To me these are strong supporting evidence for the existence of God.

1. The Existence of the DNA CODE

"a. All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms that we know the origin of come from a mind - there are no known exceptions

b. DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding / decoding mechanism

c. Therefore DNA came from a mind.

No naturally occuring molcule possesses the properties of information. Nature does not produce any kind of code, encoding/decoding mechanism or symbolic relationships at all; everything in nature represents only itself.

Science has yet to determine that some force actually brought DNA together in a specific way, and in fact any scientist (or anyone else) who says so at this point only does so from personal belief.  Also, note the red bolded part.  Humanity doesn't know the origin of DNA, therefore it is automatically implied that DNA is neither known to come from a mind nor that it can be assumed to have come from a mind.

DNA, on the other hand, represents a complete plan for a living organism. DNA is an encoding / decoding mechanism that contains code, or language, representing the organism.

DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism."

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics.  The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering.  This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial.  It is a brute fact:

I think that's not quite right...  The code for EE is simpler.  It has either on or off (aka as 1's and 0's) while DNA has A=T, T=A, G=C, and C=G.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

2. The Existence of Objective Moral Standards

Relativism leads to absurd conclusions which undermine its credibility. For example, moral relativism impedes our ability to think critically and rationally about moral and ethical issues.

Source?  If this is evdience for God's existance there's no room for personal opinion.  If you're going to hinge a large part of your argument on this, you need to back it up.

If there is no absolute moral law then there is no basis for making moral judgments or decisions. Would we say that Mother Teresa is no more or less virtuous than Adolf Hitler? If there is no absolute moral standard, how can we call Hitler and the Nazi atrocities absolutely wrong? Is genocide relatively wrong or absolutely wrong?

This doesn't prove anything, this simply appeals to people who share similar sensibilities.  This, too, is neither proof of anything nor is it simple fact that can stand on its own.  Please, sources.

Aside from that, homo sapiens only exists today because of it's ability to commit genocide.  HS had to kill off a lot of competitors along its evolutionary path for us to get where we are today.  If genocide is is absolutely wrong then our entire species is condemned.

Pure moral relativism has always been an easily refuted and fallible philosophy.

By who?  With what evidence (you've shown none)?  Links?  Proof?  Or is this just your opinion?  That doesn't belong in the proof for God's existance.  Unless you're trying to point out that your opinion is that God exists.  We don't need you to prove that, but you may feel free to back up even one word in this segment with facts. 

Moral relativity in its purest form would virtually condone all behavior no matter how many rights are violated or the resulting consequences.

No, it doesn't.  Take your strawman arguments out of here, they have no place in a proper debate, let alone in trying to prove God exists. 

It continues to thrive because it’s the easy way out. If man is the measure of all things, including morality, then he has no one to whom he is accountable and he can do whatever he likes. The philosophy of moral relativism is simply modern man’s meager attempt to justify his immoral behavior.

Opinion, opinion, opinion.  Got even a single fact, at all?

But if this is God's world, a personal universe, then we do have reason to believe in absolute moral principles. For one thing, as Immanuel Kant pointed out, we need an omnipotent God to enforce moral standards, to make sure that everyone is properly rewarded and punished. Moral standards without moral sanctions don't mean much. More important, we should consider the very nature of moral obligation. We cannot be obligated to atoms, or gravity, or evolution, or time, or chance; we can be obligated only to persons.

Really?  So I can't beleive that morals are relative and, say, still think it's wrong to kill?  I most certainly could.  Moral relativism doesn't mean that someone lacks morals, it means they don't believe in absolutes.  And if Christians, for example, believed in absolutes, how is it they keep getting into wars?  Shouldn't they all be too afraid of going to hell for killing?  Even within your camp's views the rules are still relative.  It's a god damn shame you're too close-minded to even be able to realize that for yourself.

The belief in the existence of an objective morality must imply the existence of God because someone higher than us must have supplied this universal standard. If a person cannot acknowledge the existence of a higher universal standard, then he cannot actually have objective morality. His reference point cannot really be any more valid than that of Hitler or Stalin and he cannot appeal to a higher or better standard to argue otherwise.

I'm sorry, but exactly how is your set of morals validated and why is it that even Christians, let alone all of the other equally valid religions, can't agree on all of the rules if they are so set in stone?  Some say it's a sin to consome alcohol, some don't, for example.  And if the morals are set in stone why is it that most modern Christians don't support the use of corporal punishment for their children while Proverbs 23:13-14 states that not only is it appropriate to beat your child with a rod but that by beating them you will actually save them from hell?  I would want to save my kids from hell, wouldn't you?  So what's stopped all the rod-beatings lately, eh?

