Go look up the word science. Then realize that no creation origin is scientific because they employ no scientific methodology at all.
I dont understand why you say that.
Maybe we’ll do it this way, which part isnt scientific?
Well this fellow has a few interesting videos in which he replies to people who try to demonstrate God with science.
The part where you say that christian faith is very well reasoned and logical. I’m waiting for it. Explain the logic. Here’s some videos you might find entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHtxnIkzros
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_JatbIaY4w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNau_Cdll3w
Information is merely what our brain interpets as logical. Random patterns anywhere can be seen as information.
The irreducible complexity argument is one of sheer ignorance. Because something seems too complicated to have evolved the immediate conclusion is to say God did it. No attempt to find other possibilities is made.
Not taking sides here, but surely the “religious faith is incompatible with science” crowd are aware that many, many people with doctorates in scientific study are in fact adherents to some religion or another?
And many many scientists were raised religious. It’s very hard to fight your upbringing.
Google the scientific method and then think how it supports religion. Fun fact: it doesn’t.
As I’ve said before, in a different thread I believe, religion is faith, science is the scientific method. The scientific method doesn’t fit with religion and it makes no sense that part of the universe follows the scientific method and another part doesn’t.
Also, quoted from Merriam Webster’s,
Faith:
firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Ok, but their “upbringing” didn’t prevent them from studying and excelling in the disciplines of science, and their scientific education didn’t prevent them from having faith in whatever religion they choose to believe in. That is the point of this little thought experiment.
They just came up with some bizarre unscientific self rationalization like “science and religion don’t have to contradict each other,” which anyone with half a brain and no massive bias supporting religion could easily tell is wrong.
Technically speaking, science is about the natural and religion is about supernatural (that is, beyond the natural world). Science cannot delve into religion because religion (that is, the world religions and not something like the religion of football) is unfalsifiable (and, therefore, not science).
To me, that’s one of the weaknesses of religion because, once you leave our universe, anything goes. And nothing goes. God could either be exactly as described in the Bible, vastly different, or nonexistent outside our universe. God could be using science to advance His plan (“God spoke and bang! It happened!” or “God used evolution to create man”) or He’s not, or His plan is running counter to science, perhaps He isn’t a He at all.
Once you get into the realm of “anything goes” and “perhaps”, then, suddenly, you might as well be talking about the world of Harry Potter or Middle Earth for all the good it’ll do you to atheists like myself. I mean, once you get to that point, scientifically speaking, you might as well say that the Earth orbits the sun because it wants to. There’s no scientific evidence that it doesn’t yet there are truckloads of scientific evidence to the contrary (though, again, the Earth could simply sticks around because it wants to, not because it HAS to; there’s no evidence that says it can’t suddenly alter course and fly off into the next galaxy, though there’s no evidence that says that it can).
And, to me, once you get to that point, you’re mentally masturbating.
Sure, it’s fun and is a great way to spend an evening, but, ultimately, it’s not accomplishing much.
And it is precisely that kind of utter arrogance that leads not only to persecution but also to holier-than-thou bigotry that has run rampant through Christianity since it shot off from Judaism. > 
Dont give me a channel, give me a video please!
I just watched the first one, Ill watch the rest in a bit. I actually do like the Cosmological Argument.
Alot of things he says are true, some of them not.
But as far as important points are concerned, heres the deal.
All physical things really do require a cause to exist. Something has to change that energy and matter to create something else. But how did the matter get there? Matter can not be created or destroyed, so what happened. We know physical things have causes. (Bonus science fact: Based on the second law of thermodynamics, which says entropy [read randomness] increases, everything would have reached a state of equilibrium, which is one of the whys we know the universe hasn’t always existed) Whatever the beginning cause is, it must be extra-universal. He is right to say the Cosmological Argument is not an Argument for the Christian God, just something outside of the universe.
Information is not contingent upon our interpretation. The point is it intentionally conveys knowledge. DNA’s function is to store information to code proteins and Transcriptase reads and interprets that information.
Secondly, there are several theories which try to describe how something forms, but as mentioned earlier, they are not known to produce the effect in question. They unfortunately are again only hypotheses without tests.
Hm, blind faith in the face of contradictory evidence… sounds familiar, eh? 
Why, thank you for relieving me of my duty.
Here you’re assuming every religion even has the concept of sins. Buddhism, for example, does not, as far as I know.
As far as religions with sin go, ‘saving yourself’ through your actions is just another way of saying “hey, you’ve done bad stuff, but as long as you believe in our religion and do what it tells you to, you’ll be ok.”
In other words, christianity is in essence no different from other religions.
This in itself is unscientific. Science cannot prove or theorize on anything that happened before the big bang, because there is no way of knowing anything that happened then.
A theory is acceptable if it does not contradict any observations and makes as little assumptions as possible.
Intelligent design makes one big assumption that makes it a bad theory, scientifically: the existence of a god or some higher power or entity.
The “information” in DNA wasn’t formed simply by chance, it was formed by many, many consecutive occurrences of chance, the result of which in one way or another managed to persist. This is known as evolution.
I have not. Care to enlighten me?
Reason and logic in itself is still no scientific basis. Observations are essential to any good scientific theory.
You didn’t watch the entire video did you?
I think you’d first have to get a rational argument out of him first before you could get something that nigh-impossible.
This is like talking to a brick wall, so I’m done with this topic, but I will leave you one last question specifically about christianity: If god created everything in the universe and Jesus is god and can perform miracles (albeit not depicted as impressive as the former) why did he need to wreck the vagina of one random young girl that he himself created, merely to have a human body when he could have just cut to the chase?
“Irreducible complexity” is a term invented by creationists because, unfortunately, they don’t know how evolution happened. They look at the eyeball, for example, and suggest that, if any one of the mechanisms inside the eyeball were to be removed, the eye would no longer function.
Evolution is not a puzzle someone puts together. You don’t take a spare vocal cord here, a lymph node there, and many other thousands of parts to create a human being, nor do you take a lens here, some vitreous humor there, and so forth and create an eye like that.
It’s silly and has nothing to do with evolution.
Wow, this thread full of Christian flamebaiting, I don’t know why I bother to post this.
As for the original poster’s request, you want evidence that God exists? As a Christian, I can say that there is no proof that He does exist. If there was solid, 100% undeniable proof that He did, then it wouldn’t be faith now would it? So I don’t think that there ever will be proof.
Also, it is sad to see someone lose their faith. I’ll pray that you’ll find it again someday 
Yes, it is.
And you’re not helping the problem.
Who here lost their faith? My guess is most here just never had any.
The above (edit: jeffraven’s) post is one of the main reasons why I do not believe:
You do not need proof for god, because you have faith. The only reason you have faith is that you were taught, in one way or the other, to have faith.
From that we can logically conclude that faith is completely arbitrary.
Therefore, what reason is there behind your faith? What makes you think the things you have been taught are better or more correct than what, say, an atheist or a muslim have been taught?
In light of that, the correct thing to do is to deduce conclusions logically from observations, also known as science; no god or higher power or anything comes into play that way.
In conclusion, knowledge must come from science; religion comes from arbitrary teachings, and is therefore irrelevant.
Disclaimer edit: Please don’t get butthurt over this post, these are just my views. If you do not agree with them, either say why or don’t respond.
Maybe god really is just the original troll and has just been laughing his ass off for the last 2000 years instead of helping anyone.