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

[FallentoReason]

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 unverifiable, which means that there can't be a "scientific conclusion that God, the Almighty Creator, indeed created all things." It's an oxymoron. Therefore, this doesn't follow:

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.

~

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.

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.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And closely related to this is the infamous God-of-the-gaps that we're all too familiar with, which is what you're employing here. It's definitely the least convincing argument out there.

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.

That we don't know how that particular thing works yet. This very thought is what I'm assuming gets most scientists up in the morning, as there's no bigger thrill than pushing the limits of our knowledge base just that little bit further. In terms of your argument here... *shrug* so what?

If we were living several hundred years ago, you'd be asking where the rain comes from, and skeptics failing to answer such a difficult question for its time would mean that you'd conclude victory, that the God-of-the-gaps exists. Again, it's the least convincing argument out there.