Evolution and Creationism

[PerennialPhilosophy]

There is no miracle or magic.

How do you know that "Permanent survival is nonexistent"? How do you know that "Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed"?

Do you know how many degrees are in a circle? In an about face?

You keep using the word "designed". Designed by who? god? Prove it. Prove it even exists.

You say, " I am not aware of approaching annihilation". You need to read more. Start with the sun.

These are all your beliefs and you are welcome to them. I'll believe/not believe other wise.


Edit: Almost forgot, Welcome!

Then let's not the use word miracle or magic.
I witness it.
360. An about-face is a 180, not 190.
By designed I mean how it functions. Regardless of the existence of a designer, I am assuming we all agree everything exists.
What should I read about the sun that will say otherwise? Do you mean with specific reference to the second law of thermodynamics or of another scientific principle?
Also, I hope I have not come across as trying to convert somebody to believe something. I came here with the intention of a debate that moves everybody's ethos to be sound.

"The big bang is not an explosion. The fact that you're that wrong, right away, does not bode well going forward. And the universe is only "doomed" if you assume that life is its sole purpose, and I don't think you can justify that. Without certain anthropocentric assumptions, the fact that the universe will run out of energy someday doesn't mean that it's doomed, just that it'll exist without energy." 

I apologize, an expansion not an explosion. The universe itself may not be doomed, but biology will be. We're talking about the purpose of biology.

---

So, lets start at the big bang. Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed.

The big bang is not an explosion. The fact that you're that wrong, right away, does not bode well going forward. And the universe is only "doomed" if you assume that life is its sole purpose, and I don't think you can justify that. Without certain anthropocentric assumptions, the fact that the universe will run out of energy someday doesn't mean that it's doomed, just that it'll exist without energy.

Granted its going to take an inconceivable-to-our-fragile-minds amount of time, but still everything was meant to die.

"Meant to," presumes pre-designated purpose, which you haven't established.

Albeit this, there is a natural propensity for life to keep on living. This is the root of evolution, that life is fighting against itself. On one hand the universe was made to die, on the other it was designed to live. This difference between how things are and how things strive to be is ultimately irrational. It's the ultimate paradox. So my question is, how do you reconcile life on one hand being designed to end and on the other hand being designed to keep going on?

There's nothing to reconcile. Organisms are naturally selected for their ability to continue living, but the fact that they aren't perfect at this, and will eventually fail, doesn't mean there's a paradox. I mean, hell, even within the context of your claim here, you say the universe was "made to die," and if you think that, wouldn't that mean that the fact that life forms inevitably falter and die fits perfectly within that paradigm? You can live, you can resist, but eventually you'll fail because the universe was made to die?

I mean, you're straining a metaphor anyway, apparently in the service of a stupid tu coque fallacy, but it doesn't even work while taking the metaphor seriously.

The paradox is that life tries to fight death. Because it fails, does not mean that is not its purpose. I'm not the one committing a tu quoque fallacy.