"God did not have to design our bodies to be perfect. Plus, if God decided to design all things based on our rules, the cornea thing has some trouble."

Does it not say in the Bible that god is perfect? How can a perfect being create something imperfect? Also, we're created in his image, how can we be imperfect? Although I guess you can interpret perfection differently. This is a minor point anyway.

"Saying "we don't understand it" as an explaination for everything, is unscientific. I am not attributing it to God out of ignorance, because I am keeping my ideas complete. I am saying that the Supernatural must exist and I choose to believe this is in the form of God."

Which is good, but we're debating here. Saying "it's just what I believe" is not a point to your side, it's conceeding. I'm not saying "we don't understand" is an explaination. I'm saying there is no explaination. At this point it's unknowable as far as I'm concerned. Theorizing is fine. Theorizing, or believing that this proves god to you is fine. Stating it as a fact like you've been doing is what I say is unscientific.

"So you are saying the laws of physics can turn on and off whenever they feel like it? This idea would have to break the conservation of energy (we need more matter for the universe to recollapse) and the second law of thermodynamics. (entropy never decreases)"

Er, no, not when they feel like it, only when confined in a singularity of infinate mass... Your article that hawking bases his beginning of time-ness on is based on this idea. He even says this in the article. It's because of the infinite density, I believe, that the laws break down. To be honest I don't completely understand why, although I've heard many scientists speak of it. Complex stuff. Gets very mathematical. The occilating universe thing only comes in before and after the singularity part, which is what you're disagreeing with.

"Isn't a lens a fairly complex thing to just develop at random? I really don't know much about micro-evolution so I don't know what's possible."

Think of it in evolutionary steps. Pit. Pit with edge. Pit with bigger edge. Pit with film over. Pit with thicker film. Pit with shaped film... becoming more and more lens-like. It seems like a lot... but think of dog breeds. In mere hundreds of years, dogs have gone from wolves to great danes and chihuahuas. Pressure to change on population can do a lot to genetics. Don't underestimate mutations.

"As I said, an entropy decrease + energy increase would be required for this oscillating universe to be correct."

Entropy doesn't factor in with the oscillating universe theory. It's the mass of the universe, which (and this is where the theory goes wrong) doesn't seem to be enough to slow, stop, and revese the expansion of the universe as the theory states. Although, we really don't have the technology to be sure the universe doesn't have enough mass, in my opinion, so I continue to believe it despite that. None of the other theories are as believable.