If the Universe is conscious and intentionally created mankind, then evolution is actually I.D.

PURPOSEMy purpose in this Round (Round 2) is to demonstrate, using reliable scientific sources and data, authored by various, renown scientists in their fields, that the likelihood of biological life developing spontaneously on our planet would be improbably, statistically, absurdly low. I also want to present published assessments, by scientific experts in their respective fields, that reinforces the increasinly accepted notion that our universe is just right (fine-tuned) for complex biological life.To demonstrate what I mean, imagine a fully-functional 747 jumbo jet, hundreds of feet long, laying upright on a grassy field somewhere in America, the grass gently being flailed by the wind. But there's a snag: no one knows how the jet got there, who (or what) constructed it. There's no markings on the jet to indicate it was constructed by a specific company (or even by humans), and airplane monitoring equipment doesn't show how it got there, or even a previous flight path. It's just there. Most rational people would assume that something (most definetely intelligent) constructed it, possibly even there on the grass over many years (this particular location hasn't had humans effect it in centuries). Some claim it was probably constructed by human hands, possibly even in another location. Others argue it was constructed by humans at this spot. Others claim it was constructed by intelligent extra-terrestrial life. Yet others propose that it was constructed spontaneously, by purely random natural processes. This last group are a particularly dedicated bunch. They argue that even though, statistically, the chances of the jet being constructed by purely unintelligent natural processes is ludicrously low - it's still possible, so we cannot eliminate this scenario. But others argue that other jets exist, created by human hands belonging to minds with intelligent, intentional thoughts. They argue that it makes far more sense that something intelligent created the mysterious 747 jumbo jet - it couldn't have been constructed by random acts of nature!I will now use published information, written by scientific experts in their fields, to demonstrate how improbable, how statistically, absurdly unlikely it is for cellular life (the first protocells) to have formed on its own, by nothing more than spontaneous, unintelligent natural processes on Earth's surface 3.85 billion years ago. But first I will show how fine-tuned our universe is for the existence of complex biological life. In the Rounds that follow, I will present arguments to demonstrate not only that the universe is intelligent and conscious, but that it also intentionally created complex biological life to satisfy the existential need for intelligent companionship. Thus, like those investigating the origins of our mysterious 747 jumbo jet above, I will show that the most rational explanation, the most sensible explanation (the explanation most warranted by Occam's razor) on the origins of biological life is that it was constructed by an intelligent lifeform, for an intended outcome. Biological life, like the jumbo jet, was most probably created by an intelligent designer. (Figure: jumbo jet [left], first protocell [right].) The Finely-tuned universe (for biological life)"If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible." from Paul Davies, world renown physicist [1]."Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible." from cosmologist John Barrow and physicist Frank Tipler [3]."Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10^40, then...stars like the sun could not exist. This would...make life impossible." from Davies [4]."There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life." from Davies [6]."The laws of science, as we know them...contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron....The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." from physicist Stephen Hawking [7].The improbableness of the first lifeforms"Almost all investigators in the field concede that the spontaneous manufacture of small molecules - amino acids, nitrogen bases, sugars - is not a major problem...they would have formed [in] primitive earth conditions. Putting these small molecules together into larger units does present a formidable problem, however....This is certainly the the most challenging problem in understanding the origin of life." from Russell Doolittle, Prof. Emeritus of Biochemistry at UC San Diego [8]."How likely is it that a population of spontaneously replicating and mutating polynucleotides (single-stranded DNA) would generate an appropriate sequence for the formation of a polypeptide catalyst (enzymes essential to forming coded DNA templates that can produce viable, cell-sustaining proteins)?...let me respond with an anology based on another set of improbable events. How likely is it that a person playing bridge will be dealt a perfect hand of all thirteen spades? The chances of this happening can easily be calculated to be one in 635,013,559,600. Being dealt a perfect hand is obviously very improbable...but of course it [can happen]. from Doolittle [9]."Many problems concerning the origin of life remain to be explored." from Doolittle [10].[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] http://www.discovery.org...[6] [7]http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] [9] [10] Probability and the Origin of Life. Scientists Confront Creationism.