The Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution VS Creationism
*I am Pro
*You are Con
*No round rules
*NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND; just start debating.
The Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are likely true and creationism is likely not true.
Burden of Proof is shared
Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are all likely true (Pro's BoP) and refute Con.
Has 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that creationism is likely true (Con's BoP) and refute Pro.
*Definitions can be changed in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as Pro and Con both agree to the change.
*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.
Definitions (from Google definitions)
The Big Bang - the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that marked the origin of the universe.
Abiogenesis - the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic substances.
Evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms.
Creationism - the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation rather than by natural processes.
*I must stress that "rather than by natural processes" must be a part of Con's idea of creationism; this particular definition cannot be changed.
likely - probably
true - in accordance with fact or reality.
May the better argument win.
Nowadays, Creationism is considered to be the main enemy of science. In spite of the fact that significant amount of scientists try to demonstrate their belief in God and how the two can co-exist, creationism is still amounted to the biggest threat, in the cultural war, to the people in white coats and their followers.
My opinion is that because of this cultural war, people think of Creationism as a negative thing - an illusion, created by our ancestors, who were limited by their time and thus primitive philosophers, who have not had access to all the knowledge that we now do, by sitting on our beds using a revolutionary thing called the Internet.
Therefore, in this debate (not this round only, but the rest of rounds as well) I would try to shed some reason on this "wrong by definition" labelled subject and demonstrate, how it is actually worth thinking and considering Creationism as an answer not only to questions like "How?", "When?", "What?" and "Who?", but also the most important question in the history of human beings -
I would like to start with as simply as possibly putted definition of Creationism. Of course, I would be obliged to mention here definition provided by PRO: "the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation rather than by natural processes." I am well aware of the emphasis that has been put by PRO on the second part of this definition - and I do promise to come to it later, however as foundations and basic understanding of Creationism, it is important to elaborate on the primary part first.
Also, since the subject of Creationism has extremely little or no evidence whatsoever, I would like to heavily rely on rationality and logic. It is important to understand that my logic can be different to yours, therefore I will try to be as objective as possible.
Another remark I would like to add, is that PRO did not mention GOD or BIBLE in his definitions. I would definitely be in favour of putting those 2 matters aside of this debate. I would most definitely refer to both concepts, but in no way will I rely on them as foundations or pillars that are necessary for the existence and support of creationism respectively.
Therefore, I believe I can begin my argument here.
"the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation".
There are multiple definitions, explanations, theories that complete Creationism as a whole. There are multiple subjective views on the methods of creation, purpose and everything that comes after it. (A Spectrum of Creation Views held by Evangelicals". Ipswich, MA:American Scientific Affiliation.) Therefore I want to deliver the ultimately practical (as much as it can be practical for something that has no evidence) way in which Creationism can be true.
As I myself understand, word "Creationism" is derived from a verb - "to create" (quite obvious. Or not.). It implies, that the Universe and living organisms were basically created.
Now, before I will connect this semantic explanation to my argument, I would want to elaborate on the idea of priory and posteriori knowledge, which was promoted and brought to light by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who contributed endlessly much to the philosophy and ethics as we know them today.
A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience. Therefore, when we try to solve what is 2+2, we do not need to find physical objects in order to find a solution (hopefully.) - we can simply turn to the knowledge we already have. Hence, we can almost instantly work out that the answer is 4 (hopefully.).
A posteriori knowledge is dependent on experiences or empirical evidence. The best example here would be the theory of Evolution, which is based on evidence found.
Kant argued that these are the only 2 ways of knowing things that we use in our lives.
Let me demonstrate another, more practical example of a priori knowledge. When I walk along the street and I see some building for the first time in my life, I would not need a physical proof, records or blueprints of this building in order to believe that it was built (created) by a human being. I will know this without any evidence.
The conclusion that I could come up here with is that I do not need to see the actual process of creation of something, or any evidence of that creation taking place - I would rationally know that it must have been built by a human being. Created, in a divine action.
However, many people would counter this notion by saying that at some point early as a kid, I must have seen or witnessed a house being built, which is how I know that consequently every house I will see after, I will know was built by a human. In other words, there is no prior knowledge, without posteriori knowledge.
To that I could answer that I have never ever seen a laptop being assembled. I have never seen a plane being constructed, nor have I ever understood and seen how medicine or drugs are produced. However, I have been told that, and I know, thanks to my priori knowledge, that all of those things were created by a human being.
