Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[The Grand Nudger]

what is spiritual is impossible to prove and hard to understand.

Correct, it is very difficult, if not impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist actually does. It isn't hard to understand though. Perhaps it;s giving you trouble, I have no such trouble understanding spiritual concepts or beliefs.

no i'm not talking about the miricle of survival, i'm talking about the origin of life itself. life needs to be formed before it can survive and there is no good theory that says how it formed itself and stephen hawking himself said scientists aren't exactly sure how life started. but the only theory i've heard (correct me if i'm wrong) is in earth's early atmosphere was composed as such to make it possible that when lightning struck the water it created protien units (amino acids) and these units over time fell into place to make protiens and those eventually fell into place to make the simplist of cells.

Perhaps you should ask a biologist about biology? When your car starts malfunctioning is Stephen Hawking your man, or do you take it in to a mechanic? Nonetheless, the origin of life is a hotly debated subject. That we currently can't say for certain doesn't prevent us from ruling out certain fairy tales. "We don't know" does not default to "goddidit". Our lack of knowledge in any given area is not an open door through which you get to smuggle ghosts and magic. What you're describing is a rough version of one of our theories. I'll link you the wiki at the bottom.

even the simplist of cells are so complated we cannot reconstruct them using raw materiels.

And? You have billions of years and a lab the size of the earth to try and replicate this "experiment" That's what we're talking about here, never forget it. Are you seriously criticizing a theory based on the fact that we cant make monster hop out of jars of peanut butter?

it sounds like a complicated virsion of the spontanious generation theory (that life can form out of things are not alive) which was proved wrong over 150 years ago. they proved life cannot form out of dead meat back then only to have another theory arise that life can form out of raw materials being constructed by forces of nature. which btw is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics that order cannot be created out of dissorder.

You've misrepresented what spontaneous regeneration was and why it was incorrect. No worries, that's in the link. The experiment I think you're referring to was actually an attempt to show that flies came from decaying meat (they didn't realize that there were eggs on the meat, because they were difficult to see). This was an effort to prove spontaneous generation, which again, you've misrepresented. Just so happens that they don't. Someone's been taking you for a ride about this stuff I think. Yes, one of the current theories is that life arose out of "raw materials" that were present here. Are you proposing that life arose of of materials that were/are not present here? There's a theory for that too (fairies need not apply, everyday stuff that can be shown to exist has it handled). The law you're invoking, and I've explained this to you before, does not apply to our system (the earth) the way in which you believe it does. This law is governed by probability, and so even in a system that does not recieve energy from elsewhere it does not apply in all cases, boggles the mind doesn't it? We receive energy from the sun, and a shitload of it. One day we won't, and then that law will apply in the manner which you're describing, with disastrous results (for life..the cosmos don't give a shit). You need to learn the difference between closed and open systems and how entropy affects them before you go any further with this. I'll link you the wiki for this as well. Fact check your stuff before you throw it out as gospel, seriously. Had you typed your claims into google before you posted them you probably wouldn't have hit the button. This sort of information isn't cutting edge, it's very available, it's completely accessible, there's no excuse for arguments like this. I've got to mention this as an aside, you do realize that the idea of creation from nothingness by a god that is not a physical being or "alive" is actually exactly the type of claim (albeit with far less explanatory power...none to be precise, and absolutely no observations or evidence offered as support) as the ones you seem to want to argue against. Why is it that you have no trouble with life from non life and nothingness when that non life is a god in the absence of evidence, but when confronted with abiogenesis (a superficially similar claim), which does have evidence to support it and makes no claims to life arising from "nothingness" you balk?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy