Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)

[TheBeardedDude]

Answered in all the detail it deserved.
No God.
I win.

How did you calculate the +- 2 million?

Show real error analysis and back up the data.

Error is calculated from the uncertainty associated with the isotopic measurements and the analytical precision of the process of isolating the isotopes and the mass spectrometer used to measure the relative abundances of each isotope in question.

[Zazzy]

An RNA sequence is needed to make proteins. It must be an exact sequence else the protein will not work.

Good! This is a 9th grade level of understanding. Do you have more, or is that it?

And it's not true that the sequence must be exact or the protein will not work. Many neutral mutations exist. There's MUCH more to this discussion than the 9th grade fundamentals (methylation, intron splicing, etc), but this is a good start.

[Esquilax]

That is how the sediments would have been sorted by a wash in from the flood.

SEDIMENTS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

An RNA sequence is needed to make proteins. It must be an exact sequence else the protein will not work.

Good! This is a 9th grade level of understanding. Do you have more, or is that it?

And it's not true that the sequence must be exact or the protein will not work. Many neutral mutations exist. There's MUCH more to this discussion than the 9th grade fundamentals (methylation, intron splicing, etc), but this is a good start.

How many different proteins did that 1st living creature have?

What was their sequence?

[Zazzy]

Good! This is a 9th grade level of understanding. Do you have more, or is that it?

And it's not true that the sequence must be exact or the protein will not work. Many neutral mutations exist. There's MUCH more to this discussion than the 9th grade fundamentals (methylation, intron splicing, etc), but this is a good start.

How many different proteins did that 1st living creature have?

What was their sequence?

Please see my previous post so that I do not have to repeat myself. I realize there are many people replying to you.

Edit- it's on p. 5

[Doubting Thomas]

I love it. SBG sits here and posts creationist claims like they're given fact, and when pressed for evidence completely ignores those requests.

Then when someone posts something scientific he says "Show real error analysis and back up the data."

My hypocrisy meter just burned out.

[Jackalope]

Show real error analysis and back up the data.

You first, cupcake.

[TheBeardedDude]

Good! This is a 9th grade level of understanding. Do you have more, or is that it?

And it's not true that the sequence must be exact or the protein will not work. Many neutral mutations exist. There's MUCH more to this discussion than the 9th grade fundamentals (methylation, intron splicing, etc), but this is a good start.

How many different proteins did that 1st living creature have?

What was their sequence?

None, it was a protein-based lifeform.

And it was not conscious or sentient either. The first "life" on Earth would have been largely indistinguishable from a redox reaction. With the minor exception of self-replication.

---

If the idea that you descended from apes and other animals ruffles your feathers, understand that you are ultimately the descendant of a chemical reaction (specifically a redox reaction).

[max-greece]

Good! This is a 9th grade level of understanding. Do you have more, or is that it?

And it's not true that the sequence must be exact or the protein will not work. Many neutral mutations exist. There's MUCH more to this discussion than the 9th grade fundamentals (methylation, intron splicing, etc), but this is a good start.

How many different proteins did that 1st living creature have?

What was their sequence?

What are you getting out of this?

If your aim is to convince us of your arguments you are failing so badly its laughable.

If your aim is to convince yourself you'd be better off putting your tin foil hat on with headphones.

?????

[Mister Agenda]

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.

What you call 'atheistic origin science' is just science. God is a premise, not a scientific conclusion.

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.

In order to refute the science, you would have to understand it, and you don't. If I understood evolution as badly as you do, I wouldn't believe it either.

Therefore, a second irrefutable proof of the existence of God Almighty the Creator can be made.

Arguments from ignorance (if you're wrong, I must be right!) can't get you to a proof of God.

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.

Possible alternatives to a Creator would be small-c creators. Some other god than yours. The deist God. A computer simulation designer. Anything one can imagine as an explanation for the origin of the universe or of life or of the diversity of life is still fair game if you succeed in disproving cosmology, abiogenesis, and biological evolution. Maybe you should wait until after your argument has been examined before declaring victory.

Aheistic 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.

This entire paragraph is composed of nothing but unsupported assertions.

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.

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.

Please note I have some more simple questions to ask.

Have you ever considered simply presenting your case without a long introduction about how you're about to present your case?

Questions

What was the first living thing?

Was it made of just proteins?
If so, how many amino acids did it have and what was their sequence?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.
How did it then make the jump to RNA and DNA?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.

Was it made of just RNA and proteins?
If so, how many nucleotides for the RNA and amino acids for the proteins?
What were the sequences for both?
What are the odds of that happening?
How did it then make the jump to DNA?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.

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.

You first. You have claims about the first living thing. Show us your calculations, since you think that level of exactitude is necessary for a claim about the first organism to be legitimate. Also, you've lied about the questions being simple. 'What was the first living thing?' is far from simple after you add all those caveats. Even if the structure of the first living thing was known, it would take a textbook to answer your question the way you've framed it. Perhaps you could have thought of a less dishonest title for this thread if you'd have thought about it more.

Upward evolution

Could man have evolved from an apelike creature in just 5 million years?
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?
What are the odds?
Please show real calculations.
How did that happen since higher-level creatures use sexual reproduction?
Please show real calculations.

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.

How did God create the first human and all other species. Please show real calculations. This simple question shows theistic origin science is false.

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?

Ah, an actual simple question. Because natural selection conserves mutations that are beneficial, ignores mutations that are neutral, and eliminates mutations that are (on net) harmful, at rates proportionate to the benefit or harm to reproductive success.

The fossil record
Why does the fossil record show distinct species fully formed throughout?

It doesn't. There are numerous examples in the fossil record of species that show traits common to species in its lineage that are older and that are more recent. Feathered dinosaurs, Tiktaalik (a fish with developing legs and ribs and neck), Morganucodon (intermediate between mammal-like reptiles and true mammals), Microraptor (a dinosaur-like bird), and Australopithecus (a bipedal ape), etc. The list can be as long as you have time to make it.

Why has not a single chain of missing links of one disparate species becoming another ever been found in the entire fossil record?

Because creationists insist that every link found creates two more gaps.

There are millions of chains of missing links still missing. None have been found.

Discover Basilosaurus, an intermediate between Rhodocetus and Dorudon? Well, where's the missing link between Basilosaurus and Dorudon, and Basilosaurs and Rhodcetus? Also, fossilization is rare, and almost always only shows bone structure. Similar related species can have nearly identical bone structure whild being dramatically different in other ways. If evolution is true, it would still be impossible to find every single intermediate generation. However, this demand of creationists is similar to, after seeing fifty pictures of the same person over the course of their life, demanding to see all the possible pictures depicting the person's development before accepting that people change over time.

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.

Again, not a simple question. Why should anyone go to the trouble of finding these examples when you're only complain that we only have estimates, when estimates are all it's possible to have if evolution is true?

---

I already gave undeniable evidence for the proof of the Creator from the fact of the vast amount of information in the DNA codes and the vast complexity in cells.

If it was undeniable, we couldn't deny it, could we?

Now I just asked for some simple question from the theory that has been assumed true.

Clearly, these questions aren't simple, that much is obvious. The ones that were simple, you added a bunch of caveats to in order to make answering them really complicated. Are you too oblivious to know when a question is simple or complex, or are you just lying? I'm open to a third option, if you've got one.