The flaws in your argument are 6 and 7.  Your argument is tantamount to:

1) Parents love their children

2) Parents don't want their children to get hit by cars.

3) Parents know their children can get hit by cars if they leave the house.

4) Parents have the power to keep their children at home.

5) Parents who love their children don't let them leave the house.

Do you see the flaw there? You are making the assumption that if you have the motivation and the power, you can be lead to only a single conclusion. 

God created us with free will. Does he want us to be evil? No. But if he created us without the ability to make bad decisions, we'd be without free will. Just like parents allow their children to leave the house, even though it's less safe than being at home, he has given us the ability to decide our own fates. 

Yes, there is a tremendous amount of evidence for evolution. Just look at DNA, the fins of the fish, are the same part of the DNA where we have hands, eyes are the same, brain, digestive system etc.

Just look at a human fetus, as they go through evolution in the womb, when they have eyes that migrate from the top of their head, how their tails get shorter till they are completely withing the body, and the development of legs, arms and hands. It's really clear and obvious.

I believe you are free to not believe if you so choose. But if one tries to teach one's faith as a science, then they are doing grave harm to the world. That's why we had a 'dark ages' and why the USA is currently way behind certain kind of sciences right now. Many people are suffering and could be treated for things like blindness and diabetes if the USA has not been blocked by certain religious groups. Not everyone can afford to travel abroad fro treatments.

Faith is a choice to have beliefs without any evidence. That's fine, it comforts many people when they lose a loved one and in other situations. Science is the not the enemy, ignorance is.

Not to say you are wrong or anything, but it is my understanding that these acts of murder, rape, assault are caused by lack of self control, knowlege, and/or guidance. For example, when you are ignorant, you lack pieces of knowlege rather than having pieces of ignorance.

WTF did i just read? Not trying to be mean or offensive but really, if you don't look and care about facts. Really their is a personally journey of learning you must do on your own, no one can tell you different at this point. One thing i can point out is we Evolved spirituality in our brains. we evolved it to deal with anxiety, stress of our understanding of death.

VIDEO BELOW V V V V V V V

Of course Jesus would say that.

I won't comment on the rest cause I'd rather not get into another discussion, but this is a very prevalent argument and it includes a misconception. Water is not the only anomalous liquid. There are, infact, many other substances known to also behave like this and some others expected to by simulations, besides many more untested, I'd expect.

This study is concerned with modeling water, but it mentions on it's introduction how other tetrahedrally-bonded molecular liquids can have such anomalities: http://www.if.ufrgs.br/~barbosa/lattice-3d.pdf

These liquids, by the way, water included, are actually way more impressive than just this. They have quite a few other "weird" properties.

Also, I'm not too sure big bodies of water, and specially oceans would really freeze over if ice didn't float. Sure it seems like something "everyone knows" but I'd be interested in finding some actual models and scenarios, if any is even feasible.

First, there would a ton of complications, like maybe more water on the atmosphere which is hard to predict the exact effect of. There's also the fact that if ice just didn't float that would mean some very fundamental properties of chemestry itself would have to be different, with limitless implications, making analisys of the consequences pretty  much impossible. So perhaps it's easier to imagine water being replaced by some other similar liquid which just doesn't have this property. Similar as in same triple-point, same fusion point, same specific heat, similar densities on some range, etc.

Even them, for one, the ocean is a HUGE thermal resovoir and even whithout the floating of ice you'd need to get vast expanses of it down to the cooling point in order to freeze anything (besides shores, that is), and that's quite a bit below the ocean's current mean temperature. Freezing the ocean at warm areas would seem specailly hard. It's not clear to me that the loss of ice caps would be able to do this at all. Also, this would depend a lot on the specifics, but frozen salt "water" tends to loose it's salt content, which would artificially lower ice's density compared to that of "water". This just might be enough to actually form some kind of an ice cap, if thinner, but I have no idea wether this would be the case, and this would need water to already be at a cooling point to even happen. Another point is that ice forming out of the ocean or on shores could "slide" into it way before the ocean had any semblance of a chance of cooling enough, which would create and extra cap. How relevant this might be I don't know.

Even if simply replacing water with such liquid might mean the freezing of the oceans on earth simply making taking planet a little closer to the sun, or near a "warmer" star, or a planet with bigger oceans or different atmosphere or whatever might be ways to make sure the "oceans" don't freeze. We could also just change the specifics of such liquid. So this idea of water, this single mystical molecule, being absolutely essential to life anywhere is very arrogant and not at all based on fact. Hell, life might not even need oceans at all.

I mean, sure, humans wouldn't exist if some other anomalous liquid took the place of water (temperatures would have to be different too and so on). Neither would we exist if ice sunk, but this means absolutelly nothing at all unless you require humans to be the goal of the universe, which is kind of begging the question: saying that a universe meant for the existence of humans has been made so that humans can exist isn't really saying much.

Go back to study biology and see the theory of the "soup of life" and how it was reproduced in lab... basically show organic chemic components bonding together and becoming unicelular organism that reproduced.

Good example - except these experiments can't be replicated, and even those results were an organism (or so it's claimed) that immediately died. Even in a controlled environment they can't kick start the sustained life of a single celled organism. 

First of all, I only mentioned lakes and rivers - oceans may not be cold enough to freeze, but they wouldn't have to be. Liquids which grow denser with cold can 'change state by compression. (i.e. to get liquid nitrogen, you compress nitrogen). So the deep ocean, which is cold, and under extreme pressure, would likely freeze under these different circumstances. 

As for "this idea of water, this single mystical molecule, being absolutely essential to life anywhere is very arrogant and not at all based on fact. Hell, life might not even need oceans at all." - Water is essential for OUR lives, and the lives of most organisms on this planet. Maybe not any form of life that could theoretically exist, but that is outside the scope of seeing how finely tuned the laws of nature are to OUR existence. 

And the idea of believing in a creator means that yes, human existence is the primary purpose for the universe's creation. 

About water being important to life in earth, that is because it's available here. The same for Carbon being the base for organic matter. There are experiments using Nitrogen or Silica as base (don't remember it fully).

Its more like beings in earth evolved using water as important part because there is water here than we just have life here because of water...

But that is all pretty in development.