I don't think you're talking to me, but I'll reply anyway...

Then why is it that UV rays are harmful at all? If anything, they should be beneficial. Everything should be beneficial, because we should be adapted to take the most advantage of our resources. Life should not be "sheltering" itself from harm, so to speak -- there shouldn't be harm at all, because we are adaptations. 

PS: Could you use paragraphs? I mean this is the nicest way possible, but the huge blob is hurting my eyes. No offence.  

Most of your reply was already addressed in my original argument(that being, to begin with, you largely reiterated what the article had said). But, I will address what wasn't just reiteration on your part. You seem to not understand that the universe doesn't "need" anything. That, we should be more resilient to UV rays, Gamma rays, heat, and lack thereof. We HAVE adapted to these things. Simply because one adapts does not mean they suddenly mutate in such a way that they become invulnerable to harm. Our evolution is all about survival. The members of a species that tend to survive tend to procreate. Thus, those with favorable traits breed and the species begins to have those traits on the whole level than on an individual level. Human beings, to combat heat, developed sweating(which, believe it or not, not only cools you down, but does so more effectively that man's best friend's method, which is to breathe heavily on the tongue to cool and circulate the blood cells). We our muscles and nerves developed shivering. The atomospheric layers we have now are the very REASON we haven't adapted to UV rays. There has been no survival need to do so(unless, it is for some reason believed that species have been wiped out en masse by UV rays, or even killed to a significant extend). The natural protection of the layers protects everyone from UV rays(for the most part) so those more resilient to UV rays didn't exactly breed to a significantly higher extent than those who weren't(seeing as those who weren't lived on anyways, as they were protected, and thus were able to breed). It goes back to your beginning on this thought "If we evolved to fit earth". If we evolved to fit earth, we accept that we evolve to fit nature's protection and its wrath. To exclude either is simply denying data. I find it interesting that you find it HARD to believe that life developed on a planet that had the right capacity for life and that you consider this "lucky". I would consider us "lucky" if we lived on a planet that was far less likely to be habitable than earth.

In relation to the watch and finding the telephone number of the manufacturer---

I think that scriptures ARE the way that you can figure out what God was saying. That's sort of their point. 

Well put, but I don't see how you can say that you believe that the world didn't happen by chance, yet not believe in a God.  I also find it interesting that EVERY culture in the world has a name for a deity, though all interpretations are variably different.  And how is believing in God an illogical assumption?  Though we may not have any visible markings (that say, "I belong to God") couldn't it be argued that our very existence is a cause for much higher intelligence?  Could the 'imprint' of his name be our conscience, creativity and ingenuity, and our will to reason, invent, and discover be his 'personal inscription'?  I can see the logic in your statements, that we can't see God (in the literal sense), can't communicate with him (as far as you believe, not directly like a telephone), and he isn't actively involved in worldly affairs.  But think about this; the house is always designed before the inhabitants arrive.  It is amazing to assume that the earth was formed just perfect for our living.  If we evolved to fit our earth, then we sure are lucky.  It contains all the basic materials of life, in just the right quantities; materials that scientists look for on other planets (which they haven't found in near the abundance of what we have).  If we evolved to fit the earth, shouldn't we be much more durable creatures; not so susceptible to UV or Gamma rays from the sun, or to heat and coolness.  We wouldn't need all the atmospheric layers that we have now, yet we do have them.  To block all the rays from the sun; radiation, heat and all.  Humans are not all that durable creatures in the grand scheme of things, we make up with that with our ability to invent.  Something I believe we received from the one who invented us.

Huh. Well, I'm not sure where my other post went to. Maybe it was because it was too large. At any rate, I do have a response to you, but it hasn't showed up. I'll wait a couple of days. Maybe it didn't process because it was too large. I don't want to double-post it. Or, if you're interested in hearing what an atheist thinks who disagrees with you, but doesn't find you to be an idiot for believing, feel free to reply asking for my email.

Oh, and, as to Dawkins, here's my opinion of him as an agnostic atheist myself:

He's a fantastic promoter of the science of evolution. He is, however, a terrible promoter of atheism, and does not represent the non-religious at large. Most of us just want to be left alone by our governments and those who would discriminate against us. Most of us are non-theists, not anti-theists.

Mind talking with an atheist that doesn't think you're stupid, but finds your arguments flawed? If that's not fine, don't bother continuing. I find the argument of intelligent design a false one. Here is why:

The very idea of it is presumptuous. I already have knowledge that a watch has been designed and created. In fact, if I worked hard enough, I could probably find the person or at least the company that made it. I can't do that with god. There's no information, no telephone number, no imprint of a name, no way form of verification. The very argument of creation needing a creator assumes a creator the moment it perceives the subject as created. The conclusion is reached before the argument even begins.

That is not to jump to say "well, if someone didn't create it, then it happened by chance". I don't believe that, but I certainly don't believe in god. Everything I know about the universe is that it is systematic. It is, as you have stated complex. It has laws, which we do not create, we simply observe. A basic understanding of mathematics tells me that one variable in addition of another variable will always come to the same end result if the variables are exactly the same as they were the last time. If this is so, why would anyone believe in chance? I believe I, and the rest of this world, and the future, are/will be the end result of variables. I am as tall as I am because of my genetics, my habits, and my environment. My personality is as it is, because of the environment I was raised in, the way I was raised, and the things and people I have experienced. If I were to relive my life the exact same way over and over, I, at this moment, would be exactly the same as I had been.

Was the world designed for us? Is the world just right for us, or are we just right for the world? The prior seems like backward thinking to me. It is no miracle to me that we exist, when the conditions were met that we should. As I understand your thinking, you see the equation as 2=1+1, or, rather Humanity=Sun+Earth+Est. Instead, I see it the other way around. 1+1=2. The conditions resulted in humanity, instead of the conditions being specifically carved out to fit human need.

Everything from the beginning(the beginning, being a very mysterious thing, of which we are still continuing to discover and study) did not happen by chance. Rather, a simple chain of events, just as everything else in life. I don't think "Wow, god's amazing and magnificent for making this canyon." I think "Wow, I wonder what caused this canyon? Continental shift, earthquakes, decay of structure from a pre-existing massive river? That must've taken a lot of energy and time... that's just astounding."

As to your other position, your position on the end of your life, it's really quite a fallacious wager. One that actually has a specific name and has been used for centuries in fact! Pascal's Wager. A single large stain on a good mathematician and philosopher's name, Pascal's Wager proposes as yours does, that not believing in god has the danger of hell, whereas believing in god has no danger if god does not exist. It assumes that the only two variables are "A god" or "no god". What of other gods? You may find yourself in Islamic hell for being a Christian instead of a Muslim. What of Tartarus? Will Hades treat you well for not believing in he and his siblings on Mount Olympus? Will Odin have mercy? What of Shiva? Will you be reincarnated well as a result of Christianity? Or, maybe you'll be punished by a deity has not revealed itself and that no one has ever spoken of. Who knows? Who should I believe? With so many different eternities of everlasting torment to choose from, my mind is boggled. So, I'd rather believe based on a logical conclusion, rather than the emotional restraint of fear. That's just me though.

Dude this is so true! Great job!