Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 6:54 am
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The fossil record
Why does the fossil record show distinct species fully formed throughout?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The fossil record
Why does the fossil record show distinct species fully formed throughout?
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.
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.
