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

[Brakeman]

I am pressed for time right now as I have to leave for work. But if I must, I can spoon feed you the basic biology answers to your questions when I get back. If I go to that much trouble though, I'd like you to first answer my questions: Were you home schooled and if not, did you pay any attention whatsoever in biology class?

[Esquilax]

I know enough obviously.

No, you clearly don't. You think you do, but the mark of experience is training, so what qualifications do you have? Where are you getting your information from? What's your diploma?

Can you provide answers to any of these simple questions?

I did, in my earlier post.

[Crossless2.0]

I know enough obviously.

No, you clearly don't. You think you do, but the mark of experience is training, so what qualifications do you have? Where are you getting your information from? What's your diploma?

Can you provide answers to any of these simple questions?

I did, in my earlier post.

And the care and effort you put into that and many other posts will be ignored, as it has in each of his threads to date. Hell, having been spoon-fed the myriad reasons why Pascal's Wager is a joke, he still declares that it's a good argument. Does anyone actually believe that giving him evidence of any sort would matter at this point?

There's no reasoning with this person. It's like playing basketball with someone who just changes the rules whenever it suits him. He is a deeply dishonest person (or as I like to call them: a fundamentalist Christian).

[Kayenneh]

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

Think about atoms this way, they are like pieces of Lego that fit together with other pieces in a certain way. They are also slightly charged, so some pieces attract each other, while others stay as far away as possible from each other. Atoms and ions build up molecules, molecules clumped together make bigger systems and so forth. Nothing truly complex about that really. Take an aqueous environment where there are polar molecules that are dissolved, but also non-polar compounds, like lipids. Lipids and water is a no go, so to reach the a low energy state, the lipids clump together, forming a membrane by turning their polar head towards the water and the non-polar tail tucked in. Ta-dah, you just have your first (albeit empty) micelle! The beauty of the membrane is that it forms a certain protection from the outside, so some molecules (trapped by mistake or absorbed through the membrane) were caught inside and circumstances were better on the inside of the micelle than the outside. Introduce self-replicating RNA, mitochondrions, chloroplasts, double membranes and voilá! A micelle starts to look more like a cell than an empty membrane.

RNA would not even make a living creature.

Techically, RNA is the living 'creature'.

How many nucleotides did it have in its RNA code?

Four.

How did DNA evolve then?

By RNA wrapping around itself or other RNA molecules and thus reaching a more stable way of existing.

No real answers then just a dance around.

[Kayenneh]

I am pressed for time right now as I have to leave for work. But if I must, I can spoon feed you the basic biology answers to your questions when I get back. If I go to that much trouble though, I'd like you to first answer my questions: Were you home schooled and if not, did you pay any attention whatsoever in biology class?

And an additional question: did you ever attend a decent university?

[Captain Colostomy]

No, you clearly don't. You think you do, but the mark of experience is training, so what qualifications do you have? Where are you getting your information from? What's your diploma?


I did, in my earlier post.

And the care and effort you put into that and many other posts will be ignored, as it has in each of his threads to date. Hell, having been spoon-fed the myriad reasons why Pascal's Wager is a joke, he still declares that it's a good argument. Does anyone actually believe that giving him evidence of any sort would matter at this point?

There's no reasoning with this person. It's like playing basketball with someone who just changes the rules whenever it suits him. He is a deeply dishonest person (or as I like to call them: a fundamentalist Christian).

Yep. We should just agree to say nothing but to refer him back to Esquilax's post(or any suitably well responded post) until this Nimrod addresses the answers he claims to want.

[Bad Wolf]

SBTGF, You are a fucking moron. You obviously have no understanding of Evolution, or Biology in general. Fuck off and come back when you have educated yourself. This is not some mantra that we chant at people we disagree with 'educate yourself, educate yourself, educate yourself'
We say this because you are incredibly ignorant of the things you are talking about. And you have the arrogance to pretend that you know what you are talking about and you think you can just dismiss all scientific evidence and theories simply because you don't understand them.
What was that saying? Something along the lines of: There are two things in this world that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.
I definitely believe one of them now.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

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

Think about atoms this way, they are like pieces of Lego that fit together with other pieces in a certain way. They are also slightly charged, so some pieces attract each other, while others stay as far away as possible from each other. Atoms and ions build up molecules, molecules clumped together make bigger systems and so forth. Nothing truly complex about that really. Take an aqueous environment where there are polar molecules that are dissolved, but also non-polar compounds, like lipids. Lipids and water is a no go, so to reach the a low energy state, the lipids clump together, forming a membrane by turning their polar head towards the water and the non-polar tail tucked in. Ta-dah, you just have your first (albeit empty) micelle! The beauty of the membrane is that it forms a certain protection from the outside, so some molecules (trapped by mistake or absorbed through the membrane) were caught inside and circumstances were better on the inside of the micelle than the outside. Introduce self-replicating RNA, mitochondrions, chloroplasts, double membranes and voilá! A micelle starts to look more like a cell than an empty membrane.

RNA would not even make a living creature.

Techically, RNA is the living 'creature'.

How many nucleotides did it have in its RNA code?

Four.

How did DNA evolve then?

By RNA wrapping around itself or other RNA molecules and thus reaching a more stable way of existing.

No real answers then just a dance around.

RNA by itself does not make a creature at all. It needs proteins to actually do anything or to protect itself from the outside world. It also needs proteins to use the RNA to make more proteins. It also needs proteins to control the production of proteins. It also needs proteins to speed up the chemical reactions so they do not take eons to occur.

RNA does not wrap around itself to from DNA. The actual codes are different and needs a complex translation mechanism
The mechanism would never evolve because their is no survival without it fully functioning.

What was the RNA base code sequence?
How many nucleotides was it?
What proteins did it have?
What were their sequences?

Sorry no answer. You are dancing.

[Esquilax]

So what qualifications do you have to be saying these things, Grace?

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

So what qualifications do you have to be saying these things, Grace?

I know a lot about Math, Statistics, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and Logic.

Obviously enough to show the fallacy in AOS.