Posts: 6301
Threads: 78
Joined: May 14, 2011
Reputation:
82
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 8:25 am
(This post was last modified: October 3, 2013 at 8:25 am by Kayenneh.)
(October 3, 2013 at 8:11 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What was the RNA base code sequence?
That of course depends, and if you knew anything about RNA you wouldn't ask such a question.
Quote:How many nucleotides was it?
Still four. Guanine, adenine, uracil and cytosine.
Quote:What proteins did it have?
That of course depends on the sequence of the nucleotides.
Quote:What were their sequences?
Dunno.
Quote:Sorry no answer. You are dancing.
Lot's of answers, but you are determined not to like them. Not my problem, really.
When I was young, there was a god with infinite power protecting me. Is there anyone else who felt that way? And was sure about it? but the first time I fell in love, I was thrown down - or maybe I broke free - and I bade farewell to God and became human. Now I don't have God's protection, and I walk on the ground without wings, but I don't regret this hardship. I want to live as a person. -Arina Tanemura
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 8:26 am
(October 3, 2013 at 8:21 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: (October 3, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: 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.
That's not what I asked. Anyone can claim to have knowledge; all your response here shows is that you're an unrepentant, prideful braggart.
Your claims to knowledge can be demonstrated by the tests and review of... well, education. You seem to be jumping around to avoid actually answering the question: what qualifications do you have? Where are you getting your information from?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 3022
Threads: 34
Joined: May 11, 2013
Reputation:
30
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 8:27 am
(October 3, 2013 at 8:21 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: (October 3, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: So what qualifications do you have to be saying these things, Grace?
I know a lot about Math, Statistics, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and Logic.
Those aren't qualifications you half-wit
'The more I learn about people the more I like my dog'- Mark Twain
'You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.' - Dr House
“Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life….but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” - Chuck Easttom
"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched.....You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." - Pope Francis on freedom of speech
Posts: 352
Threads: 8
Joined: September 29, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 8:30 am
(October 3, 2013 at 8:25 am)Kayenneh Wrote: (October 3, 2013 at 8:11 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: What was the RNA base code sequence?
That of course depends, and if you knew anything about RNA you wouldn't ask such a question.
Quote:How many nucleotides was it?
Still four. Guanine, adenine, uracil and cytosine.
Quote:What proteins did it have?
That of course depends on the sequence of the nucleotides.
Quote:What were their sequences?
Dunno.
Quote:Sorry no answer. You are dancing.
Lot's of answers, but you are determined not to like them. Not my problem, really.
But the RNA code is a different use of the 4.
And DNA to RNA uses a very complex set of proteins which would never evolve. It used before they kill the creature. So obviously no natural selection is helping that. It is ending that.
Posts: 2177
Threads: 45
Joined: June 5, 2013
Reputation:
39
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 8:34 am
The components of simple viruses such as TMV, which consists of a single RNA molecule and one protein species, undergo self-assembly if they are mixed in solution.
Something like that, therefore, would be the first living creature.
Bad luck, good try, please come back again if you ever get an education.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 8:40 am
And be sure to either tell us what qualifications you have, or admit that you have none, and therefore no basis with which to be making the objections that you do.
I know that the latter is the case, and that actually admitting it will drive a mac truck through your credibility, but I could have sworn that your god had a commandment against lying.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 8:42 am
(October 3, 2013 at 7:15 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: There are no answers to the questions I gave for the first creature.
Atheistic Origin Science is false. It will never have the answers.
As FallenToReason already pointed out, there was a time when the above reasoning would have been used to explain that lightning bolts were being thrown down from the heavens by god, and "atheistic weather science" was false and would never have the answers.
If you were able to provide convincing evidence for your claims regarding god, it would not be necessary to make up a comical label like "atheist science" and seek to discredit it. The evidence for your belief would be sufficient. Theists believe in things that they can only convince themselves of, and that is where the problem lies, IMO.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 8:46 am
(October 3, 2013 at 7:15 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: (October 3, 2013 at 7:12 am)Insanity x Wrote: Why? I know what I want and need to know. Why should I have to go find out things I don't know or care about for your sake?
