Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Sorry it took so long to get back, I had to find time to watch the documentary. Firstly, you don't offend me, I couldn't care less how you feel about me. I've read back over the posts and conclude that you started with insult, so I believe that I was responding to yours.That aside as far as your video is concerned, I'm confused, are you a Roman Catholic or a creationist? I was of the opinion that Catholicism accepted evolution by Natural Selection as the means by which life has become what it is. Your video touts several arguments, there is an argument from incredulity based I believe on this idea that chance somehow is the mechanism by which Atheist scientists believed it all began. This is a fallacy, the mechanism of natural selection, of cumulative processes gradually building to something far more complex.There is an argument from cosmology, also based on incredulity. Does it not seem that in a Universe, where all of the right things needed to form life existed, that in a matter of time life would exist. It is Anthropopathic and indeed anthropocentric to cast a creator in to that mix with a view to explanation, this is extremely unscientific. There is an argument from irreducible complexity. By the way Behe and co lost their bid with the bacterial flagellar motor.It was demonstrated to be reducible and therefore is not an example, the flagellum can lose parts and still function either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system.It bugs me that in considering this hocus pocus based on ancient books with ambiguous explanations that men of science, men with serious qualifications would abandon the scientific method and incredulously invoke a creator. There is no evidence to support the existence of God in that video, and I feel there never will be. Any being that can design something like an eye, or a bombardier beetle is obviously more complex than said creations and therefore creates an infinite regression. God is something that creationist scientist fit into every hole that they find, and this is where your problem is going to be the more information that is uncovered. Your video also makes reference to the fossil record, now that is grasping, I'm sure you know how rare a fossil is and how lucky we are to have them. To state that there would be an abundance of intermediate fossils is purely wishful thinking, how many intermediate fossils do we need? There are plenty. This example is why I asked about your religious persuasion at the start of my post, being that your video was trying to make it look as though evolution didn't happen. There is also the laughable example of placing a cell in a nutrient broth or whatever and bursting it and the distinguished "biologist" states that "even with all the things necessary for life to exist it will not. This I have to say i found unbelievable, it is as if he wanted it to happen before his eyes. I'm sure you are aware that this is not how it works. Craig Venter's work highlights the possibility of life arising from non-life naturally with the work he has done with creating the worlds first self-replicating artificial organism. That is life from non-life. Where was God there?I also love the fact that creationists cite the laws of Thermodynamics. If matter or energy can not be created or destroyed where from did God get the matter or energy to start the Universe? If he took it from himself then it would contradict his omnipotence and see him existing as a lesser being than before he pumped all that matter and energy into the system.