I hope that the reader is with me (as if you understand what I am saying. Not that I try to win you support by being that blunt) at this point and he sees where I am going with this (again, figurative speech. Thanks). Let me explain where this argument is drawing inspiration from.
This analogy dictates that any single design requires a designer. William Paley, one of the many brilliant minds of philosophy, argued in favour of creationism, by saying that if a pocket watch is found on a seashore, it is most reasonable to assume that someone dropped it and that it was made by one or more watchmakers, and not by natural forces.
This whole argument can be bound into one bundle of Design argument, a.k.a. Teleological argument, which brings the idea that whenever we see a complex mechanism, we would assume that there must be a maker and creator of that mechanism.
Again, a counter argument here would be that this implies that a mechanism is a non-organic or non-living thing. A biological mechanism is simply a completely different story. However, if the theory of abiogenesis is right, then everything organic originated from non-organic. Hence, in a vague way, we can argue that if the analogy applies to a non-organic mechanism, it could apply to its descendant - living object as well. Besides, at this point Science has been able to clone DNA, which means creating a living thing, a living mechanism.
Therefore, using Priori knowledge and a watchmaker analogy, we can say that it is very and more than very likely, that a complex mechanism was created by something or someone. Who is the creator is a completely different question, which is not essential at this stage of the debate.
Before I conclude Round 1, I would like to mention another, one of the 5, arguments for the existence of God(I am aware that I am not arguing for the existence of God, but merely idea of creation. Therefore I am trying to shape those theories to fit my ideas.), which is a key to understand why creationism could not only be a theory, but a necessity(yes, I said it.).
It is better known as the argument of a primary cause. A fellow student of Plato, Aristotle took up this theory and modified and expanded it, delivering a much clearer understanding of its premise. The idea is that every object we see was created by another object or subject. The latter object or subject would in its turn be created by another subject or object and so on. However, the most important word here is not a "subject" nor "created", but "cause". Everything has caused everything. Everything could cause nothing and nothing could cause everything (It will all make sense, I promise). This sounds confusing. Lets consider the idea of Big Bang. Scientist claim that before Big Bang there was nothing or almost nothing, and then everything appeared out of nothing. That is how nothing can create everything. However, this scientific statement contradicts itself in that energy, for example, cannot be created or destroyed - only converted. Therefore, how can nothing create everything is a question that science fails to answer coherently.
However, if we turn to the idea that there as a primary maker, as some people would like to call it GOD, could explain quite a lot. A primary maker, for example, could have caused the Big Bang itself. Therefore, in a way, it was created by that supreme being, which would therefore tie in to the idea of Creationism. To those, who question who created the primary being or why he does not require a primary cause, if everything else does, I can only quote a brilliant and hilarious scientist Bill Nye: "Simply because you do not understand it, does not mean it is not true." I do not understand how my laptop is assembled, but that fact does not prevent me from knowing that it was assembled by a human.
At this stage of round one I would like to recap and conclude my first argument.
There are 2 main ideas to follow to understand how Creationism could be more likely true, than other scientific theories - Design Argument and Cosmological argument. I do agree, that there are not a lot of evidence to support Creationism, which is why I relied so much on rationality and logic, and I will make sure to criticise evidence given by sciences to support their theories. Human beings mainly operate from priori and posteriori knowledge, giving a heavy preference to the former rather than later. Which in turn means, that we could use that priori knowledge to understand the concept of Creationism and how real it can be.
I do sincerely apologies for complicating this argument or for any grammar or source mistake.
This is the end of my Round 1.
Thanks for accepting the debate Con.
1. Our universe originated at the big bang, because our universe's zero spacial curvature indicates the universe has zero total energy, quantum fluctuations are what nothing is, and cosmic microwave background radiation + red shifting galaxies indicate the current universe is expanding from that big bang.
2. Life on earth likely originated by way of abiogenesis, because inorganic compounds likely of an early earth can react and become organic compounds, these amino acids can fold on to each other to become biologically active, and RNA can emerge from an amino acid dominated area which would allow for genetic replication.
3. The biodiversity of life on earth is explained by evolution, because genetic characteristics that allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce are more likely to be passed on, speciation has been observed, and human chromosome 2 is definitive evidence that humans descended from apes.
4. Creationism is incorrect simply because the universe wasn't created; creation is a temporal process that requires time and the passage thereof to go from creator to created but, when there was no matter, space, or gravity, there was no time to pass; no universe, no time, no creation.
1. Our universe has a zero total energy, because the spatial curvature throughout the universe is zero.
All of the positive energy (+matter) is cancelled out by all of the negative energy (-gravity) in our universe so that the total energy of the universe is in fact zero.
