so taking semen from male and injecting it in a female vagina is mutation example? 

By like a few millimetres every year. Neglible. Maybe in a million years it would have some affect.

The designs of the various systems around us are very precise in how they function together. The Earth's atmosphere is a intriguing thing. Blocks most of the harmful rays (not to mention the magnetic field of the Earth protecting us from Sun flares), traps the heat inside so we can have livable temperatures. It's placed so stragetically to faciliate life on Earth.

Sometimes I think why female breasts can only produce milk when they're pregnant. I wonder what the "evolutionary process" was. 'Hmm..it would be so much better if I had breasts to support a baby...*eats a sapphire stone*...*Woman is evolving into ...Womana!*.. Womana has learned new breastfeed attack."

Or the evolutionary process of the cervix dilating only to faciliate birth? How the heck would the cervix know it needs to dilate to get this baby through? Not to mention it waits about 9 months to do it.

Eh, but humans can create humans, ask your parents :P

Apart from that - just because we don't know yet how to arrange the DNA to create a living organism doesn't mean we won't be able to do so in the future.

I don't particularly feel like getting into this debate much, since it's one I've been involved in far too many times and no one has ever convinced the opposing side that they are wrong, but the answer to the question "Well, if God created the universe, then where did he come from?" is easy. The answer's already provided in the third possibility posed by the OP.

The laws of this universe (such as gravity, time, momentum, etc.) are all bound to this universe. They exist within this universe and abide by it. Hence, time does not exist outside of this universe. So something that would exist outside of the universe, and potentially be responsible for creating it, wouldn't need to have come from somewhere. It could simply "be there." Time doesn't apply to it.

Regardless, the fact that so many people on here are asking the opposite side to "prove" something (such as prove that God does or doesn't exist, or prove that there's another possibility to God existing, or anything else) is more than a little ridiculous. This debate has raged on for centuries between some of the brightest and best minds the world has known, and no one has come anywhere close to being able to "prove" anything. And no one will unless God shows up and proves it himself. Thinking that anyone on here will suddenly be able to advance past thousands of years of grid locked debate all of a sudden is setting your expectations a bit too high.

Ignorance really.  You refuse to click a website because it is assosciated with religion, yet it has scientific facts that you live by? oh wait, you don't know that because you refuse to click it. Maybe it proves to you that the information you live by was discovered more than a thousand years ago when there is no technology that exited, by a person, who claimed he is the messenger of GOD.

"And as for those who believe not in the Hereafter there hearts refuse to know, for they are proud."

"And obey not him whose heart we have made heedless of Our Remembrance, who followeth his own lust."

"But he who turneth away from remembrance" of Me, his will be a narrow life, and I shall bring him blind to the assembly on the Day of Resurrection. He will say: 'My Lord! wherefore hast thou gathered me (hither) blind, when I was wont to see?' He will say: 'so (it must be) our revelations come unto thee but thou didst forget them. In like manner thou art forgotten this Day."

Now i get to see what God was talking about in this quran. I thought people back then in that age had it worse, but wow

1. They don't have to be the same to the nth decimal. Take gravity for instance which is a very essential part of our existence. It varies slightly all over the Earth. That doesn't take away the argument of design.

2 and 3. I KNOW it's hormones. It's my point. There is a chemical trigger that governs this. Imagine the time before this chemical trigger was incorporated in the human. They were giving birth without cervix dialation? Then the body had an "evolutionary" epitomy and decided "I gotta make this hole bigger...let me invent oxytocin cuz I'm smart if(pregnant && 9monthsPassed == 1) releaseOxytocin(CervixDilation); here we go...ok girls I patched up the system. Version 1.1.32 release notes: cervix dialation added."

I was arguing that all this cannot be random. It's a design.

..and all this nonsense proves that you don't have the slightest clue about evolution.  End of discussion.

Thanks for proving my point. You need some one to create a human. Human could not create himself, some one created him, and that would be god.

The option that makes the most assumptions is the least likely, especially ones where the assumptions give no explanatory power whatsoever. There's a spectrum of possible beliefs one could take that ranges from least presumptuous to more presumptuous. On one end is only believing in what we do know and not making any assumptions about things we don't know. Essentially, it's acknowledging are ignorance as ignorance (and not as indicators of as some mystical super powerful entity beyond are comprehension - huge assumption there), while actively searching for solutions. This would be at the end of the ideal side of the specturm.

As you go further down the spectrum towards the more presumptuous view, you have beliefs that add in things like "the Universe was caused by an entity." This view makes few assumptions but is not as good as the view that makes no assumptions. As you continue, you encounter views like "The Universe was caused by a conscious being", and even more presumptuous views like "The Universe was caused by a conscious being that is all-powerful, all-loving, capable of emotion, etc." Eventually, you reach the extreme side of the spectrum encountering views with entire books full of assumptions. Obviously these are the most unlikely views to take since they make the most assumptions.

The best view to take is to simply accept we don't know why the universe was created, if it had to be created, if it was created by something or someone, etc. There is absolutely no logic behind assuming heaps of beliefs that give no explanatory power; especially the ones that make the situation more complicated than it would have been otherwise. Such beliefs are even more unbelievable when you figure out that there is good reason that people would fabricate such beliefs, so the idea of them being made-up isn't unlikely at all.

I don't even ..

ah well, you make it clear that your thoughts and opinions aren't up for discussion, so I won't bother, have a nice day :)