In the end, anybody supposing the existence of objective morality must mentally acknowledge the existence of God's standard, if not God himself.

In the end, you never proved a thing.

3. The Existence of Rationality

As leading Darwinist mathematician-biologist J.B.S. Haldane realised, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."  That is, materialism applied to the mind undermines the validity of all reasoning, including one's own, since if our theories are the products of chemical reactions, how can we know whether they are true? Darwin himself expressed his "horrid doubt" that the reasoning of a mind that was the result of chance could not be trusted upon. Thus materialistic science destroys its own base, since scientists must be able to trust the conclusions of their reasoning, but if man's mind was evolved wholly by natural selection for survival value, then all scientific theories, including evolution, would be untrustworthy. Materialists must therefore implicitly exempt themselves from materialism in order to make their arguments for materialism.

This is plain double-think.  It is philosophical at best, regardless of the subject the speaker is familiar with, and it merely an opinion.  The world from a scientist's view-point is, to be a bit illustrative, an infinite series of questions that could never be answered with certainty until every question is answered.  Doubt from scientists is a good thing, everything should be put in doubt to some degree.  Even the gravity has never been proven by the scientific community.  It is, like evolution, simply a theory.  It holds perfectly true throughout the universe as we know it, but there is still room to doubt what we know to be true.
 
Even Charles Darwin recognized that if the human brain is a product of blind, non-teleological evolutionary processes, then we have no reason to believe that the brain is capable of producing convictions that are trustworthy:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has always been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Darwin was, despite what some backwards people think about his work, a devout Christian all of his life.  Those personally views conflicted with his findings, and he simply wasn't able to reconcile the false beliefs the church implanted in his mind from childhood.

4. The Existence of Consciousess/Mind

Yes, something most people take for granted. How is it that we are aware of ourselves as autonomous individuals? Who or what is the the observer, the "I", that resides within each of our minds and does the actual perceiving? How is it possible that we can "step back" and examine our own mental functioning with a brain made up of neurons, even though no individual neuron possesses such an ability?

The answer?  We still don't know.  Good question, though.  Of course, questions are not answers, and answers are what we need for this proof of God you promised.

Materialism holds that everything in our universe is made from physical materials including the human mind or brain and that spiritual attributes do not exist in the universe. This concept holds that our mind and brain are one and the same.

Materialist philosophy can never explain the source of human consciousness, i.e. the qualitative experiences that belong to the human soul. For the materialist philosophy, matter is the only thing that exists. Qualities belonging to the soul of a human being, such as consciousness, can never be explained in the materialistic concept, for consciousness is inherently subjective.

No other philosophy can explain where conciousness "comes from", either, without simply "making shit up."  No one has proof for this in any way whatsoever, anyone who says they do is lying.

Also, conciousness is not exclussive to humanity.  Many animal life-froms are potentially self-aware, they are  just less so than humans due to their lower state of evolution.  Yet I hear, despite what Hollywood would lead you to believe, that all dogs in fact are incapable of going to heaven.

One aspect of consciousness is 'qualia'. Gary R. Habermas and J.P.Moreland argue against physicalism from the qualia of imagined sensory images. Qualia is the subjective feel or texture of conscious experience:

"Picture a pink elephant in your mind. Now close your eyes and look at the image. In your mind, you will see a pink property. . . There will be no pink elephant outside you, but there will be a pink image of one in your mind. However, there will be no pink entity in your brain; no neurophysiologist could open your brain and see a pink entity while you are having the sense image. The sensory event has a property – pink – that no brain event has. Therefore, they cannot be identical."

To put this another way, the subjective feel of mental experiences such as the feeling of pain, the hearing of sound or the taste of chocolate seems very different from anything that is purely physical:

All that the above statement demonstrates is Mr. Habermas isn't taking into consideration the fact that all "purely mental" experiences are reconstructed from existing data stored by the mind.  You've seen pink before, therefore you use that past experience and apply it to this new concept.  Really, it's idiotic to assume it'd be stored as an actual image of any sort, as we know how the mind is constructed and how it does a significant portion of the processign it does.

"If the world were only made of matter, these subjective aspects of consciousness would not exist. But they do exist! So there must be more to the world than matter -- there is more to us than just atoms."

Again, this is someone's opinion.  Conciousness could simply be the product of the precise nature of the human mind.  No one knows.  There's no evidence on either side.

