Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.
Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.
But, this is not what the facts show at all.
That's not quite accurate. There are no "facts". There is no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural and never has been. It's not that the evidence suggests there are no gods, it's that there is no evidence to suggest that there are.
The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.
You are correct there. It is the theory of abiogenesis which explains the origins of life. The theory of evolution makes no attempt to do so as that's a completely different study.
How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.
"Everything you know about the eye" is wrong. Off the top of my head, horses and squids have eyes with "parts missing", if I recall correctly. They do not function like ours do, but they are far from "completely useless". Dogs can't see in color because they have a part missing, but their eyes are still far from "completely useless". This argument ignorantly assumes an "intended purpose" for the eye with no other possible purpose, but the reality is that if you remove most of the parts of the eye so that all it can do is tell if there is light or not it is STILL not "completely useless". It would still be enough for me to tell if it's night or day in nature.
As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?
It is not my duty to hand feed the plethora of evidence in support of evolution to someone to lazy and willfully ignorant to look it up. And the theory of evolution is not dependent solely on this EXACT bit of evidence. If the evidence for that were missing (it is not) there would STILL be enough data to show evolution is a reality. They can STILL show reptile to bird and fish to reptile, for instance. Even if they got that part wrong, evolution is still sound. The entire theory does not fall apart when you uncover a single flaw. What happens then is that the theory is adjusted to account for the new data. This isn't the Bible. It's not a rigid, unchanging belief system. It's not like your religion where if I prove that Jesus didn't exist the entire thing falls apart. Prove something wrong in evolution and you don't throw it out, you fix it because scientific theories NEVER have to be "right at any cost". That defeats the purpose of science.
What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.
This is a stupid request. We can't follow along side a photon and observe that it always travels the same speed. We can't observe water cutting a huge canyon over millions of years. Time is a factor in evolution, which is exactly why dumb fucks want to see it "right now". I can't prove you can't make a good chili from scratch by telling you that I want to see it RIGHT NOW and, if you can't produce it RIGHT NOW, it proves you can't do it. It takes time and for me to demand the evidence without giving you the time is insincere. Neither can you prove evolution is wrong by demanding we "observe" something happening which takes millions of years. It's a bullshit tactic employed by the insincere in their tortured fight to avoid learning something. If you don't want to know, quit fucking asking. It's as simple as that.
For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.
What is this "breach" you are talking about? There is no "breach" of DNA. If I take reptile DNA (or make it because they can make it from scratch now) into a lab I CAN change it, little by little, piece by piece, until it becomes human DNA. I CAN (were I educated and given the proper funding, time and ethical latitude) take blood from a lizard, change the DNA and use it to clone a human being. Or I can change just bits of it. Maybe something will be created, maybe it won't even gestate. But I CAN create one thing from an entirely different thing, or any of a nearly infinite number of "hybrid" steps in between. This "breach" you keep bringing up, that's in your head.
The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.
You are relying on what you can see only with your own eyes, which is what the writers of the Bible were relying on. That's why you're both wrong in the same way. An iguana will never "beget" a cat, but over millions of years the offspring of the iguana may have changed so much that you not only no longer recognize it as an iguana, you no longer recognize it as a reptile. That takes a lot of time and a lot of generations. You only pretend to want to see the evidence for it. What you really want is chili RIGHT NOW. If you REALLY wanted to see the evidence for it you would take some biology courses (even basic courses would be a HUGE step up from what you know now) and learn why nearly 100% of the people who understand evolution intimately accept it as a reliable, dependable theory.
It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".
You have given NO evidence "in support" of the concept of God. You have only given bullshit evidence "against" evolution. The two are not the same thing. I can't prove to you that the sky IS yellow by proving it IS NOT purple. That's not how "evidence in support of" something works. You have no evidence to "support" anything you've said. Your entire argument was not "here is why God is real", it was "here is why evolution is wrong".
Basic high school science courses would be enough to tell you why your argument is utterly stupid (maybe not what they teach in the south). You either want to learn or you don't, and it's pretty obvious which of this is true. Either way, you have nothing to teach here.