You can be both a scientifically rational person and a christian

If you want to be an atheist you have every right. However that is true for being a Christian as well. This debate has nothing to do with what we believe or why, because belief itself, is something that you cannot determine for someone else with any amount of fact. It is entirely about whether that belief is justified. If you truly wanted to believe everything around us was an accident, I can only give you the reasons I don't buy into that. Again this debate is, can a Christian believe science not can you be a Christian. Christianity depends on belief and even if it's wrong I can still believe its true. It doesn't make it true and I will not claim that my belief validates anything. I am nothing, who cares who I am, but if I am to believe in Christ and believe in science they must be able to coexist. That is the debate. With that said am I justified in my claims? The answer is yes. The data, shows us that. However to be a Christian we must take the interpretations that you have formed based on that data and test them to see if they are true. The data has no opinion, scientists however do and to take their word for it would be to deny ourselves our right too personally believe. These are not excuses, they are rational, reasonable, beliefs. You will say that based on the data you believe such and such and I do the same, that doesn't matter. If I take the Bible and the data I have no issues. If I do please let me know and I will seek the answer for myself. Put another way you say that adaptation disproves Christianity because it changes what God originally made. The only way that works is by admitting that He made it. If that's true any Christian wouldn't have any issue with adaptation. If I design something to have the ability to change and adapt to it's surroundings, and it does so, am I suddenly not it's creator? Of course I am. The same would be true of God, again if he created it. To prove he didn't then becomes your burden of proof in trying to change my belief which science has been unable to do. This is quite a statement but I have already explained why it's true time and time again in this debate. Science is not truth, science can only lead us to it. It is a means, not an end, what you believe that end is depends on you alone. If you want to believe that everything is a product of randomness so be it but I cannot rationally justify that and therefore choose not to believe it. I do not invent excuses for my God. All I have done throughout this debate is tell you about the science, that you unjustly believe proves me wrong. To clarify this isn't about morals only evidence and justification. Even if the bible didn't exist all the data still would. Even so what you believe was on the other side of the big bang, bio-genesis, or whatever doesn't matter to the debate, I choose to say it was God and can justify my reasoning and therefore I am a scientifically educated, rational, Christian. Is Christianity based on faith, sure. All belief is based on faith, it doesn't matter if it's a religious belief or not. When I go to sleep I believe that I will wake up, even when there's a chance I won't but I have faith that I will, why, because I have for as long as I've been alive. That doesn't make it true. If you believe that the world was created from random process and fill in the gaps with statements like "life finds a way" it doesn't make it true but you have faith that it is. If you deny all faith you deny all belief, not only in religion but humanity, science, civilization, morality, and even yourself. You believe that the laws of science won't change tomorrow but can't prove it, there is no evidence that says they won't but because it's never happened before you have faith that they won't and that is your justification for your belief and it's true, yet because you cannot prove it you must have faith. Will they? I doubt it, but I won't dismiss the idea either, I just won't believe it. In fact, if you take the law of entropy seriously which states that everything in the universe has the tendency to move from an ordered state to a more chaotic one, biology has an issue. This law is true across every other science except evolutionist biology. Why the exception? After all, we are all made out of the same stuff. What makes life so special that our atoms and molecules decided not to behave way back when. Every living thing we find has what an engineer would call irreducible complexity meaning you can't take anything away from it or the system wouldn't work. Still evolutionist biology says that all these systems need to be a product of building each up, one step at a time. The problem with that should be obvious, dead animals don't evolve. You take any animal and you will find that there are biological functions unique to them that require multiple systems working simultaneously in order for that animal to survive. You take any of those away and say this one developed first, and then the next one, and the animal dies. They all have to be there the entire time and fully functional or else those genes can't be passed down. Despite this, you still claim evolution is the answer and will make excuses for it. Which again is fine, I just don't buy it. Even in single celled organisms we see this and so based on science and nothing else I can say confidently that I am justified in my beliefs and can be a scientifically rational Christian.