It is clear we are conscious (well, at least I know I am). We are conscious of ourselves, as well as the world around us. But what is consciousness? Could it just be a complex physical state of the brain? Again I would say no. Consider the following argument from philosopher Thomas Nagel:

No, I will not consider those words.  A philosopher makes for a poor scientist if all he does is state his personal opinion like Nagel has.  Proof requires more than opinion.  It requires more than even a million opinions.  Facts are not something that someone else could viably refute with "no, I disagree."  It's a fact that if you assault a police officer you will go to jail.  If you disagree with my fact, go punch a cop.  What Nagel says can be refuted, and has been by people much smarter than him (and myself, of course).

"It is not a far stretch at all to suppose that bats are conscious. Suppose someone had perfect physiological knowledge of bats. It would follow, then, that if consciousness were merely a complex physical state, then that person would know exactly what it would be like to be a bat. However, it seems clear that all the knowledge in the world about bats could not tell someone what it is like to be a bat."

Experience is somehow supposed to be able to magically jump from the entity that had it to another?  That's just plain asinine.  I could know every last detail of your existance down to your genetic code and I'd still never know what it's like to be you.  Why?  Because I'm not you!  I never will be, no matter how much I know about you.

The reason is that while physiological facts are objective -- i.e. they are accessible to anyone, what it is like to be a bat is purely subjective and can only be known by the bat who is that bat. Our consciousness is not something accessible to anyone but ourselves. But if we were merely a complex physical structure, surely it would be accessible to anyone with enough knowledge. But it is not. Hence, this is evidence that the mind is not physical.

This is true, but it doesn't prove God exists.  Our minds are our own domain, for as long as technology stays at the level it is now.  But "mind reading" technology is improving day by day and eventually we will be able to access the consciousness of others.

Another problem with materialism is that we have Freedom. It's one of humanity's highest virtues. It seems clear from our awareness of our choices that we are free to move our wills in any way we choose. We can choose to have chocolate ice cream, or to have vanilla instead, and such a choice seems quite undetermined. At least we'd like to think so. But all physical states are determined by other physical states, governed by physical laws. If our minds are simply physical states, then we are not free. All of our decisions are determined.

According to Christianity everything in existance is already pre-determined.  When God set everything into motion he knew the result of it all, therefore everything that his or will be has already been decided by the actions used to set life into motion.  Maybe if Eve would have been made out of a toe instead of Adam's rib the whole world would be a different place.

Outside of that, you lack the evidence to say all of our decisions aren't determined.  I like chocolate more than vanilla, therefore I will typcally make that choice.  However, sometimes I have a craving, almost certainly created by some chemical imbalance, that leads me towards the vanilla.  Sure, I made that choice, but the choice was made because physical processes within my brain told me to make that decision.  To say that chemical and electrical reactions in the brain aren't themselves conciousness shows you've stepped past science's ability to help you and are simply guessing.

5. The Existence of the Universe

a. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

b. The universe has a beginning.

c. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Yes, the cause was a large build up of gasses in one large form that could no longer contain itself and exploded, creating a universe.  Hey, look, a hypothetical cause without a God!  Sounds sorta similar to the Big Bang theory you're going to talk about, too!

The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.

"In 1946, George Gamow, a Russian-born scientist, proposed that the primeval fireball, the "big bang," was an intense concentration of pure energy. It was the source of all the matter that now exists in the universe. The theory predicts that all the galaxies in the universe should be rushing away from each other at high speeds as a result of that initial big bang. A dictionary definition of the hot big bang theory is "the entire physical universe, all the matter and energy and even the four dimensions of time and space, burst forth from a state of infinite or near infinite density, temperature, and pressure."

"The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from the Bell Telephone laboratories convinced most scientists of the validity of the big bang theory. Further observations reported in 1992 have moved the big bang theory from a consensus view to the nearly unanimous view among cosmologists: there was an origin to the universe approximately 15 billion years ago.

It's nearly unanimous that the Big Bang started the universe.  Great.  Not a single shred of evidence suggests a god did it.

"About the 1992 observations, which were from the COBE (the NASA satellite Cosmic Background Explorer), there was a story on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the world. The thing that the London Times, New York Times, etc. seemed to pick up on was a statement by George Smoot, the team leader from the Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory. He said, "It's like looking at God." Obviously, this captured the public's attention."

I said that once while staring at a mirror.

"A somewhat more sober assessment of the findings was given by Frederick Burnham, a science-historian. He said, "These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years.""

This isn't evidence.  Where's the evidence?