As a set, matter and gravity would look like [+matter, -gravity] = 0.
So, without a big bang, matter and gravity are at [+0,-0] = 0
There is no matter or gravity to speak of and of course the total energy is 0.
In this zero energy state, there is no space/time/matter/energy/gravity...nothing.
How do we know what this nothing is?
In our universe of space and matter, when you strip "something" of particles, radiation, and energy, you are left with nothing but empty space; this empty space is full of quantum fluctuations.
Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate as well.
This is what nothing is.
But the sub nuclear particles are something, right?
They never statively exist; they exist and don't exist at the same instant, and it is this fluctuation that makes up nothing.
There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period.
What is nothing?
It is a state of fluctuating sub nuclear particles and their forces called quantum fluctuations.
That link is a great video for explaining nothing = quantum fluctuations.
So, when there was no space or time at [+0,-0] = 0, there were quantum fluctuations where space and time fluctuated in and out of existence with the sub nuclear particles and their forces.
The zero energy [+0,-0] = 0 quantum fluctuations are an unstable state, because of the constant fluctuating of these sub nuclear particles.
These fluctuations, nothing, are so unstable that energy is guaranteed to be expressed from these quantum fluctuations.
Unstable [+0,-0] = 0 --> The Big Bang [+1,-1] = 0
At the big bang, we have (+1) some matter and (-1) some gravity, which now allows for stative space and time.
The universe expands [+10,-10] = 0
Inflation accelerates [+100000,-100000] = 0
So from zero energy quantum fluctuations [+0,-0], there was the big bang [+1,-1] = 0
Something [+1,-1] from nothing [+0,-0].
The big bang left cosmic microwave background radiation behind.
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.
NASA has measured it with an anisotropy probe located on a space shuttle called WMAP.
The radiation is basically uniform except for minor thermal variations proportional to the variations we've measured in quantum fluctuations.
So we know that from quantum fluctuations the Big Bang was expressed, not created, thus there is no creator of the universe, because there was no creation; creation is a temporal concept that requires time, and at [+0,-0] there is no space or time; there was no time for creation to happen.
With light, longer rays of light are in the red end of the spectrum while shorter rays of light are in the blue end of the spectrum.
When we look out at other galaxies, the light that hits us is in the red end of the spectrum (red shift) indicating that the light is being elongated, or stretched out as the senders of the light, other galaxies, are moving away from us and we from them thanks to inflation, which started at the big bang.
Compounds covalently (sharing electrons) bonded to carbon are organic.
Compounds not covalently bonded to carbon are inorganic.
Inorganic = H N C O (cyanate)
Organic = C 2 H 5 N O 2 (glycine, an amino acid)
You can tell that the difference between inorganic and organic carbon compounds is rather insignificant.
One more carbon atom, four more hydrogen atoms, and one more oxygen atom...that's it.
The Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's demonstrated that with an atmosphere, water salinity, electricity, and inorganic compounds likely of an earlier earth, inorganic compounds will produce organic amino acid compounds.
Though people agreed that lightning occurs without life and in atmospheres on other planets, people still complained that the atmosphere of earlier earth had more oxygen than the Miller-Urey experiment accounted for.
The replicated experiments of the Miller-Urey took that into account, and used:
1. H2, CH4, NH3, H2O, H2S and electricity, and yielded the amino acids cysteine, cystine, and methionine
2. CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and UV rays, and yielded alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine
3. CH4, H2O, H2S, NH3, N2, and electricity, and yielded methionine
"When reduced gases, including CH4, H2S and NH3, are emitted from a volcano into a lightning-rich atmosphere, hydrogen cyanide, ethylene, and acetylene can be generated."
So we know that amino acids, organic compounds, can come from inorganic compounds.
But what about genetic replication?
Amino acid chains (polypeptides) can fold onto themselves and become biologically active.
According to the NIH:
"The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active."
So we have biologically active amino acids...how do they replicate?
Well amino acids tend to speed up reactions; they're catalysts.
So before there was life, there were pre-biotic catalysts, amino acids.
"catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated...the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner."
So, from inorganic compounds of earlier earth, we got organic amino acids, which, when folded, become biologically active, and can catalyze reactions that lead to the emergence of RNA, which is necessary for genetic replication.
Any primitive organism would be replicating with RNA and metabolizing with amino acids, but what might they be consuming?
"Sixty years after the seminal Miller-Urey experiment that abiotically produced a mixture of racemized amino acids, we provide a definite proof that this primordial soup, when properly cooked, was edible for primitive organisms."
