Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely

[Simon Moon]

Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

I believe the concepts of gods are very likely. Actual gods, not so much.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

So, then, you posit magic intervention was needed, although none is in evidence.

Some major leaps you are taking there...

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

True, evolution only explains the variety of life, not its origins.

But there are some very good explanations for how life could have started. And none of them require magic. They all are explained by what is currently known of physics and chemistry.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

Small, usable improvements over long periods of time.

There are many different organisms alive today, with every step from the most rudimentary eye, to the most advanced.

The earliest eye was a light sensitive patch of skin, like Euglena have. This allows them to sense light and shadow.

Next was light sensitive cells in a cup shaped indentation, like Planarian have. This allows them to sense light and shadow, with a bit of directionality.

Next step is light sensitive cells in a cup with a narrowed opening, like nautilus have. This allows them to have a bit of image focus.

Next is a simple lense, like Onychophora have.

Etc, etc, etc.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

We have fossil evidence for a very complete reptile to mammal evolution.

Where have you been living? The 18th century?

There are fossils with both reptile and mammal features. From more reptile features to more mammal features:

Therapsids -> Eutherapsids -> Neotherapsid -> Theriodontia -> Cynodontia

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

There are no barriers, at least as you believe. If there are, publish your findings, overturn all of biology, become famous, donate Nobel winings to religion of your choice.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

There is no need for the transition of modern reptiles to evolve into mammals. They have their environmental niche that they fit well enough to continue to survive as they are.

You seem a bit arrogant to believe you are able to refute all of evolution, without the least bit of understanding of the subject.