6. The Universe is fine-tuned delicately

"The universe is also incredibly finely well tuned. According to a growing number of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

Again, this is merely the opinion of select human being.  Frankly, the human mind simply cannot comprehend of life outside of its comfort zone of "existance", yet that doesn't mean that it's not possible.  Our definition of where life is possible is extremely limited, but science is open to the possibility that somehting may eventually change the definition.  We have never even been outside of the Earth's neighborhood, we have only one example of life in the entire universe and to say that the universe is fine-tuned for that only that sort of life ignores the possibility that life may exceed our current definition.

In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. For example, the value of the gravitational “constant” tells us the strength of gravity, the force that keeps us from floating off into the sky. This is an actual observed mathematical quality of gravity, similar to pi as a measure of the circumference of a circle. It’s hard-core science fact, as reliable as the chemical formula for producing glue or plastics."

This is simply people's opinion.  Again.  There's no testing for such a claim, it is merely people letting their personal belief interfer with their work.  Plain and simple.  They came to that conclusion because they chose to, not because there was overwhelming evidence of its truth.  If it were even widely believed by the scientific community it would be developed into a Theory.  AS it has not, that would suggest that there simply isn't enough evidence.  It's just a guess.

Also, gravity is a property inherent in all matter.  If matter is at its most basic level made entirely of the same thing used over and over again, such as strings, that has an equal attractive force in each itteration it would follow that gravity is a constant.  Gravity of all things is the last place I'd be looking for a "coincidence" to work off of.

"Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'""

Yeah, life AS WE KNOW IT would be in trouble if the constants somehow changed.  Yet who is to say if they were any different life wouldn't have adapted to those conditions?  No one, since it is entirely impossible to test.

And as fas Earth goes, well, our galaxy has 100 billion stars, each with an untold number of planets that may carry life.  There are as many galaxies in the known universe as there are stars in this galaxy.  When you have potentially infinite tries to get it right just once, it's not gambling.

"When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that puposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon."

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars."

While Hoyle's work is valuable, there is simply too much about the universe currently not understood that it makes it impossible to decide such a thing.  We have yet to fully comprehend dark energy, though we he have inferred its existance, therefore there are processes in the universe not fully accounted for in Hoyle's work.  Who knows what other natural properties of the universe we've even yet to discover?

Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely."

Yet that does not imply that life would not exist if the circumstances were different.  At best it is a tentative link to that argument and could support the idea that life AS WE KNOW IT could not exist if the constants were different.

"The universe is also incredibly finely well tuned. For example, the value of the gravitational “constant” tells us the strength of gravity, the force that keeps us from floating off into the sky. This is an actual observed mathematical quality of gravity, similar to pi as a measure of the circumference of a circle. It’s hard-core science fact, as reliable as the chemical formula for producing glue or plastics."

"If the gravitational constant were infinitesimally different one way or the other, the force of gravity would be much lesser or much greater, with bad consequences for the evolution of stars and planets. Greater gravity would have prevented cosmic expansion and the formation of stars, putting a halt to life’s evolution. A lesser force would have dissipated the energy from the initial formation of the universe. Planets and stars could not have developed. "

Prevented expansion?  Untestable. There is literally no end in sight for the universe, making it impossible to prove the cosmological principle.  If you can't prove that, it's impossible to prove that a shift in the gravitational constant would have prevented expansion.

"If gravity were slightly different, we simply would not be here asking questions about it or trying to overcome that gravity every time we take off in a plane. Instead, it happens that the force of gravity is just right. "

"Physics shows that all the basic phenomena of nature and the laws that govern them have particular constants or ratios associated with them -- the gravitational constant, the electric charge, the mass of the electron, Planck’s constant from quantum mechanics, and others. "

"The actual mathematical values of these constants and ratios are arbitrary. The laws would still operate if the constants and ratios had other numbers, yet the resulting interactions between them would be radically different, and the final outcome would be a different universe, probably minus its sentient life."

To say they are arbitrary is quite odd, as I'd think if I were construcing a God to explain the universe around me that those numbers wouldn't be arbitrary.  Regardless, there is a fair chance that each of those constants is simply one portion of a much larger equation that will always balance itself.  If gravity got weaker, everything else would change to compensate.  If gravity was stronger, who is to say the mass of an electron (for example) wouldn't be changed to ensure that the equation remains balanced?  No one is, because we don't know enough about the universe to even tell if the constants are actually constants. 

Any evidence provided by science is only considered a theory so long as it isn't disproven, and science never claims to "know" anything to any more factual than just a theory.