Ayanna said:Darwinists...
Whats a Darwinist?
Ayanna said:... begin discussions with living organisms.
Incomprehensible.
Do you mean talk to animals ala Dr Doolittle?
Ayanna said:Yet we know that for organisms to survive so many environmental factors come into play.
Who's 'we'?
Ayanna said:For example, does anything exist on earth outside of gravity?
Outside? Well, obviously no as all parts of Earth are affected by gravity, so the question is based on a faulty premise.
However, gravity has more of an effect on larger organisms than on smaller ones.
Insects, for example, routinely have to deal less with gravity than they do water tension, while elephants and the like barely even notice water tension but have trouble with gravity.
Ayanna said:We know it as the Law of Gravity,...
Who's 'we'?
There is no 'Law of Gravity'.
There's Newton's Laws of Universal Gravitation.
There's the Theory of Relativity.
Ayanna said:... which coincidentally and miraculously existed previous to anything else,...
I understand all the words in your sentence, but I cannot hope to comprehend the meaning of the sentence comprised of all those words.
What's 'coincidental' about it? Is there supposed to be a scenario where everything else could have existed in the absence of gravity?
What's 'miraculous' about gravity's existence?
Ayanna said:other than similar laws, such as the invisible world of atoms and particles.
They're not 'laws'. Can I ask you: do you understand the concept of 'law' in scientific parlance? It doesn't mean law in the same way as with human legal systems. Laws, in science, are just observations of cause and effect - descriptions of what happens in a given scenario. There's no prescription (as with human laws), only description.
Ayanna said:These things pre-exist living things,...
Well, of course they do because living things as we know it evolved within the constraints of universal forces.
Ayanna said:... and yet from ancient times they have been recognized as positive and/or negative, yang and yin — i.e., structured.
I am not understanding your 'and yet' as if you've offered something contesting your prior sentence. To be honest, I am not exactly sure what dragging in some pre-scientific notion is really going to offer in comparison to what we do know.
Ayanna said:So, before anything else, the invisible foundation of the universe was structured and ordered.
Invisible foundation? What's that then?
Please define 'structure' and please define 'order'.
Ayanna said:Space, air and innumerable other aspects of the universe had to pre-exist life,...
Not 'had to' because that presupposes there was an intended outcome.
They simply did pre-exist to life, and when life evolved it did so under those conditions.
Ayanna said:... or it could not have come about.
What could not have come about? Life?
Well, I have to be honest, that's a bloody silly argument. Life as we know it today on Earth couldn't have existed under different rules, but who is to say whether different life could or could not have existed under different rules?
Essentially, your argument is that a house couldn't exist without ground for it to reside on, a watch could not exist without a wrist to wrap it round, spectacles could not exist without noses to perch on.
In each case there's a 'well yeah' component, but it's also startlingly lacking the component whereby all of the things that exist are obviously predicated on the prior existence of things which they were built from.
Ayanna said:The idea therefore that life began from single-cell (which means, non-sexual) defies what we observe around us,...
This does not follow from anything you've written. There is literally zero logical path from what you were talking about to the supposed impossibility of single-celled life being the first form of life.
Of course, there's actually no contradiction at all with what we observe around us because we see multicellular lifeforms that are comprised of lots of single cells doing specialized functions.
Ayanna said:if everything else exists in duality.
Everything doesn't exist in duality.
Ayanna said:Life actually exists and is understandable because of the Law of Cause and Effect.
The notion behind this is actually not erroneous, but there's no such thing as the Law of Cause and Effect scientifically speaking, only some holdover notions from ancient philosophy. I presume most people citing this think there's a temporal element to it (thereby failing to understand a major flaw in their notions) and think that effects follow causes, but this has been shown to be dubious and restricted and there are fundamental states and scenarios within this universe where effect and cause can be simultaneous.
Ayanna said:One has to de-educate people in order to pretend that life originated from chaos.
What does 'de-educate' mean?
Who is 'one'?
Please define 'chaos'.
No scientist has ever claimed that life originated from chaos - the concept sound more like Greek or Chinese mythology to me than anything scientific.
Ayanna said:But that is what atheists like Richard Dawkins explain in The God Delusion: that order, law, purpose originated from chaos.
I've read the God Delusion and I cannot for the life of me remember anything like what you've claimed, but even were it actually the case, who gives a toss? It's not like Dawkins is a special ape above and beyond being wrong. Although, I have to be honest and say that I think you're probably misrepresenting him and that he said nothing of the sort.