Ignorance is always the enemy. But the idea that science and faith must be at odds, or that faith must be blind, are both wrong. (By the way, you may want to read up a little on the 'dark ages' instead of letting hollywood shape your idea of them. While it's easier to picture this as a time of unmatched barbarism, while the unwashes masses languished in ignorance, actual history doesn't support that. In fact, while people like to paint religion as holding back scientific progress, history actually shows monks creating the early libraries, and the Catholic church starting most of the universities during this period.)

As for a fetus, in the womb they don't go through 'evolution'. They grow. If they were evolving, we couldn't be sure a human was going to be the finished product.

As for DNA, similarities aren't proof of evolution. If you look at a painter's various paintings, you can tell if they did or didn't do one. Why? Because they leave many unique traces that indicate it was them. similarities in organisms can just as easily point to the same designer as they can to evolution. 

Many people rely on blind faith. You MUST believe, any questions show a lack of faith. This isn't supported by the Bible though. The apostles commended those who asked questions, and did research. The problem with blind faith is that when you believe without evidence, you can believe what's wrong. And then it is very at odds with science. (i.e. some fundamentalist christians believe the earth was created in 6 literal days, instead of the genesis account's days representing different periods of time) Blind faith says "6 days, that's what it says, no questions asked." Looking into it deeper, it's clearly not a literal 6 days, but rather a much greater period of time. 

In short, faith is a choice, yes, but not a choice you make 'without evidence'.

He wasn't saying fetus evolve on womb... just that the changes while growing shows similarities to simpler animals and that would be evidence of evolution.

About the dark age comment on library... the libraries were a lot older than catholic ones... and their veto on cientific knowledge isn't a lie... they may have done universities and libraries, but their dogmas limited and directioned what could be studied.

Why not look at the evolution of religion. Something like 50,000 years ago primitive man came up with theories to explain how they and their surroundings exist. Their god may have been a mountain or a cloud or anything really. Since then many religions have come and gone and many have adapted to be something slightly different. Most have died. As yet there is not a single supporting fact for any of the gods of these religions.

Ultimately religion is a disease of the mind. It needs to replicate and infect others. Where this fails often it turns to violence and destruction. It does not care about facts or logic it is purely motivated by its own self-believe.

It is utterly pointless arguing with such people as they have already left rational, logical thinking behind.

There is nothing nice about being an atheist, it is an acceptance that death is the complete end to your life for yourself and those you love. Nature is horrific, evolution has no empathy. The reason people choose this path is because its true and its backed up by overwhelming evidence. That is ultimately the choice, accept a dark reality or reject it and turn to fantasy. Most of us would love to be religious but there is not a single fact that supports that belief.

Aren't fossils explained as being planted by God as a test of faith to weed out non-believers?

Some life (Bacterial) on Earth don't need Oxygen or water to survive, but instead thrive on Sulfur.

One form of lifes worse nightmare is another form of lifes perfect environment, you won't be seeing a polar bear surviving in the middle of the Australian desert for instance or a Kangaroo in the Arctic circle.

Arsenic, Chlorine, Sulfur, Nitrogen and Phosphorus are all possible elemental candidates that can replace carbon based life.
Most of the life we find will most likely be single celled, complex intellegent life will be a rarity, it's a rarity on earth even with only one species out of millions/billions capable of complex scientific thought. (Well, most of us anyway, we can exclude some of the more hardcore religious folk!)

There is proof that evolution exists from the observed changes in many virii and bacteria when an environment changes, there are also Macro and Micro evolutionary changes too.
Whether that conflicts with a religion is another matter entirely and personally, I couldn't care as I don't beleive in Religion and the hate and discrimination it brings upon the world.

But I do believe in Shuteism, not in the other religions... But you are right about all the rest...

And its quite possible that in a different solar system there is complex and maybe racional life form using Nitrogen as basis, that thrive on Sulfur and live in a +500°C that our biologic knowledge wouldn't be able to explain.

You did mention "bodies of water" too, but that's not really the point. My stress on the oceans is partly because life is thought to have emerged from them.

All I was trying to point is that water isn't quite so special in a broader sense. Now, sure, i conceded if it behaved differently we wouldn't be here. In fact, if any major aspect of the world was considerably different it's a safe bet that we wouldn't be here. But when you realise, and that was my whole point, that even if we couldn't be here other forms of life could, and that calls into question the whole idea of this planet being fine-tuned for us on the basis of the anomalous properties of water.

If worlds can exist and support life, in any given life-supporting world changing any major aspect would probably mean a given life-form wouldn't have come to be. Still, others could. Whatver life -form evolves would have as much right as you do now to believe the world was "fine-tuned" for them. Which makes sense only and if only they're somehow "special" on the grand scheme of things, above all other possible forms that could have emerged. And nothing on this argument gives that stance any credence.

Now you could also, on the other hand, see the life-forms as being fine-tuned to their world, instead of the other way around. We are the way we are because water is the way it is. We are accidental, not essential. And that's a consistent view, and the only one that makes sense if you don't suppose any given form of life to be a goal of the universe. Of course we, or some ants or petrol, or whatever else, might be "the universe's goal" for this planet of ours. But the point is that there's absolutelly no reason to suppose it has to be so, much less to suppose we, among the absurdly many present-day and future alternatives, are the "important" ones.

