Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 9:24 am (This post was last modified: October 3, 2013 at 9:28 am by max-greece.)
(October 3, 2013 at 9:14 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:
(October 3, 2013 at 9:04 am)max-greece Wrote: What utter rubbish:
"Atheistic origin science has a lot of explaining to do to counter the very obvious and scientific conclusion that God, the Almighty Creator, indeed created all things. A thorough investigation into the facts, the laws of nature, mathematics, and logic will prove that this alternative explanation, of an origin without God, is totally false and contradictory. "
God is not a scientific conclusion. FAIL
"Therefore, a second irrefutable proof of the existence of God Almighty the Creator can be made. Assume indeed that atheistic origin science is correct, and all of the creation can be explained without God by the laws of nature and random chance. As will be shown, this assumed theory will prove to be false. And since the only alternative to a Creator is false, then again the fact that the Creator, God Almighty, exists will have been proven again."
You haven't successfully made a first irrefutable claim so this can't be the second.
"Atheistic origin science claims that it can explain the origin of things without God. The claim is that most things have been explained and only the details need to be ironed out. The truth is that atheistic origin science has not been able to answer anything of importance in the origin question. If anything, new discoveries have ended all hope that it will ever be successful. So after over 150 years since Darwin, and over 50 years of an extensive effort, atheistic origin science has not answered anything. Why does anybody believe it ever will? Most of its believers have either died or will die before anything will ever be answered."
Not answered anything? Seriously? Do you - like - read? Ever?
"To show that atheistic origin science has failed, I will just ask for some simple answers to some very simple questions. If atheistic origin science has answers, this should be no more than to copy the answers from the verified answer book of atheistic origin science.
If there are no real answers, it proves my point."
Well that will depend on the answers. Remember that currently not known does mean God did it anymore than it did when we didn't know the earth went around the Sun or that evolution explained the diversity of life.
"If the answers given are not complete answers, avoids questions, dances around questions, or doesn't answer one single question, what does that say about the claims of atheistic origin science."
I don't know. Its unlikely they are going to be as bad as the answers you gave.
Please note I have some more simple questions to ask.
Questions
What was the first living thing?
Unknown at this time.
Was it made of just proteins?
No.
If so, how many amino acids did it have and what was their sequence?
Not applicable from answer above.
What are the odds of that happening?
It did happen. The odds are 100%.
Please show real calculations.
Why - did you?
OK Then
P(Life) = 100%, life exists.
How did it then make the jump to RNA and DNA?
Evolution under natural selection.
What are the odds of that happening?
It did happen. The odds are 100%.
Please show real calculations.
Why - did you?
OK Then
P(Life) = 100%, life exists.
Was it made of just RNA and proteins?
Yes.
If so, how many nucleotides for the RNA and amino acids for the proteins?
Not many, remarkably few a it happens but I don't have the exact numbers to hand. Few enough to self assemble in solution.
What were the sequences for both?
See above.
What are the odds of that happening?
P(Life) = 100%, life exists.
How did it then make the jump to DNA?
Evolution through natural selection.
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.
P(Life) = 100%, life exists.
These questions don't follow on from the previous one so I will skip them: "Did it actually use DNA?
If so, how many nucleotides for the DNA?
What was the DNA code sequence?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations."
What was the 2nd living creature?
The 3rd, 4th ... up the actual first cell?
What are the odds of each of those jumps?
Please show real calculations.
There will be too many to list- as you already know, so why be so disingenuous as to ask for this?
Upward evolution
Could man have evolved from an apelike creature in just 5 million years?
Yes.
"What are the odds based on the fact that there would be about 30 million base code differences in a 3 billion base code DNA between the 2 creatures, only 500,000 generations in that time, and only at most several million individuals for each of most of those generations?"
Do you think I am a bookie?
Actually I think your numbers are off. There is just about that much variation between members of the same species.
Human DNA is about 650 Mb of data - it fits on a CD.
Variations that define an individual are about 10 Mb.
That is slightly over 1.5% variation within a species (ours as it happens).
We have about a 2% variation with Chimps and Bonobo's (our closest living relatives - first cousins if you like). With their smaller population their variation between individuals will be smaler but still should be plus or minus 0.5%
Easy jump.
