You can be both a scientifically rational person and a christian

I must apologize to any hoping for a rational and meaningful debate as my opponent seems lost. You see in a debate one person issues a statement and then their opponent then refutes that assertion using logic and fact and while I know that the audience knows this I say this more for the benefit of my opponent. Just to clarify, the assertion that is to be challenged is not Gods existence and is not the Bibles authenticity both of which I would argue for if it was crucial to the debate. Likewise, this is not a dispute over what it means to be a Christian. This debate as defined by its topic is simply can a Christian believe what science has revealed and believe what the bible says. Even if you think that Christianity is fictional you can still debate this topic. It would be the same as asking if any book fact or fiction contained only scientifically evidenced ideas. I will not try to "convert" you, as you are trying to bait me into because it would be useless to try. No matter what I say or what you say at the end of these 5 rounds I will still be a Christian and you will still be an atheist. There is no point in trying to convince you that my God exists. Instead lets turn this around. I will claim that not only can modern science coexist with the Bible and therefore my God but also that it vehemently disagrees with your god. That's right 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 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 have reasonable probabilities. Continuing the analogy, if you have a "god" then where is your proof. You'll say science is my proof, but science by pretense cannot prove or disprove anything but can only state what is likely happening or will happen. Everything must be questioned and everything must be assumed to be false, this is the driving force behind science. When we have tested something so many times and in many different ways and it still yields the same result we then assume it is true but even then the truth is only how you interpret the data. In fact your "holy" scripture becomes the collection of data and theories and while these newest discoveries are still being investigated many different scientists can and will interpret the "scripture" differently and even if it is well known people will still debate what it really means for centuries choosing to pick only the "verses" that support their own ideas and ignoring the rest. We say because the bible says so, you say because the data says so. We say in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. You say in the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded. We say that god made all life. You say that all life came by completely random chance. You insist I can't reference the work of any creationist, and why, because they refuse to argue for themselves. That's just absurd. These are scientists. Their entire line of work depends on them submitting their findings to peer reviewed journals. Every last one of them argues for their faith with their very livelihood. Despite this I will reference for you one of your own "prophets". 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 and his original theory, "micro-evolution" and it is 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. To explain: Science is defined by the idea that nothing is ever fully proved true and must be tested and tried in every way and if it can withstand whatever we can throw at it we assume that our theory was correct and use that insight to investigate further. Pseudo-science however takes the opposite stance, it makes a statement and then argues that it is true and if it is opposed by reason or evidence it must then alter the statement so that it is true again. After all alterations are made you then arrive at the truth of that matter and if you cannot alter it to all conditions then the assumption is either we don't have enough data or it is wrong. Pseudo-science though often used in a derogatory way, is not inherently a faulty way of thinking. After all many of the original arguments that were made by Freud were often labeled as pseudo-science but while they are now largely refuted by thorough scientific analysis, those same ideas became the launch pad for much of psychology. Darwin similarly considered the origin of life and pseudo-scientifically theorized that natural selection and adaptation over time can create all life from a single organism. Some will laugh and say evolution isn't Pseudo-science and dismiss this completely but the fact it science by nature only pertains to what we can physically observe and measure. We can do neither as far as the origin of life and therefore is by definition pseudo-science. Now we are privileged to far more information than Darwin was and through our advances in bio-technology and particularly biochemistry we find that due to the astonishing complexity of every cell and the mind blowing capabilities of the DNA code it is unreasonable to believe that life formed by accident. That statement is not an opinion. When I say that it is unreasonable I truly mean, the idea that DNA, by completely random means, arranged itself into a code so complex that computer scientists dream of mimicking it and can't has such an astronomically low mathematical probability that the very idea is by mathematical definition absurd. Many scientists agree with this and instead argue that the proteins that make DNA if given enough time could possibly form in the right environment and therefore if these proteins could be made then they could come together in the right sequence, by chance and then DNA could form and life would be possible. However modern science again refutes this possibility as the conditions on the Earth needed for this to be remotely possible were vastly different from those when the origin of life was supposedly dated to or any other time for that matter. The fact that the isomers of the amino acids needed to build these proteins would be just as abundant is also troubling considering they are lethal poisons. If randomness is the sole process then you would need to take the already unthinkably low probability and cut it in half. Sidney Altman addressed this issue and won a Nobel prize for proposing that if RNA could form then in turn the RNA could direct the manufacturing of the proteins and so on. However for much the same reason his theories are considered, but deemed highly unlikely because of the environment that the RNA would need to endure. Part of the problem that each of these ideas face is that biochemistry shows us that both the proteins and the DNA needed to exist together and remain separated from each other. You see in the cell we all know that you have the nucleus and inside you have the DNA and that DNA is then copied and sent outside the nucleus as RNA and that RNA is then translated and the code written on it is read by a protein and that protein follows those instructions to make the other types of proteins your body needs to survive. However why do you need RNA why not just copy straight from the original, after all the less copies you have the less likely a mistake is bound to happen. Its because the building materials you need to make the proteins destroy DNA. So in order for proteins to form DNA has to have its protective membrane, the nucleus, but to make the nucleus you need the proteins. Due to this predicament, evolution, while it can explain adaptation cannot account for the origin of life and even many secular scientists say that ascribing any of this to randomness is far less reasonable than ascribing it to a designer. In response the famous phrase "life finds a way" was coined but wait, that sounds a lot like faith. Never the less you obviously have the answer since you are the sum of wisdom so please enlighten me, explain to me the things that even noble laureates could not or admit you don't know and therefore tell us that as far as the origin of life goes a Christian can take both science and the Bible seriously.