Before I address your questions let me say that the scientific aspect of religion isn't my forte in the subject, rather, I prefer to debate various parts of the religion itself but I'm more than happy to try the challenge.
3. If evidence is claimed be sure to back it up not using sole opinion and analytics to prove your point.
I remind you that this rule applies to yourself as well, although as the affirmative in this case it's my job to present you with sources they never hurt when telling me when I'm wrong.
1. Explain how some eternal random chance of quantum physics which would have to schematically predate time itself randomly burst forth such a force to create a start to everything out of nothing
Personally, I don't know. However you are assuming here that time is an independent variable, perhaps time and space are dependent on one another. In this situation both would have begun with the big bang thus negating your point that it would have to predate time or perhaps time has no beginning or end again refuting your point that it predated time. As a response question how did your god predate time and burst forth from nothing?
2. How did we get something out of nothing
Something came from nothing otherwise how would we have anything? Did god come from something? If so wouldn't that make this something above god?
3. How did we get the carbon to form to start the building blocks of life
Carbon is formed in
stars.
4. How did earth randomly become the only suitable place for a human being to live and how did it become so perfectly adapted to an orbit around a G2V superstar that would freeze us into an ice age if we were simply 1 or 2 light years further away or burn us to death if we were simply 1 or 2 light years closer.
Mathematically at least one of the trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe would have to be in the goldilocks zone, it just so happens that we inhabit this one.
5. How did the random chance of Earth being the only sustainable place for life occur, and if 6 billion years or more have passed why haven't we seen the same occurrence in other planets or at least the start of it?
The universe is quite large you know, just because none of the 400-600 planets we have proved to exist have shown signs of life doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even of these planets we've no way of knowing if life does exist on them because we can't directly see some of them.
6. How do you explain the beginning of time itself?
See my answer to question 1.
7. When, where, and how did the laws of the universe form and come about? (gravity, inertia, etc.)
Most have to do with mass and energy, two things that have to exist for anything too. Gravity exists do to the pulling effect of objects with mass and inertia exists because of the mass of an object and its energy. As with anything the complex comes about because of the simple.
8. Where did the matter come from to make life? How did life come to form from dead matter to living matter.
Elements came from stars, life is made of elements, so the matter came from stars.
Abiogenesis check it out.
9. How did the matter get so perfectly organized and where did the energy come from to organize it?
Electric attractions between particles? I don't know if I completely understand the question.
10. What did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Since it would be asexual reproduction how do several single cell organisms develop into something completely different?
Well, it probably reproduced an organism much like itself similar to what sexual organisms do today. Sexual reproduction isn't that much different than asexual, it only requires an exchange of DNA and the process of meiosis instead of mitosis.
11. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival according to Darwin's theory of natural selection.
12. Does the individual animal or plant have a drive to survive, or the species in whole? How is this explained?
Natural selection occurs do to competition between organisms, populations, and different species. The main goal of a population is to reproduce more than other populations of the same species thus causing it to have a better chance to survive. Survival of the fittest is basically survival of those whom breed the most.
13. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
Mutation, seriously that's it.
14. When, where, why, and how did single-celled plants and animals become multi-celled? Where are the two-and three- celled intermediates? Where has the REAL missing link been found and not already disproven? Wouldn't there have to be several hundreds of missing links for each species to develop (from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds or simians) and if there are so many that wouldn't it be simple to find at least a few?
A long time ago, probably Earth, in order to survive better, I would imagine the answer lies in mutualism although I'm not sure. Fossils are already incredibly rare so no it really wouldn't, also, the transition species would probably have more major differences in soft tissue and DNA that would not be preserved.
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Invisible Pink Unicorn/Cold fire-breathing Garage Dragon too!
No offence meant here but what makes you god more practical than the FSM?
So making a remark about being a Pastatarian or challenging my intelligence is just rude and uncalled for and I hope no one will go to such lengths as being unprofessional over a complex debate.
I mean it as a challenge to your intelligence the same way this thread is meant as a challenge to mind, I completely respect your beliefs but that doesn't mean I wont ask hard questions.
That what it is that amazes me the most is the total denunciation of faith by the scientific community when they so do it themselves.
I'm an agnostic atheist, I love faith, hell I want mine back. Be careful with blanket statements.
The fact that they try to just take it a step further past a divine creator, and look at the beginning of time an unanswerable question that just has to be assumed as a theorem.
Being divine, and thus supernatural, makes it impossible for science to study god. They ignore god because god isn't scientific or empirical. The goal of science is to search for answers, although it's been perverted into somewhat of a religion lately, it doesn't exist to disprove god.
The reason there is no need for a creator of the creator then the reason the creation needs a creator is like this example: Leonardo Da Vinci created the Mona Lisa in 1519. Yet according to this same exact theory, who created Da Vinci?
Trace it back through millions of years of evolution and billions of years through elements to the big bang.
Honestly I don't get the point you're trying to make with this.
Anyway, hope my answers spur the debate on a little but I need to sleep. I'll reply tomorrow.
