So you agree that God was the solution the church saw, and we later proved that other factors were behind?

The first thing I learned in astronomy was to never accept anything as true, how hard the evidence may be. We have some set definitions, like what wavelength different colors have, definitions in mathematics and so on, but when  it comes to our empirical hunt for knowledge, we cannot decide that some things are true, or even accept them as truths.

Ofcourse the periodic table is part of science, we still learn alot from the elements we have already found and we can never rule out that we might find new knowledge, therefore it will always be part of science.

And if you read what I wrote one more time, I never objected to God in any way. I said there is no need for a god to prove the things we have found with scientific method. This does not mean I rule out god, it just means it is one of the least likely explanations for things such as the Big Bang, since science has proven to be able to explain averything else without a god. And if we have had no need for a god factor for any of our scientific discoveres, w would we use the least likely factor in explaining the origin of everything?

"how did so much Uranium get here through fusion?"

I can't possibly know that, but my best guess is that earth just happened to be born close to where a supernovae had happened before.

"wouldn't most of the uranium that came from the supernovas alreay have decayed into Thorium?" / "would have had to have been at least twice the amount of Uranium on earth as there is today." Yes there was approxematley twice the amount, and yes that mostly decayed to thorium, but with thorium (Th234 the isotope that comes out of a U238 decay) having a half life of mere 24days (compared to the 4.5 billion years of U238) that has decayed just shortly after the uranium which produced it.

@OP

Most of your questions are valid, in some degree, from a scientific point of view. As you can see from the replies, some scientific theories can give you answers with more or less uncertainity.

The questions about what happened before the origin of the universe are very controversial in science because, at the current state of art, you can't answer them without a high degree of uncertainity.

However, all scientific theories work like this at the begining. When you collect more evidence to support your theory, the less uncertainity and the more it becomes accepted by the scientific community.

The reason why some scientists reject the hypothesis of God is in not because they are gnostic atheists, it's because this hypothesis lacks evidence from a scientific point of view.

If you assume a previously selected answer to be correct when all answers fail to meet scientific criteria (including your selected answer), you are commiting a confirmation bias. If you want to prove that the universe was created by God, you don't need to prove that all the other alternative hypothesis are wrong, since this will never prove that your hypothesis is correct, you just need to prove that your hypothesis is right. 

The answer I would give to your questions is that we (humanity) don't know for sure, but some people are coming up with some interesting hypothesis supported by evidence.

If you want to belive in God just because it seems like the more reasonable hypothesis for you, that's fine. Science is not about searching for an ultimate truth, it's about searching for an explanation that is coherent with the evidence using the little information that we can gather.

Ps: It's normal to think that scientists just make things up when you don't know all the theoric framework and evidence that support their affirmations. In most cases, it's a good thing to be skeptic even to science. Just don't be a lazy skeptic who calls bs to everything you don't understand.

thats the million dollar question ryan..
and your not gonna get a satisfing reply in this lifetime

Certainly.

But you do have to admit that there are holes in the theory.

Each year the earth is getting farther and farther away from the sun.  3.6B years ago when the first lifeform suposidly formed, earth would have been much closer to the sun, and too hot to sustain any life. 

Likewise, earth's rotational spin is slowing down, which means that it must have been faster years ago.  If you do the math back to 3.6B years ago, earth would have been spinning so rapidly that we would have day and night change within seven hours, and it would have increased the magnetic field of earth by astronomical perportions (which in turn would make earths climate much hotter, and unsustainable to life).

Also, the moon is getting further away form the earth which means that 3.6 B years ago, it would have hovered mere miles above our atmosphere, and caused massive tidle waves.  Of coarse scientist don't believe we have had our moon forever, but that is another discussion.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun.html#.VATJjfldWzM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_rotation

These are just a few example of problems with the theory, there are more that I just don't have time to add right now.

Of course there are holes in the theory, why do you think there is research? Because we do not have a unified complete theory that can describe everything yet!

I'm not going to research into those claims, your last ones were already false, but even if those claims are true, what does it prove? 

What is the point you want to show? No one claims to know the answer to every secret in the universe, that's why humans do research! How is this giving any contribution to the question whether there's a god or not? 

Just stating what is clear anyway (that not everything can be explained yet) is in no way a valid hint towards some religous belief. I really don't get what you are trying to say by this.

Therefore, if we are going to postulate extra-unviversial entities and assign them human-like characteristics of "intention" towards "creation" (ie, in as much as fire "intended to create" ash), the next logical conclusion is that it is more likely the universe was "created" by a rock, seeing as how there are several orders of magnitudes more rocks in the universe than there are humans. Seems pretty case closed to me. The big bang came form a random rock. Any more questions or can we close up the thread? 

I don't think it works like that. When your average Joe hears "Most people will be tormented in Hell. You probably wil, too.", that's not going to comfort them.

insert obligatory your mom joke here