~ faith is blind, and science is evidence-based
I could agree with that but I dont know that it has any point.
~ science - in particular, evolution - supports atheism, and not Christianity
I dont necessarily agree with that, I dont agree with either of the polarising elements in this debate, in so far as I believe that evolution, properly understood, is very flattering to God since it is something that no temporal invention or creation can rival.
~ who designed the Designer?
That's a good question, I'm not sure about its role in the debate but I dont subscribe to intelligent design so its kind of a dead end.
~ Christianity is dangerous
I think I would change the wording of that to "Christianity CAN BE dangerous" rather than is, it can, any temporal power or system of belief is liable to be corrupted by the world, equally so you could say that science is dangerous because of the crimes wrought in its name, such as the purges of religious communities and believers since the French Revolution until today or nuclear arms, the holocaust, genetic engineering, assisted suicide, late term abortions (or abortions per se depending upon the views on that topic). Mastery of humankind and the environment has far out stripped secular ethics or, I'd contend, the maturity of the species as a whole.
~ no-one needs God to be moral
I dont have a problem with that, people can be moral without God.
~ Christian claims about the nature of Jesus are not true
This is the point of my comment, what does this mean? It's the most interesting of all the points and would tempt me to buy the debate to see it, however I'm not sure I particularly want to because I tend to find that its a highly rankorous debate, in the main rivalled only by the discourses between RCs and protestants at the time of the reformation (and even since, sometimes), which doesnt have meaning or make sense to me personally.