3. Evolution just states that organisms that live long enough to reproduce pass on their genetic characteristics that helped them live long enough to reproduce.
As organisms migrate to different environments, different genetic characteristics lead to "living long enough" to reproduce.
Those that live long enough to reproduce pass on their genes more successfully than those who do not live long enough to reproduce in the different environment. Genetic changes over time lead to different species from a parent species.
Speciation has been observed.
The three spine stickleback fish has been observed speciating.
At one observed point, a member of the parent species could reproduce with other members of the parent species group and their offspring, and at a later observed point, the newer offspring were genetically incompatible with the parent species group.
This is the definition of a new species; evolution observed.
Also, the Hawthorne Fly, used to feed on the fruit of hawthorns.
Once apples were introduced into their environment, some of the hawthorn flies fed only on the apples, while the typical hawthorn fly remained eating the fruits of hawthorns.
Now, since so much time has passed, currently, apple eating hawthorns (apple maggot flies) mature later in the season, and require chemicals from apples that help with fertilization/reproduction.
The original hawthorn fruit eaters simply do not interbreed with the apple eaters.
They are now two different species, and the parasites that inhabit them have also evolved along with the diet change.
Next round I'll elaborate more, but humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes...because two ape chromosomes fused to make our 2nd chromosome.
Thank you, Con, for your Round 1.
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.
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.
"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."
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"
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.
This is the end of Round 2.
Thanks Con, for your 2nd round arguments; I love LEGOs.
1. The Big Bang and Quantum Fluctuations
In 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"
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."
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.
"Who created the [functions] of gravity?"
This is called begging the question, because the conclusion is affirmed in the question.
"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?"
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."
This is called the argument from personal incredulity.
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."
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.
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"
Well without any source to back this estimate up, we have no reason to believe it is accurate, nor can we verify its calculations.
"unless requested by [Pro], I see no further need to argue about Abiogenesis."
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.
I 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?"
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.
2. Amino acids can themselves fold into a shape that is biologically active, and catalytic.
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."
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."
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."
So, because of floating islands in the Atlantic ocean 50 Mya, platyrrhines were able to reach South America from Africa.
"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."
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."
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."
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."
On to Con...
I want to point out that PRO constantly keeps mentioning in this section of his argument. "As a property of matter interacting with space, which both originated at the big bang [+0,-0]-->[+1,-1]." PRO keeps mentioning how matter and gravity cancel each other our, by summing up to a complete 0 - nothingness. He then claims again, that nothing is actual quantum fluctuations. However, in that case, if there is something, how can 0 amount to something? Is PRO trying to redefine maths? Or is he simply, for the sake of his argument, excluding quantum fluctuations from his 0 energy manifest?
I would like to quote the following source http://www.icr.org...;to explain, how the theory of 0 energy can be debunked:
The claim of a 0 energy universe is based, not on direct measurements, but uponinterpretation of the data through the filter of the Big Bang model. "
"Moreover, when virtual particles momentarily appear within a vacuum, they are appearing in a space that already exists. Because space itself is part of our universe, the spontaneous creation of a universe requires space itself to somehow pop into existence."
In other words, there is no actual, objective evidence, that the sum of all energy in the Universe is 0, at least due to the fact, that we cannot even observe all of that Universe.
I quote PRO here: "Without our universe, in this nothing state, space and time are not stative". PRO said NOT STATIVE and not NON EXISTANT. Space can be non stative, but to be non stative, it has to exist. If it does exist, then that only proves the point that I made, that was criticed by PRO. Therefore, my statement that "come out of and into existence" remains valid.
"Beginning of the question". PRO provided the definition: "Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true".
1) I tried to look through various sources and materials, and did not find an example of how a question could be a premise. I have asked a question: "Who created the [functions] of gravity?" Maybe PRO can tell me how a premise can a question, when by definition it is not.
2) The idea of beginning of the question is that the conclusion of the premise is included in the premise as well. Therefore, a valid example would be: "Everyone wants to buy Fallout 4, because it is the hottest game at this time!".
Clearly, this statement gives no answer to why Fallout 4 is popular - it merely takes a premise and rephrases it as the same conclusion.
I do not see how "Who created the [functions] of gravity?" fits under that description. If I wrote "Someone must have created the gravity, because the gravity looks like it has been created" - that would be a beginning of the question.
I do accept a possible bad phrasing, therefore (since I am not a science guy), I will ask "Where did the gravity come from?"
