You can be both a scientifically rational person and a christian

Taking statements out of context seems to be a key component to your arguments. First I said and I quote "Your arrogance is astounding. In fact it maybe the only infinite thing we can observe in our universe." Note I did not say arrogance in a general sense but specifically yours. This has nothing to do with what you do or do not know about science and is purely based on the fact that you are on a website for civil debate and openly admit that you are unwilling to take any argument made against you seriously and instead fill the page by typing out strange noises and groans. In fact, based on your statement "I only read your first two sentences to realize that I didn't need to read anything else as I am not lost, you are." I and the audience can assume that you didn't even put forth the effort to consider my argument. Let me remind you of a few things in a more concise way so that you don't have to bore yourself by reading over the entire argument and you can continue to skim over any of the parts you don't like. First the universe is finite whether you like it or not. Currently the measured radius is about 46.5 billion light years and the current estimate of the expansion rate is 68 km/sec. The universe is very large but not infinite. To have a beginning of the universe aka the big bang the universe has to be finite. Second I am well aware of the super-bug and I don't need to be retaught on it. However, I have already accepted this and prove that it has no effect on my argument. Why, because adaptation and bio-genesis are two different theories. I myself stated "Charles Darwin was a brilliant man and yet he is widely misunderstood. First I'll toss you a bone and admit fully that he never claimed that man came from apes, this is complete rumor, however his theory of evolution is not one theory but two combined together. We are all well educated on the ideas of his original theory, "micro-evolution" and it is (this is key) irrefutable. We see it everyday and in all life and it explains to us what we know as adaptation. However, this does not complete Bio-genesis as his second theory claims it might." When I say evolution, understand that I'm not talking about adaptation but only bio-genesis. I'm assuming that your pointing this out because of my comment on the fossil record. Well I'm glad you brought it up. Let me ask you this, how many stages were there between the first "sea creatures" and the first birds. Nobody knows. The entire idea that all of life could come from a single organism is entirely based on evolutionist bio-genesis being true. In fact no matter how far we look back in the fossil record we have all of the diversity of life the entire time. What do we see from that, well quite simply while everything is evolving nothing is evolving into something else. A cat is a cat whether it be a lion or a tabby. Both are very different and adaptation shows us why but no matter how different they may become they are both still cats. Evolution presents the idea that if we give it enough time the cat might eventually turn into a bird or that a fish could turn into a dog. Along with my argument on DNA you would also need to address that no matter how far you look back there is no sign of the "missing link" between any animals. In simple terms despite large-time there is no proof of your original prime organism that became both a dog and a fish or whatever. You can trace back any animal only to the original of that animal and there is no connection of the originals but because science assumes evolutionist bio-genesis to be true they keep searching because there "has to be" even though the reason there would have to be hasn't been proved. Third, I'll give you a recap of what I really said about the Atheists god. "Now I don't assume to say that you secretly believe in another religion or anything so elementary, but that atheism is itself a religion devoted to a god of nothingness and specifically randomness.(This part is key) This is a figure of speech of course since something cannot be nothing, yet it is fully necessary to be an atheist due to the fact that in your pursuit to deny all that would be called god you admit that the entire universe as we know it and everything in that universe has to be created by nothing using only random process. Why? If anything natural had any sign of intrinsic design, that is, it was not made possible by other natural forces but in fact just was, it would be proof of a designer which means, by rule of default you will not only need to explain to me the exact process by which everything in the universe came to be but also how it formed into what it is today down to the origin of everything and all explanations not only need to conform to your own laws of science but also (need to) have reasonable (mathematical) probabilities." Of course atheists don't believe in a god that's what a-theist means. Theist being someone who believes in god and a- meaning opposite of. Therefore you are literally the opposite of someone that believes in god. However, that does not stop me from taking what you believe and assigning a god to it as purely a figure of speech to help communicate my point. It's a rhetorical device that just happens to fit rather well. Forth, I'll admit I was not as precise as I should have been when I said everything must be assumed false. Allow me to clarify, Science if it is to work at all needs to be willing to question everything and therefore everything that is already thought to be known must be tested and proved before it is considered correct which is why we have mathematical proofs. Even that which has been "tested and proved" must be questioned and why? because people make mistakes and so you test and prove it in other ways. If you find a test that doesn't work you need to find out why. Its the tests that don't work that advance science, not just the ones that do. Not to mention any student knows that while science relies heavily on math, mathematics and science are two different fields. Also if your thinking you can prove the existence of infinity within our universe because we have the mathematical concept of infinity your just wrong. Math is not physical it can only help explain the physical. Fifth, do I believe that God created the universe, absolutely. Do I know how he did it, hardly. I am not so arrogant to assume I have all the answers however for me there is enough evidence to believe it didn't happen by accident. I will fully admit there are things that I do not know. Even so this is all besides the point. Again I don't need to prove that my God exists or that the Bible is authentic. Based on the topic of the debate, all I need to do is show that science has not disproved the bible and therefore a Christian can take both, what the data says happened and what the bible says happened seriously. Even if you do find something that doesn't seem to add up, which you haven't, as long as there are enough things that do it would be irrational to throw out the entire thing so as far as this topic goes I don't even need to prove all of it. All I need to do is show that there is more on my side than against it. Just a special something for you, I see you graduated from an art institute. You don't state your degree however I will congratulate you on it anyway, after all any level of higher education is an accomplishment worth acknowledgement and disagreements aside I do mean this. Nevertheless because it was an art institute I assume you are familiar with at least a few different media types. I draw using soft pastels, charcoals, ink and graphite myself and specialize in landscape all purely as hobby but I have to ask, if you are an artist can you honestly believe that if you dish out enough media into a bag with a piece of paper/canvas and swish it around long enough you'll be able by random process to create anything beautiful or meaningful. Thinking back on the hours of pain staking effort I put into my best pieces I just can't rationalize it. Randomness creates more randomness, and order and structure cannot be created by randomness.