That would make sense if the natural world were all there is. If there is also a realm outside the natural world, then your education and training may not be adequate. This is where your conversation with the theologian could get interesting.
A. and B. don’t provide facts to prove your case - they do provide some thoughts to question the other side, and they also disclose a belief in intelligent life elsewhere in the universe (the evidence for that being what?). Most theologians probably are concerned less with that speculation and more with the idea that humans here on the speck of rock we call earth might have a relationship with a transcendent being who dwells outside the physical/chemical world and perhaps might even be setting the rules for “good vs. evil.” (ie a god, as you stated). How does one go about disproving the existence of this being? And then, for B in particular: are you saying that a child can’t pick up on their parents’ rules for behavior unless they first acquire a more complex understanding of astronomy, physics and chemistry? My guess is that rules for “good vs evil” are probably a bit easier thing to impart to others! “Do this, don’t do that” seems pretty simple to me.
C. reads more like a series of questions for the theologian. Can’t speak for all, but most would probably be concerned more for those creatures with a higher-developed sense of introspection than the Ichneumon wasp or the dinosaur. The idea of understanding “right” from “wrong” is key (same with “dignity” and what that might mean for each creature). The question of how can bad things happen to good people is an easy one for most, although different traditions will vary in the specific response.
D. is an assertion, based on the assumption that “reality” doesn’t transcend the natural world. The difference between you and the theologian is that the latter will clarify that they can reason, but not prove, the existence of a god. Reason would be the tool of their trade. However, those who are convinced that “reality” is confined to the natural world should be able to use the tools of their trade (scientific method, etc) to make their case. If they can’t, perhaps that just means that natural science doesn’t hold the answer to everything.