So you believe that there is an eternal deity who made everything and predates and stands apart from natural laws. Yet you cannot comprehend that there are forces and matter which predate everything and define natural law. Am I the only one who sees a flaw in this?
Let me address some of your questions though.
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
Firstly, it's not an 'eternal random chance' if you understand QM, which most of us do not. The easiest way to explain it is that within the seemingly empty space between subatomic particles there are 'virtual particles' which are constantly popping in and out of existence on such a small scale in time and size that they are practically unnoticeable. These fluctuations can cause reactions with other, larger particles.
While this is not a profound event today in our expansive and cool universe, in a time in which matter was very condense and very hot these interactions could feasibly cause that matter to begin expanding.
2. How did we get something out of nothing
There is no such thing as 'nothing' in our current universe. As I noted in my previous post, even in areas we think of as empty space there are still particles coming in and out of existence. As to where this matter came from prior, we simply do not know. There are many hypothesis for this however none have any amount of supporting evidence which makes me confident enough to ascribe to any particular school of thought.
3. How did we get the carbon to form to start the building blocks of life
Carbon, and many of our other common elements, were formed through nuclear fusion in the hearts of stars. The heat and pressure within these massive gas furnaces caused atoms to separate and then combine with others which created our elements.
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.
Firstly, I really don't like the usage of the term 'randomly'. You use it as if you find every scientific claim to rely on 'random chance' which is simply not true. It isn't random because it relies on very well established physical laws.
If you want to know how the earth became where it is now, then that's gravity at work. And it's 'suited for life' because life evolved here. Furthermore, we have an extremely limited idea of what 'life' is and what is required for life to evolve. We have only examples from our planet, so to say that 'Earth is perfect for life' is a ridiculous assertion. Had we evolved on Jupiter, for example, we would be sitting here asking why Jupiter was perfect for life.
There are no simpler terms to explain these things, and the protracted explanations won't make sense.
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?
We haven't seen life anywhere else because we simply haven't looked very much. To give you an analogy: go out to a football field and place a quarter in the middle of the 50 yard line. That quarter is approximately how much of the universe we know of. The rest of the football field is about how big we believe the universe is, based on our most recent measurements. That is why we haven't found what you think we should have by now.
6. How do you explain the beginning of time itself?
You really need to quantify what you mean by 'time'. Our best definition is that time is a measurement used to place events in a sequence of occurrence. Ergo, time 'began' when events began taking place. We do not fully know when this was, however, as we cannot measure or identify any events prior to 100,000 light years after the 'big bang' took place. However this question realistically has as much relevance as asking when inches began, or when the first mile happened.
7. When, where, and how did the laws of the universe form and come about? (gravity, inertia, etc.)
Physical laws began when matter began interacting with eachother. No one fully understands why or how they came about, however, and perhaps we may never fully understand.
8. Where did the matter come from to make life? How did life come to form from dead matter to living matter.
All of the matter which we now know to be necessary for the life we observe on our planet came from the 'big bang' and also from the fusion within stars. This is where almost all known elements were formed. As for how, this is a chemical process by which chemicals formed amino acids which were capable of self replication, initially through a cloning process.
9. How did the matter get so perfectly organized and where did the energy come from to organize it?
Matter is '
erfectly organized'? You might want to elaborate on what you mean here. Sure, we see some organization in the universe, however we also see an awful lot of chaos.
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?
First cell capable of sexual reproduction? Well, prior to living organisms the earliest building blocks of life reproduced by cloning. After that we find that they had some form of asexual reproduction in which allele frequencies varied in successive generations.
Organisms evolve into different forms by variance in allele frequencies in each successive generation. Over vast amounts of time and generations these variations lead to traits being expressed differently.
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.
Actually you have natural selection a bit backward. Natural selection acts best on larger breeding populations. This means that larger, more stable populations of a species are better suited for survival, not the other way around.
12. Does the individual animal or plant have a drive to survive, or the species in whole? How is this explained?
A bit of both it seems. Our drive to reproduce ensures that our genetic information survives, however in social animals we begin to see individuals who will forgo personal gain for the betterment of their social group. This seems to be more related to the strength of a social group providing more security and increasing chances of survival than anything related to the drive to propagate.
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?
What is meant by "natural selection tends to only keep a species stable", and of course it only works with genetic information available as there is nothing else. As for the 'increasing complexity' I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
Natural selection only means that those traits which are of the greatest benefit within a species and geographic location will tend to be passed on because said species have the greatest chance to reproduce and survive. That's all it means.
As for 'increasing complexity' I'm going to assume that you mean the diversity of life we see. Well, life has been diverse for millions of years, and will continue to be diverse, because of evolution due to variations of allele frequencies which result in genes being expressed in different manners.
For example, we can use the same gene as a fruit fly to cause our cells to turn into an eye, yet our cells recognize, through our genes, that we need the type of eye we have now. This is an example of how an identical gene has varied it's expression in such a manner that it creates a vastly different organ.
14. When, where, why, and how did single-celled plants and animals become multi-celled? Where are the two-and three- celled intermediates?
Here's a good article on the phylogeny of Kingdom Animalia Furthermore, there are no single-celled animals. None. As for 'intermediates' what are you looking for? You want fossilized remains of a three celled organism which is distinctly animal or plant? No such thing exists, nor would we find such a thing. You are asking for something which we could never find.
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?
Well, there is no 'missing link' just so you know. And we DO have literally thousands of transitional species, even by the strictest scientific definition of the word.
Transitional Species FAQsEvolution and Phylogeny of H. SapiensI also suggest you watch the series on youtube by AronRa, an Earth Sciences major from University of Texas, entitled "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism". He does an excellent job explaining cladistic phylogeny, evolution, transitional species, and exposing the logical fallacies propagated by Creationism, and indeed many religions.
15. When did eyes or ears evolve and from what did they evolve from?
The earliest eyes and ears were single cells which were able to either sense light or sound waves, as is applicable for each function. As these creatures evolved those who were better able to sense these things were at an advantage in their environment. Due to the laws of natural selection these traits flourished, and through evolution they gradually developed into more efficient and complex systems within the organism.
Evolution of the eyeEvolution of the ear