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

[LastPoet]

If only they were consistent with their standard of evidence...

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

If only they were consistent with their standard of evidence...

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.

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

[LastPoet]

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.

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

You did? I still say: Poe. But there's no way to be sure huh?

[Esquilax]

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.

No, you need to prove your god first; there is no obligation to disprove a concept that has no basis in itself. I also find it hilarious that you utterly refuse to even acknowledge requests for proof of your god, but demand this level of proof for anything else. You're becoming a joke.

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.

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

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

The fact that this meme can be applied to multiple words in your post is the saddest thing I've seen in a long time.

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.

Oh look, a false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance.

Atheistic origin science claims that it can explain the origin of things without God.

No, it doesn't: science makes no claims about things that have no evidence in support of them. Why would it? The lack of evidence speaks volumes.

To show that atheistic origin science has failed, I will just ask for some simple answers to some very simple questions.

Simple questions, from a simple mind.

If there are no real answers, it proves my point.

No, it doesn't: the lack of a secular answer doesn't make your baseless christian one true. How many times does this need to be explained to you?

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.

How many inconvenient questions have you outright ignored in the last day or two?

What was the first living thing?

Prokaryotic cellular life.

Was it made of just proteins?

No.

What are the odds of that happening?

Given that it happened? One hundred percent.

Please show real calculations.

It happened, therefore the chances of it happening are one hundred percent.

How did it then make the jump to RNA and DNA?

Here, let science learn your ass some knowledge.

What are the odds of that happening?

Also one hundred percent.

Please show real calculations.

Like you won't?

Was it made of just RNA and proteins?

No.

What are the odds of that happening?

One hundred percent.

How did it then make the jump to DNA?

See the above link.

What are the odds of that happening?

One hundred percent.

Please show real calculations.

As if small chances mean the same thing as impossible?

Did it actually use DNA?

Eventually.

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.

Incidentally, how does an answer of "I don't know," make your god claim true?

What was the 2nd living creature?

The same thing as the first.

The 3rd, 4th ... up the actual first cell?

It's in the link up top.

What are the odds of each of those jumps?

One hundred percent.

Could man have evolved from an apelike creature in just 5 million years?

Closer to 55 million years. Also, the science says 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?

One hundred percent.

What are the odds?

You asked that twice, dummy.

How did that happen since higher-level creatures use sexual reproduction?

Through the method of reproduction that a given organism uses, by definition.

Please show real calculations.

I don't need to: successive generations are required for evolution, therefore reproduction is required.

Now repeat that feat for the over 100 million species that have been supposedly on the Earth. What are the odds of that?

One hundred percent.

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?

Because in some respects, it has; junk DNA is a thing, after all. Nobody said that these things are genetically perfect; frankly, the fact that organisms aren't is evidence against your god.

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

Because that's not true; every species is in transition from one to the other, but the change is gradual. Each inividual organism is a fully formed member of its species.

And this just shows, you don't understand evolution at all, but you decided it was wrong without doing any research.

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

Because that's not true.

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

Liar.

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.

See above. Multiple times.

In fact, here is a list of every claim you are capable of regurgitating from glurge creationist idiocy. Before you post more inane questions, please look to see if they are present on that list, and if they are, look at the answer and educate yourself.

Assuming that's possible.

[Crossless2.0]

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 atheistic origin science?

That's cute. You spent page upon page of your other thread avoiding questions, dancing around questions, and not answering a single direct question put to you (except to appeal to magic as your "answer") and now you have the nerve to declare victory if each of your questions isn't answered according to your exacting, unreasonable standards? Go fuck yourself -- hard. People here aren't responsible for helping you with your homeschool project. Do your own homework.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

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 atheistic origin science?

That's cute. You spent page upon page of your other thread avoiding questions, dancing around questions, and not answering a single direct question put to you (except to appeal to magic as your "answer") and now you have the nerve to declare victory if each of your questions isn't answered according to your exacting, unreasonable standards? Go fuck yourself -- hard. People here aren't responsible for helping you with your homeschool project. Do your own homework.

Sorry.
But I am just one person, responding on a part time basis. I responded the best I could. Many posts were just people being funny. Many were the same response, so I responded to 1 or 2 of those.

[Esquilax]

Sorry.
But I am just one person, responding on a part time basis. I responded the best I could. Many posts were just people being funny. Many were the same response, so I responded to 1 or 2 of those.

You certainly keep ignoring me, for one. What level of scientific qualification do you have to be making all these claims?

If you have none, through what basis can you make them at all?

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Sorry.
But I am just one person, responding on a part time basis. I responded the best I could. Many posts were just people being funny. Many were the same response, so I responded to 1 or 2 of those.

You certainly keep ignoring me, for one. What level of scientific qualification do you have to be making all these claims?

If you have none, through what basis can you make them at all?

I know enough obviously.

Can you provide answers to any of these simple questions?

[Kayenneh]

Atheistic origin science

Fail #1. Science has nothing to do with religion (or a lack thereof). The scientific method is precisely the same if you're asatru, Muslim, Christian or Hindu.

of an origin without God, is totally false and contradictory.

Proof (other than the bible) or GTFO.

So after over 150 years ... science has not answered anything.

Fail #2. Here you go, a small sample.

What was the first living thing?

If you by living mean organic, it would be a micelle with some organic organelles.

How did it then make the jump to RNA and DNA?

RNA is a very special molecule that has enzymatic properties. RNA carries both information and can cause chemical reactions. Hell, it can even copy itself. The DNA molecule is more stable, so it became the information molecule of all carbon based lifeforms.

Could man have evolved from an apelike creature in just 5 million years?

Yes. And even a better question is: Is it really plausible that humans were just put here 6000 years ago?

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Atheistic origin science

Fail #1. Science has nothing to do with religion (or a lack thereof). The scientific method is precisely the same if you're asatru, Muslim, Christian or Hindu.

of an origin without God, is totally false and contradictory.

Proof (other than the bible) or GTFO.

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.

So after over 150 years ... science has not answered anything.

Fail #2. Here you go, a small sample.

What was the first living thing?

If you by living mean organic, it would be a micelle with some organic organelles.

How did it then make the jump to RNA and DNA?

RNA is a very special molecule that has enzymatic properties. RNA carries both information and can cause chemical reactions. Hell, it can even copy itself. The DNA molecule is more stable, so it became the information molecule of all carbon based lifeforms.

Could man have evolved from an apelike creature in just 5 million years?

Yes. And even a better question is: Is it really plausible that humans were just put here 6000 years ago?

An organelle canot reproduce or even survive. It is way too complex to be the first creature.

RNA would not even make a living creature.
How many nucleotides did it have in its RNA code?
How did DNA evolve then?

No real answers then just a dance around.