Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[The Grand Nudger]

ok first of all the point of the vidio is to show 2 scientists who have credable degrees argueing the points of creation vs evolution and if you would watch it you would see that both have a good arguement on their side which means creation does have science on it's side or it wouldn't last a second yet alone an hour in a rational debate.

No, it doesn't. People can argue over whatever they like. Again, no such thing as "creation science", only science. If they want to join the party they'll have to stop posting in their own little clubs and produce something of merit. I wish them all the luck in the world, they'll need it.

second, yes i know the area seams rather big and it's not just earth in that area but mars as well which is why we think at one point mars had life on it. but you have to factor other things as well like look at how the planets spin. mercury and venus both spin far too slow so their days are far too long so even if they were in the good zone, it wouldn't mean anything cuz it gets far too hot in the day and far too cold at night. large plannets like jupiter and saturn spin faster having days less than half that of earth, but the earth spins at the right speed to make the earth warm enough during the day and not make it too cold at night.

It doesn't seem big, it is big. Add in all the qualifiers you like, it's looking less and less hospitable to life. Weren't you arguing for a fine tuned universe, sounds an awful lot like you're arguing against it.

and it's "lucky for us" we have iron in the earths magnetic core to create a magnetic field around the earth so it can protect us from most all the solar wind from the sun. it's also lucky we have this form of oxygen called ozone that also protects us from radiation. the point is we have so many systems one built on another and some systems that depend on eachother symultaniously in order to work.

Luck had nothing to do with how our planet ended up with iron. We didn't have anything to do with it either. Luck also has nothing to do with oxygen. The amounts we have are a byproduct of life. A toxic byproduct of life, in fact. We depend upon these systems, they do not depend on each other. Find me human remains that predate the explosion of oxygen in our atmosphere due to the emergence of simple life.

and you might claim that there's a slight chance that natural events occured to put the simplist organism together but then how was the information put into the dna that gave it how to do the vital functions to survive? it's like saying a computer was programmed without a programmer.

What, supernatural events? Care to quantify that? It doesn't really matter how slim the chances are. It's likely that you'll never win the lottery, but someone always does. The information objection? This is such trash I wont even take the time. Google it yourself. Your "creation scientists" are attempting to redefine a word that already has an accepted use, as well as introduce "creation information" which canot be shown to exist. Word games, not science. While you're on about computers programming themselves, google hueristic expressions and emergence. We didn't invent the laws that make computers work, we discovered them. We're operators, not creators, in the purest sense.

laws of thermodynamics state that things in nature don't get better, they get worse.

You're invoking a law that doesn't apply to our system, which is constantly receiving energy from the sun. You're also inserting language like "better", which does belong. That's your own value judgement. Extinct creatures would like to mention that the universe hasn't gotten any better at all.

forces of nature most commonly destroy things and have never been shown to create them. the only things in space that stars can create is space crap, possibly new stars, and black holes.

Fuck me, I guess I don't exist then, since nature isn't in the business of creating anything. Again, the language you've chosen is screwing with you. I wasn't "created" at the moment of my birth or any moment in the history of life. Merely rearranged.

and one more thing, all the mutation we've seen ourselves has been harmful to the organism, so then how is mutation good for developement? some mutation is harmless like having an extra finger or toe or an unusual eye color but others like down syndrome and various other kinds of birth defects are harmful. i challenge anyone to find a mutation that has occured in humans that was benifitial in terms of developement, and survival.

Thusfar, all mutations have been deleterious in the long run (excepting those that are currently in existence..and that's provisional). Dinosaurs had plenty of mutations that allowed them to dominate this rock for a very long time, sadly, those same mutations left them high and dry when the shit hit the fan. By beneficial you mean things like increased enzyme production in saliva to break down wheat or dairy within the last 10,000 years? Increased brain size allowing for more precise motor skills necessary for tool making and tool use? Drift in the spine and hips to better adapt us to upright locomotion? Mutations like that? Guess we'll have to wait and see how it all turns out before we can call them beneficial, since by your challenge I take it you don't think they are? There are creatures that get by without eating wheat or dairy, making or using tools, or walking upright. So I guess it's a wash isn't it?