Also, if PRO choses to ignore my part of the question, rephrases them as he sees fit EXAMPLE: "
Ignoring the "who," I'll answer the "how" gravity works and functions in a certain way."
, then he should not accuse me of ignoring abiogenesis.
Talking about "Personal Incredulity". Here is the full definition from the source PRO supplied. "These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false."
"appear to be obvious and yet still be false". It does not look like PRO at any point of his argument accepted, that the obvious can be false. Therefore, as PRO would not accept that obvious can be false, the fact that I may not accept that incredible could be true should not matter at all, since the opposites will cancel out.
I would like PRO to argue the following "Our understanding of the laws of physics is based on observation. For instance, our knowledge of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy come from observations made from literally thousands of experiments. No one has ever observed a universe “popping” into existence. This means that any laws of physics that would allow (even in principle) a universe to pop into existence are completely outside our experience"
If PRO could provide observation of the universe popping into existence, then "I'll concede this debate and request that you receive a Nobel prize."
Without further comments:
I am not arguing, that abiogenesis is impossible. I arguethat it could not have happened in the 3 billion years span, that the life on Earth has existed. After all, PRO provides evidence of abiogenesis happening with in a scientific lab, with required temperatures, molecules, covalents and ions and etc - in one phrase - fitting conditions. However, it is highly unlikely, as I provided in the sources above, that it happened in 3 billion years.
"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."
That is something PRO has decided for himself. Creationism is known widely for accepting the idea of living beings evolving and adapting, and very rarely ever rejecting its concepts.
I did not set it up this way.
PRO has used the following source as reference multiple times in his argument:
An article from this website - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... - says there are 3 theories for origin and evolution of genetic code. Henceforth, that there are only theories on genetic code's origin, and no fundamental stated fact or proof of its origin. Therefore, it still validates as the flaw of evolution, NOT abiogenesis. Here is why.
In this large document a word "abiogenesis" is mentioned 0 times. However, the word "evolution" is mentioned 166 times. Therefore, if PRO could explain, how "This is clearly a criticism of abiogenesis, not evolution" - that would be great.
SIN: PRO asks a question from CON, and then answers it himself in the source that CON provided below the statement.
I want to remind the reader, that the point of this debate is to find what is most "LIKELY TRUE".
PRO says: "Studies...suggest that [platyrrhines] could have been able...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."
This statement to be true, requires a lot of circumstances to line up. From the same source that PRO provided, the article continues:
"To survive a transoceanic journey, however, protoplatyrrhines had to be preadapted to strong seasonal variations in water availability in their original...environment. Once on the sea, their brains would have physiologically interpreted the rarity of water as the beginning of the dry season, and the group would have switched its diet to alternative foods, i.e., everything available on the floating island."
It would be hard to understand and explain how all of that could have possibly happened at such a low probability.
I stated: "offer no APPARENT survival advantage". I did not say there wasn't any.
Art and music are very subjective for each individual. Does this mean, that people evolve separately from each other? Why all other properties and qualities granted to us by evolution are practically identical?
Also, religion would fall under that category. Religion is known as one of the most common reasons for wars. Again, I do not see how that is advantageous to our own survival.
I can imagine how understanding the world around us leads to a survival. I also understand, how it can ruin our survival, whereby we destroy our environment, completely terminate many types of animals, cutting trees, and how we become more and more savage, as we move along our existence.
I can provide just as many arguments to prove disadvantage of understanding the world around us, so do not "come on" me.
To all of these questions:
"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?"
I quote PRO: "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."
"This interpretation leads them to a farfetched conclusion: that the genetic code, “appears that it was invented outside the solar system already several billions years ago.” http://news.discovery.com...
"Scientists believe that the human DNA is arranged in such a precise way that it reveals a “set of arithmetic patterns and ideographic symbolic language”. "
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."
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.
"in that case, if there is something, how can 0 amount to something? Is PRO trying to redefine maths?"
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.
"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."
Right, I agree, this is what cosmologists, astrophysicists, and particle physicists literally have already done, like in the sources I have already provided.
"Moreover, when virtual particles momentarily appear within a vacuum, they are appearing in a space that already exists"
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.
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 gravity
P2 Gravity was created
C1 A "who" created gravity.
Then Con asked me "Who created gravity?"
Con's desired answer was smuggled in.
Con claims that there was not enough time for the abiogenesis that I've described to have taken place.
"it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to probably find one [useful protein for life]"
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."
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"
Con slips up:
"Creationism is known widely for accepting the idea of living beings evolving and adapting, and very rarely ever rejecting its concepts."
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.