The game is already over.

[Mister_Hix]

After you have assumed the universe to exist,
you then need to assume that you can create models about it,
and that models with predictive capability are better than those that are not.

From a Biological perspective
We have the Human Genome (all of our DNA) and a Gene Pool (plastic'd to our environment), which we've used to cross examine with other species, who likewise have genomes and gene pools.
This maps out Genetic Chronology, which matches up 90% with our Fossil Record's Fossil Chronology, that explains a process that has been taking place from hundreds of thousands of generations, from common ancestor, to common ancestor, through isolation and adaptation, that led to speciation, in an ever changing environment for the past 4 Billion Years.
And in that mass of scientific discovery and understanding of our past earth, there was no need to equate a Deity into Biology in either the formation of plants, animals or bacteria, and it sure as hell didn't happen in a Day.

From a Cosmological perspective
Once upon a time in the early Universe, a high mass star was cooking elements of the periodic table in its core, in the process of fusion. Because of its high mass the star exploded rather early, its elements and dust plumed in the universe, and under the gravitational force of Dark Matter, this dust collapsed, and formed a second generation of spiral galaxies, stars, and solar systems, which we can simulate on a computer.
Carbon is one of the most chemically active element in the periotic table. Also one of the most abundant in the universe. Followed by Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen, (chemically inert methane), Carbon, and Other, whatever.
FWI The Earth's Age has been cross referenced with Heliosizmic Dating.

From what little I've said, I must reference Neil Degrasse Tyson, and Thunderf00t for some of my computational additions. Thank you, and please add more dirt below. Or ask me a question. ^.^

[brimstoneSalad]

Methane is neither an element (it is a molecule, CH4), nor is it chemically inert. Not sure what you're talking about there...

and under the gravitational force of Dark Matter

Evoking an 'unknown' in the explanation itself is dangerous. People might just say "that's god right thar!"

Remember, Dark Matter is Hypothetical, and only inferred by the apparent behavior of astronomical bodies. It isn't really even a proper theory so much as a possible interpretation.

Anyway, Hi and welcome!

[miniboes]

Welcome to the forums! Consider making an introduction post?

[Mister_Hix]

We know the calculations of how astronomical bodies move in simulations, Though I know plugging in a variable like Dark Matter isn't perfect, it's a way to see that stars came before our solar system, and no God was in the process of forming its second generation
Have you heard of the electric universe theory?

[brimstoneSalad]

We know the calculations of how astronomical bodies move in simulations, Though I know plugging in a variable like Dark Matter isn't perfect, it's a way to see that stars came before our solar system, and no God was in the process of forming its second generation

Theists will just say that the pull of "dark matter" is actually god, keeping things from falling apart.

Have you heard of the electric universe theory?

Yes, along with "Flat Earth Theory", "Homeopathy" and "Intelligent Design" it's among the top examples of pseudoscience.

What about it?

[miniboes]

Theists will just say that the pull of "dark matter" is actually god, keeping things from falling apart.

This is one of the most off-shaking arguments for theism I've heard (that God could be part of dark matter), although I quickly came to the conclusion it's another argument from ignorance. I do find it very interesting what dark matter could be.