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

[Zazzy]

There is no such field as "atheistic origin science." The scientific method is not atheistic. It's a tool. Tools don't have beliefs.

I study the evolutionary molecular genetics of microbes, and I'll tell you an absolute fact: we do not know what the first living creature looked like. We can speculate that its genome was RNA-based, but we can't know that for sure because we don't have access to the first living creature. Scientists like to speculate about what it looked like, and to try to come up with testable hypotheses. It is pretty clear that DNA evolved from RNA, which would tend to indicate that the first organisms were RNA based. We are just learning to read molecular "fossils" in genomes, and the field is expanding. Will we know someday? Maybe, maybe not. If you want to insert your god into that gap, OK. Not very useful in the lab, but it's your life.

That is the true answer to your question.


*One of the authors in the link, Patrick Forterre (of the Pasteur Institute), is particularly well-regarded in this field. His papers are really fun, informative, and well-written.

[Tonus]

Tools don't have beliefs.

*points at the OP*

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Already moving onto proof 2.

Yes, because 'proof 1' went so well.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

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.

Your answer is almost non existent.

Show calculations - none given. Just that it equaled 100%. That means no answers.

Code lengths - none given

Actual codes - none given

RNA - you said yes. But cannot even attempt the DNA code which could not develop by natural selection.
Number of codes in RNA - you said a few. That would mean about 50,000 or more I guess, since a creature would not survive or evolve with less. No mention of the proteins though. Without a large number of certain proteins the creature dies. And the miraculous RNA code must match the proteins of the creature, the enzymes for reaction, etc.
Therefore NO answer given.

2nd, 3rd 4th creatures ... up to first cell - No answer. If you say a few fro the code length, the sequence is even longer and very impossible.

Upward evolution with calculations - none

Other question on upward not even given.

Fossile record - ignored questions.

55 million years - no scientific measurement is ever given without a +- range on error.

That is not even science and indicates someone is hiding the truth. Where you got that number from is deceived.

No answers.

[max-greece]

Already moving onto proof 2.

Yes, because 'proof 1' went so well.

Have a rep for that one.

[Doubting Thomas]

Why ask us these questions? Most of us aren't scientists or experts in what you want to know. Go ask the people that study these things.

Because SBG thinks that if we can't answer them, it proves that God exists. It's not like SBG really wants to know the answers.

[Esquilax]

No answers.

Just because an answer doesn't satisfy the petulant whims of a cretin like you, doesn't mean it isn't an answer, doesn't mean it isn't the correct answer, and does not mean your answer is correct.

So, have you gotten that diploma in the biological sciences yet? Or are you going to continue lying by omission and sealing your path to hell in the process?

Assuming your god is correct, or course. I wouldn't want you to repeat that tired old "when the atheist posits god he has failed" bullshit again.

Answers, please. Since you've apparently got them all.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

No answers.

Just because an answer doesn't satisfy the petulant whims of a cretin like you, doesn't mean it isn't an answer, doesn't mean it isn't the correct answer, and does not mean your answer is correct.

So, have you gotten that diploma in the biological sciences yet? Or are you going to continue lying by omission and sealing your path to hell in the process?

Assuming your god is correct, or course. I wouldn't want you to repeat that tired old "when the atheist posits god he has failed" bullshit again.

Answers, please. Since you've apparently got them all.

What is you qualification for saying there is no God since only an all knowing God can make that claim?

[Zazzy]

Tools don't have beliefs.

*points at the OP*

I stand corrected, sir.

[Esquilax]

What is you qualification for saying there is no God since only an all knowing God can make that claim?

As I've explained to you multiple times, in every other thread you've posted, I'm not making that claim. I'm an agnostic atheist, you foolish toddler.

Now, your diploma? Your sources of information? What are they?

If you don't answer but continue to pass yourself off as knowledgeable, you will be going to hell according to your own doctrine. Something tells me that's the failure state, for you.