"And the idea of believing in a creator means that yes, human existence is the primary purpose for the universe's creation. "

Well, that's precisely my point. This argument only makes any sense IF we suppose humans are the universe's goal. Thus you can't use it to show that humans are so, since that amounst to saying "If A, then A". Much less can you use this argument to try and prove some creator exists by saying "if there's a creator humans are the primary purpose of the universe" - which by itself is a beseless assumption - "thus humans are special. So the fact that humans wouldn't come to exist if water was different means water is the way it is just so it could support human life, which in turn means there must be a creator, whose purpose for the universe is humans".

That boils down to the exact same as saying if God exists then God exists which would mean God exists, therefore God must exist if God exists.

Actually, it's weaker than that, because it supposes that if a creator exists than humans are his ultimate goal. That would be a possibility, sure, but in absolutely no way a necessity. Even granting that, it also is very loose with any other possible attributes for the "creator". Besides being barren of meaning, as described above.

So this argument really just doesn't stand as a proof-positive. At most it's not inconsistent with itself, but that's not quite a feat given how little it actually says.

Ok, but the thing is that if you don't presuppose humans to be special than the idea of a fine-tuned world loses meaning if other kinds of life-forms could have surfaced instead given different conditions. The other explanation, though, that humans just happen to be what came to thrive under these conditions, and are thus molded by these very conditions, remains very much plausible.

So for this kind of argument to work you have start out by supposing "humans are special". By doing so the conclusion you reach is "the world is fine-tuned for humans", and then one might try to say, from this, that the universe was thus designed to nurture us, since there's this fine-tuning. But this is the same as saying "if humans are special than humans are special".

The bolded part though shows all that could actually try to be inferred about from this: consistency (or negation). As in, supposing it's right won't bring about a logical contradiction or contradiction with the evidence on this given aspect. It could never, however, in any way, be used to try and prove that intelligent design is right, which is what he initially implied (or at least I understood it this way), because the argument would essentially end up begging the question.

Do notice taht saying "humans are not special thus there's no fine-tuning" faces the same adversity. So, focusing only on this very specific arguemnt, both remain equally sound but unprovable. But so is also the case with the idea that the world is fine0tuned for ants or bacteria or whatever. Faced with both possibilities the simpler one seems to me to be the one that involves less "special cases", ie, the one that says the existing species are just a product of their enviroment's condition, and thus "fine-tuned" to it.

As a side note, one might argue the world is not quite as perfect for us as it might be.

Well as you stated you are no professional, should just have left it at that...

What everybody is saying is that earth isn't fine tuned to human beings, human beings are fine tuned to earth, there I tried to simplify for you.

Im quite a bit drunk right now, so instead of answering your points directly, I'll try and weave an analogy. Sorry for any incovenience.

See, say you, as well as a million other guys, bet numbers on the lotto. And, for simplicity's sake, say none of you bet the same numbers and that the probability of one of you guys actually getting the numbers right was considerable, statistically speaking.

Now say you actually win the lotto. As in, the numbers drawn are the same as the ones you had bet on.

There are two ways you could see this:

1 - The numbers were drawn equal to mine because I'm special. The numbers drawn are determined by the numers I bet.

2 - I won because I happened to have the right numbers. Other sequencies of numbers had the same probability of being drawn, and in such case some other guy might have won. None of us is special, and who does end up wining is determined by the numbers drawn.

Whenever someone wins such raffle it might seem to them they're in some special position, but that's true despite who exactly wins. So if it's plausible taht on another draw someone else might win, then there's no reason to suppose that any one of these guys is in any special condition.

The point being that the fact that one given guy own - in our example you,you lucky bastard! - can only be seen as saying something about the fairness of the draw itself IF we suppose the very competition would rather have this guy, you, win.

If, on the other hand, the competition was fair, and thus favoured no one, the fact that you won just means you happened to get the right numbers. The numbers could have been different and then any other guys would have won, if not on the first draw then on a subsequent one. You own because your numbers just so happened to line with the drawn numbers, instead of the numbers having been drawn so that you would win. And this isn't at all strange: it's expected that someones umbers would do so eventually.

So the only reason to believe the numbers drawns were so drawn to reflect the numbers you bet on - the only reason to believe the draw wasn't fair with the other competititors - is to believe, beforehand, that the competition favorus you.

Point being that you can't try to used the fact that you've won as evidence that the competition favours you: you winning is evidence of some unfairness if and only if you suppose the competition to favour you. So saying "the competition favours me" and saying "since I won, these numbers must have been drawn because I bet on them" boils down to the same exact same thing, and thus saying "if I won than the competition must have favoured me, because I'm special" is begging the question: you are supposing for starters that you are special among the other competitors. But being special means the competition favours you. So all you are saying is "If the competition favours me than the competition favours me", and that doesn't really add much to anything.

I think I may have gotten a bit less clear than I wanted at the end there, sorry for that. I suppose I don't need to explain how the analogy relates to the topic, but anyway:

The people playing are possible forms of life that could emerge. The numbers being drawn are the characteristics of the many possible worlds, each draw being a world. The competition itself is the universe in the broader sense, and the people fiddling with it, if it is indeed being fiddled with, would be equivalent to "the creator". You represent the human species, of course.

I just hope you can follow this drunken detour of mine and actually take something out of it.