You are still ignoring this:

No, you don't have to apply faith at all. Science theorizes on how the universe formed. It doesn't attempt to explain why it formed, or what happened before it formed (if such a time even existed). There's a big difference between science and religion here. When encountered with a question that's currently impossible to know (for example: why the universe exists), science doesn't make any blind guesses just for the sake of having an answer. Science admits it doesn't have the answer and works towards finding an answer. Science doesn't even claim that there is no God (well, for certain Gods, it does). It makes no claims on the matter whatsoever. So where is the faith involved?

On the other hand, certain religions make all types of assumptions about why the universe was formed, what/who existed before the universe formed, the existence of a creator, etc. Not only does it assume a creator, but it also assumes very specific traits for that creator. Clearly, making assumptions requires a lot more faith than admitting that the answer currently isn't available.

As for your answers:

1&2) Just because some things are accurate in a book, doesn't mean all things are accurate. Same for it being preserved.

3) So Christianity requires faith to believe in it? Okay, doesn't that prove that the Christian God is unjust? I mean, if you don't follow Christianity, you go to Hell for an eternity, correct? How is it fair that a person is sent to Hell for an eternity just because he didn't have faith or had faith in the wrong path? Is that fair to you?

4) Not even worth responding to.

Just a thought about the original topic at hand: "how to destroy an atheist in an argument."

you can't. Why? because atheism't only argument is that theism has no argument, and since theism has no argument, they win by default.

I wonder if he'll use the same argument when the majority of people are non-belivers in about 50 years?

"The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).³ "

http://www.pewforum.org/unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

Serously? Dude go back in the thread and read the posts, Spaceguy put it up  - I don't know how to embed his video in my response.

So you have no source? Got it.

I think Michi Kaku might have used "gas" as an analogy to describe the state matter was in before it started interacting with the higgs field.

lol...that has nothing to do with his assertion that gas is massless. Maybe he should learn to read.

It is theorized that particles that don't interact with the higgs field are forced to always travel at the speed of light, and that was the state of the high energy "gas" that was the universe in the beginning. Then some particles started interacting with the higgs field, and thus gained the property of mass wich meant that they could now have any speed, except the speed of light.

I think this argument is more of a misunderstanding. DaRev was just quoting the video for some reason, and if you take what Michio sais literally, you can interpret it as the early universe being a "gas". (I'd rather describe it as a high energy particle soup, but whatever)

There's no reason to be derogatory about it.....the guy in the video clearly uses that quote......and I don't know, he is clearly not using an analogy....maybe just poor wording on his part. I don't know enough to critique his explanation.

This makes more sense. Still doesn't really apply to his original question, but gives a better understanding of what he meant.

The fact that gases have mass is elementary. This is something taught to every single person in early science education. Either he shouldn't be discussing it at all, or he's trying to upset me. I'm not sure which.