And even more!

31. Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.

Eyewitness accounts written 40 years after? Life expectancy in those days meant that if you lived to 50, you were VERY old. And with all the strife about heresies and apocryphal texts, confusion and anger is an accurate representation of what happened. Does this mean they aren't true?

32. From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaological [sic] evidence to confirm many details we’re provided with in the Bible.

In the future, there will be archaeological evidence of New York, and the Spider-man comics are set there. Does this prove that Spider-man exists? Of course it doesn't. Just because there is archaeological evidence for some of the things in the bible does not mean that all the bible is true.

33. Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.

Yes, there can. Here's a list.

34. The evidence from liturature [sic] & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.

There is no evidence that anything of the supernatural things written about in the bible happened. In fact, not a single non-biblical or non-church source verifies any of it.

35. From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.

So what if some scientists were christian? That doesn't prove the religion true. See the oppression of Galileo, Copernicus and others, and even your own comments on evolution for counterexamples.

36. Science can explain ‘how’ something works, but not ‘why’ something works.

Why presupposes a narrative, something which reality lacks. So the question is not relevant.

37. Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present ‘discoveries’ may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.

And this is EXACTLY why science is a more accurate picture of the universe than religion.

38. Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn’t explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.

Actually, it doesn't. Abiogenesis is the description of how life started, not evolution. And again, why presupposes a narrative. Plus many of your own arguments have been attempting to discredit evolution to prove god, which is entirely fallacious. Evolution has been proven, and god has not. Simple as that.

39. The two people who discovered Jesus’ empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn’t – we’re left with the historical & Biblical truth.

So what? What if they went into the wrong tomb? What about graverobbers? What if the people who wrote were just lying about the whole thing? Why must you assume the bible is accurate, despite the fact there is mountains of evidence to the contrary?

40. Think about Near Death Experiences. It’s naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn’t have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing “a dream”. We’re not silly – we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.

Obviously you have no imagination then, if you think you need eyes to generate visuals. You've never pictured something in your head? Besides that, you still haven't given me any evidence that any of that happened.