So are you saying I have to prove to you the reality of the complexity of a single living cell?
No. He is agreeing with you that a living cell is complex, and adding that that is not a reliable sign of intelligent design, since mindless physical process can generate great complexity as well. You seem to have failed to consider that possibility or to have rejected it without counterargument. And that's the logical fallacy to which I referred in an earlier post to you. You dropped a logical possibility from your list of possible explanations for that observed biological complexity. If you gave no reason for that, we couldn't say much more about your fallacy than that your conclusion is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from the argument preceding it. All unsound arguments contain a non sequitur, which is what it means to say that any argument is unsound. It means the conclusion doesn't follow logically from the faulty argument preceding it.
When you add that you reject naturalistic answers because they just feel wrong, or you can't see how a naturalistic mechanism can possibly be the explanation, you are also committing an incredulity fallacy. And when you add a god as your explanation for the existence of complex cells, you are now committing a special pleading fallacy. You're excusing your god from the same analysis. Assuming a god that knows everything and can do anything is more complex than a single living cell, if cell needs an intelligent designer, so does that intelligent designer even more so.
No, I don't think that the literal story of Adam and Eve is part of a necessary minimal requirement to be Christian.
Assuming, of course that by "True Christian" you mean one who is sincere in belief.
Sincere in what belief? The central tenet of Christianity is that man is born into sin fit for perdition unless he is washed in the blood of the lamb, which means he believes that Christ died for his sins so that he might know everlasting life. Christianity teaches that this state man finds himself in is his own fault for his disobedience to God, which began with the first two human beings. Remove that last part, and what's left but a god that chooses to punish man due to no fault of his own?
Omniscient means All-Knowing, so everything would be known by an omniscient God, but that does not mean it was planned or intended
What it means in humanist ethics, which is also the basis for much Western law, is that combined with the ability to intervene, perfect knowledge of what will follow means responsibility for it. Even imperfect knowledge makes one responsible if he had the power to prevent an outcome with the twitch of a nose.
You're likely aware of a case in the American news now of a child who brought an unsecured gun to school from home and shot a teacher, whose parents have been criminally charged. Will the defense attorney argue that even though the parents knew (or should have known) what might occur and stood by without intervening shouldn't be held accountable because the child had free will and is thus responsible? This is an analogous argument to the theistic one. The parents will be held liable unless they escape on a technicality or jury nullification, because those are our Western values. We should not be surprised that believers don't want their tri-omni god who grants free will to creatures he created and set loose upon one another, but neither should we be surprised that unbelievers would hold this god to the same standards if they believed it existed.
what happens in this world is caused by humans
And what caused humanity? If it was a tri-omni god, it's responsible for the choices those humans make the way the parents in the example above are responsible for the child's choice to bring a gun to school and use it, even though, 'what happened in school was the caused by the child.' This is how humanist ethicists view this.
God's knowledge does not 'cause' humans to do anything. There is free will because the omnipotent, omniscient God gave us free will to choose and He did not make our choices for us.
Nor did the parents' knowledge that a gun was lying around the house cause the child to take it to school and shoot it. It doesn't matter from a liability (legal responsibility) perspective.
Discovering something is not what makes it exist. Something either exists or not.
That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, and a concept (object permanence) that helps us understand and navigate our world, but quantum science has cast some doubt here. How do we know it existed before it entered consciousness? The argument is kind of like the light in the refrigerator. Every time we look into it, it's illuminated, so we can't blame primitives who have never seen a refrigerator before from thinking that it must be bright in there all of the time. Brightness permanence. Quantum science say the equivalent (as many but not all understand it) of saying that the light is only on when we look inside, that it's the act of looking that leads to illumination in the refrigerator. The primitives laugh at him.
if we haven't yet found a god, does that mean a god doesn't exist?
No, but it means we can ignore the possibility until we do, and from an empiricist's viewpoint, we should. We don't hypothesize the existence of anything until its existence is needed to explain an observation.
