering at all of the oxygen from the typical atmosphere allows for the inorganic-->organic switch proven in the experiments. These oxygen fluctuations are demonstrable. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org... Once we have amino acids, many opponents to the theory say, well amino acids are just lifeless organic matter...how do you get to replication genetically? Ready? Amino acids react with each other, and if a chain of amino acids, polypeptides, fold onto themselves, they become biologically active. To quote the NIH: "The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active." http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... Once we have biologically active proteins, we are talking about basic genetics. RNA - a messenger carrying instructions from DNA for controlling the synthesis of proteins. So Abiogenesis is likely true, because the Miller-Urey and replicated experiments all yield that inorganic compounds can become organic compounds with an atmosphere likely on earth in its history. Furthermore, amino acids can generate biologically active material by themselves, so life from non-life seems likely true. *I will address Evolution 3rd round! *Pro did not provide any evidence FOR creationism, only refutes of Pro's own representations of The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution. *So far, in the 3rd round, I will have nothing to refute except the inaccuracies of Pro's representations.