P(Life) = 100%
How did that happen since higher-level creatures use sexual reproduction?
Relevance? What is the issue with sexual reproduction. You don't think we were fucking monkeys to make monkey men do you?
Please show real calculations.
See above.
Now repeat that feat for the over 100 million species that have been supposedly on the Earth. What are the odds of that?
Please show real calculations.
P(Life) = 100%, life exists.
Given the fact that mutations in general corrupt the DNA code, why is the DNA code of all species not completely corrupted after the long line of progression over hundreds of millions of years?
I see - you have a little understanding of evolution but none of its mechanism - natural selection.
Corrupted DNA - where change causes disadvantage causes death.
Changes where benefit it brought causes increased success and higher likelihood of breeding.
The fossil record
Why does the fossil record show distinct species fully formed throughout?
It doesn't
Why has not a single chain of missing links of one disparate species becoming another ever been found in the entire fossil record?
There are millions of chains of missing links still missing. None have been found.
Many have - see the history of whales.
Provide one set of dates for one supposed intermediate species. Give the dates of the ancestor, the intermediate and the descendent species for one intermediate species.
55 million years ago till today - we have multiple stages of evolution from a meat eating animal that resembled a crocodile to today's toothed and Baleen Whales.
And I win. God not required.
Your answer is almost non existent.
Show calculations - none given. Just that it equaled 100%. That means no answers.
No that means life happened
Code lengths - none given
Why should I - look them up yourself.
Actual codes - none given
You want to write out RNA codes in a post? Fuck off.
RNA - you said yes. But cannot even attempt the DNA code which could not develop by natural selection.
Wrong - it did plainly.
Number of codes in RNA - you said a few. That would mean about 50,000 or more I guess, since a creature would not survive or evolve with less. No mention of the proteins though. Without creation ons the creature dies. And the miraculous RNA code must match the proteins of the creature, the enzymes for reaction.
NO answer given.
It was given previously: "The components of simple viruses such as TMV, which consists of a single RNA molecule and one protein species, undergo self-assembly if they are mixed in solution."
2nd, 3rd 4th creatures ... up to first cell - No answer. If you say a few fro the code length, the sequence is even longer and very impossible.
I did answer - you ignored my answer because you know you are asking for something impossible. I called you disingenuous but that was my mistake as I assumed you understood the word.
Upward evolution with calculations - none
Answered in detail - why are you lying now? Is your case that weak?
Other question on upward not even given.
Could you rephrase this so it makes sense.
Fossile record - ignored questions. LIAR
55 million years - no scientific measurement is ever given without a +- range on error.
Oh gee- you got me 55 million plus or minus 2 million.
That is not even science and indicates someone is hiding the truth. Where you got that number from is deceived.
No answers.
Answered in all the detail it deserved.
No God.
I win.
Re: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 9:27 am
Don't have a ton of time at the moment to fully address everything in the post, but in general, if you could prove science were wrong, it does not logically follow that religion must be correct. That is a non sequitur.
As to the fossil record, there are such things as stupid questions, and yours are exactly that.
The Fossil record shows the progression from the most basal of organisms (archaea to bacteria to eukarya to metazoa and then the radiation and diversification of the metazoans from the Phanerozoic onwards as life transitions from the ocean to land and then to air).
What do you might be exact dates? Radiometric dates? Those are pretty easy to find. If you are looking for a Paleozoic birth record for Tiktaalik that lists day and time, then your question is moronic.
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 10:10 am
SBG, what is your education? Easy question.
When I was young, there was a god with infinite power protecting me. Is there anyone else who felt that way? And was sure about it? but the first time I fell in love, I was thrown down - or maybe I broke free - and I bade farewell to God and became human. Now I don't have God's protection, and I walk on the ground without wings, but I don't regret this hardship. I want to live as a person. -Arina Tanemura
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 10:33 am
RNA have catalytic properties ... duh. So they do not need proteins to function. They don't even need to function, just survive long enough to replicate.
The fact that you're asking for RNA sequences says a lot about your ignorance of genetics.
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 10:41 am
Quote:Atheistic origin science has a lot of explaining to do to counter the very obvious and scientific conclusion that God, the Almighty Creator, indeed created all things.
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/FJovzGlbuoEXm/giphy.gif)
