Itchy, I agree that I don't know the bible good enough. The fact is though, that Law was written after creation and written to combat sin. While I can't argue for all of the reasons of the law, much of it was written for benefit of man. In the biblical beliefs, Adam and his offspring would have been perfect at first, therefore negating the need of the law. But hey, I am just trying my best and like I said, I really do know I don't know everything. You already taught me one thing.

Arguement #2 in my opinion is a joke. God obviously does not exist in faith alone, in my opinion, but can only be found through faith at this time. In the future this will change.

Arguement #3
First of all my knowledge of quarks is very limited, but I thought that leptons were also quarks, aren't they. But I think you are jumping right past my arguement. Its not quarks that matter, but the fact that there are rules of physics that exist. What I really am trying to argue is that you place your faith in an inanimate object or objects have the innate ability to create things while I put mine in an animate one. Both take faith. Since science is seeming to come down to basic building blocks that through the innate laws that govern them and are with in them gave them the ability to act in certain ways that in the end created all we know,
I equate this your God. Since I find it hard to fathom that these things have been around forever and thereforth had to have had this ability forever I choose to beleive in an animate god. From there I take different paths to choose the GOd I believe in.
4. Trust me, The more you write, the more I know I don't know much. But agian, I am not trying to argue science as much as I am faith and whether or not a belief in God is essentially illogical. I certainly can't prove God and definitely can not argue against science. But You and Sol definitely seem to try to prove that Sceince proves God does not exist and that all belief in that is foolish. In that I beleive you fail.

5. Entropy? Sorry but you lost me here. I never took anything above physics and was not good at that at the time. I read a little on the subject and am lost in how I denied it, but then again, but then agian, for the most part I am just lost. Chaotic was a poor choice of words. My arguement is more philosophical than scientific. What was I was trying to say is that nothing is truely random. Even randomness must follow the rules of physics. These rules come from somewhere. Find what sets these rule in play and you have your god.
Lastly, why get excited about water in space? In an infinite universe you should be able to find life that takes all kinds of forms. It seems to me to focus on finding water limits the possibilities, the very basis of which these sceintists base their faith on. I know they are trying to say that they know life can exist with water so it may be more likely to exist, but since this life would have to take a very diffent form to exist in space, and thereforth came to being separately through separate acts of random actions, wouldn't they just as likely use a different building block? Its late and I know my ignorance is probably killing you, but I am trying.