The Christian has every right to state that science points to the existence of God. Faith for the Christian is an expectation of what God said in his word and produces rational evidence in what we see around us. The Bible says that the physical creation is evidence of Gods handiwork and invisible attributes. Romans 1:20.
The Bible could say the Moon is made of cheese, or that donkey's talk, but that doesn't make it so.
Biogenesis from Natural Chemistry is impossible (starting with Chirality and law of mass action for Natural forming proteins). Scientific examination has so far proved that natural chemistry can not form life relevant chemistry. All natural forming proteins exhibit chemo-physical properties that are racemic and non life relevant. (God alone creates)
Incorrect. Even inaccurate attempts to replicate conditions of prebiotic Earth result in an abundance of amino acids nucleotides, which are known to spontaneously form other polymers. But even
if you were correct, this simply represents a current gap in scientific knowledge, one you've arbitrarily chosen to deem 'impossible' by natural methods, and to fill with God. "You're wrong, therefore, I'm right" is illogical.
The information in DNA can not originate or be stored by agents of chance. Chance working on original programming can cause adaptation (chance working on established rules) but chance working by itself is antithesis to organism fitness. In other words mutation by itself does not produce new information that can promote fitness; in fact evolution adds no new gene sequences at all (never been observed or a mechanism hypothesized). The fitness gain in any mutation is a byproduct of altering original programming. (God is the designer of all life)
Again, this is incorrect. It is well-known, both in theory and in practice, how novel traits can form and are formed. Waxing great about 'information in DNA' belies a rather large misunderstanding of just how genetic 'information' is quantified - namely, it isn't. The concept of 'information' in DNA is bunk. And even if it wasn't, insertion and translocation mutations add 'information' inasmuch as new genetic material is created.
In any case, novel traits have been observed to form naturally in the wild, accidentally in human habitation (e.g., nylon-eating bacteria), and deliberately in the lab (e.g., the famous Lemski experiment, where
E. coli evolved an extremely useful and novel trait not present in other lines. The fallacy here is the argument from personal incredulity - you don't understand it, therefore it couldn't have happened that way.
The second law of thermodynamics denies the presence of intrinsic Teleonomy in matter. ( a carryover of point #2)
Again, this belies a misunderstanding of just what the Second Law of Thermodynamics and teleonomy actually mean - the Second Law says, broadly, that the overall entropy of a closed system will tend to a maximum over time, and teleonomy is the appearance of function and purpose in biological system (the eye is 'for' seeing, etc). One has no real bearing on the other. Perhaps you're trying to say that, because entropy increases, complex, low-entropy systems can't develop naturally?
The fossil record shows no possibility of phylogenetic speciation or macro evolution of one species converting to another. (it is as God said each after its own kind)
Nor should we find any: one of the conclusions of the evolutionary process is that species speciate into new, novel species - they don't 'convert' into each other. This is the mainstay of Creationist garbage, insisting that evolutionists believe that cats give birth to dogs, that giraffes give birth to walruses. All I can do is cite Wiltor's Wager: "If a chimp ever gives birth to a human, creationists are obligated to accept evolution, and evolutionists are obligated to give it up."
Furethermore, speciation has been observed in abundance. Creationists often cry "But they're still flies!" -
of course they're still flies, if they were anything
but flies, then evolution would be disproven.
The quantity that is the Fine Structure Constant is significant to our universe. It must be regular to a very fine degree for our physical universe to operate as observed (some recent theories have predicted very tiny variance but it is largely unsubstantiated and not widely accepted). Density ratios of matter and energy in the universe for the Big Bang theory are in balance, any variance and the universe would not appear flat. God designed the universe (chance could not have played a role). Parsimony and anthropic coincidences characterize our universe. This corresponds with the Strong Anthropic principle
Wild speculation based on the faulty premise that there are a) a number of unrelated, non-interacting variables that define various parameters of the universe, b) these parameters can be anything, or at least can vary widely, and c) only a very specific arrangement of these parameters can allow life to form. None are based on anything scientific. All we have at present is rough measurements of what we think these constants are, and rough theories as to how changes to these constants would affect the universe. It is pure conjecture that changes would negate life, it is pure conjecture that they infer the existence of God.
Let me posit an alternative: there are many universe formed all the time, some dead husks, others burning bright, short lives. Constants are varying all the time. Eventually, one universe would have just the right constants for life to form. We must, by virtue of the anthropic principle, find ourselves in a universe which has such an arrangement of constants - but this is no more surprising than the famous puddle which is amazed at how accurately the contours of the road fit its form (the point being, of course, that the puddle fits the hole; the hole wasn't purpose-built for the puddle).
As an ending remark, I have three comments.
First, the above six points represents misunderstandings of genuine science (such as the Second Law) or logic (such as the repeated argument from ignorance), to which genuine discussion can be generated, and I look forward to that discussion.
Second, even if the above points were valid, they only prove the existence of some external intelligence. It is not established that this intelligence is God, or even a single entity, much less a being which answers prayers and damns souls to Hell. The remit ("Science actually supports the existence of God and God proclaims his word as truth.") has not been satisfied, inasmuch as the second claim goes unanswered.
Third, you vary from being succinct to being verbose, and I think you end up tripping up over your own words on more than one occasion, While not a flaw
per se, it highlights an underlying hubris that may well undermined your efforts for accuracy.