There are no answers to the questions I gave for the first creature.
Atheistic Origin Science is false. It will never have the answers. How about you present your theory and collect your Nobel prize.
What? You say it was ignored by real scientists?
What a surprise.....
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 352
Threads: 8
Joined: September 29, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 9:02 am
(October 3, 2013 at 8:46 am)Zen Badger Wrote: (October 3, 2013 at 7:15 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: There are no answers to the questions I gave for the first creature.
Atheistic Origin Science is false. It will never have the answers. How about you present your theory and collect your Nobel prize.
What? You say it was ignored by real scientists?
What a surprise.....
It would be ignored by scientists, who in the area of origins, have a false assumption that they refuse to acknowledge. So in the area of origins, it would not be ignored by real origin scientists.
Posts: 2177
Threads: 45
Joined: June 5, 2013
Reputation:
39
RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 9:04 am
What utter rubbish:
"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 not a scientific conclusion. FAIL
"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."
You haven't successfully made a first irrefutable claim so this can't be the second.
"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."
Not answered anything? Seriously? Do you - like - read? Ever?
"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."
Well that will depend on the answers. Remember that currently not known does mean God did it anymore than it did when we didn't know the earth went around the Sun or that evolution explained the diversity of life.
"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."
I don't know. Its unlikely they are going to be as bad as the answers you gave.
Please note I have some more simple questions to ask.
Questions
What was the first living thing?
Unknown at this time.
Was it made of just proteins?
No.
If so, how many amino acids did it have and what was their sequence?
Not applicable from answer above.
What are the odds of that happening?
It did happen. The odds are 100%.
Please show real calculations.
Why - did you?
OK Then
P(Life) = 100%, life exists.
How did it then make the jump to RNA and DNA?
Evolution under natural selection.
What are the odds of that happening?
It did happen. The odds are 100%.
Please show real calculations.
Why - did you?
OK Then
P(Life) = 100%, life exists.
Was it made of just RNA and proteins?
Yes.
If so, how many nucleotides for the RNA and amino acids for the proteins?
Not many, remarkably few a it happens but I don't have the exact numbers to hand. Few enough to self assemble in solution.
What were the sequences for both?
See above.
What are the odds of that happening?
P(Life) = 100%, life exists.
How did it then make the jump to DNA?
Evolution through natural selection.
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.
P(Life) = 100%, life exists.
These questions don't follow on from the previous one so I will skip them:
"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.
There will be too many to list- as you already know, so why be so disingenuous as to ask for this?
Upward evolution
Could man have evolved from an apelike creature in just 5 million years?
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?"
Do you think I am a bookie?
Actually I think your numbers are off. There is just about that much variation between members of the same species.
Human DNA is about 650 Mb of data - it fits on a CD.
Variations that define an individual are about 10 Mb.
That is slightly over 1.5% variation within a species (ours as it happens).
We have about a 2% variation with Chimps and Bonobo's (our closest living relatives - first cousins if you like). With their smaller population their variation between individuals will be smaler but still should be plus or minus 0.5%
Easy jump.
P(Life) = 100%
How did that happen since higher-level creatures use sexual reproduction?
Relevance? What is the issue with sexual reproduction. You don't think we were fucking monkeys to make monkey men do you?
Please show real calculations.
See above.
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.
P(Life) = 100%, life exists.
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?
I see - you have a little understanding of evolution but none of its mechanism - natural selection.
Corrupted DNA - where change causes disadvantage causes death.
Changes where benefit it brought causes increased success and higher likelihood of breeding.
The fossil record
Why does the fossil record show distinct species fully formed throughout?
It doesn't
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.
Many have - see the history of whales.
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.
55 million years ago till today - we have multiple stages of evolution from a meat eating animal that resembled a crocodile to today's toothed and Baleen Whales.
And I win. God not required.
|
