Nice straw-man. Let's see what other fallacies you can come up with.
We don't know how the universe 'started'. This doesn't mean that everything came from nothing, it means we don't know. It certainly doesn't mean "we don't know, so a magic being who knows everything and can do anything created the universe".
Religion, which claims to have all the answers, can never accept "I don't know". They just instantly translate it to "God did it".
Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.
When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
Debatable. IMHO running a piece of software shouldn't be governed by copyright law, but certainly some parts of the software industry believe that you need a licence to waive the copyright laws, since you are inherently copying the software into RAM. I don't think this has ever been tested in court (?)
WoWGlider lost a case where Blizzard claimed that them copying the game into memory violated their copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot)
You'll be fined no mater what the jury system determines. Defending yourself from any charges that are filed will take a non-trivial amount of money. You could lose your job (who wants a possible criminal working for them?), your possessions, etc. and still be found not guilty or have the charges dropped.