What? I fail to see any reason to your response. Isn't the question whether or not science and Christians belief "describe the real world" - whatever that means? The bible clearly describes the real world. What evidence do you have to the contrary since you're making this claim? Are saying because a few people misuse Christianity that means the whole of Christianity does not subcribe to the real world? That's silly. For look at that clown that shot all those children in that school in America last week. Does that mean that all American kids are gun wielding muderous baby killers? 

It describes the real world, as in it describes what christians believe, but outside of that, it doesn't have any scientific value at all.

Or do you think burying a dead bird is a cure for lepra? Or the flooding really occured? Or that every animal of the world fits on a boat? Do you think these stories describe the real world?

you can't be serious.  So becuase Science doesn't have all the answers, you HAVE to apply faith?  I don't know precisely what you were doing on october 5th of this year, but if you claimed you were out saving a class of orphans from a burning bus, I'd have to believe you?  

You cannot tell me you don't see the glaring flaw in that logic.  

and who's to say it's not more intelligent to follow the leap of faith that intelligent, scientific minds have proposed to us, and that is the big bang?  Why does it have to be GOD that got us here, or more specifically your god?  Science knows the 'big bang' is a theory, that's why they call it the big bang theory, but that doesn't mean they don't have REASON to belive in it.  The most intelligent minds of the last century didn't just go "Well we need a starting point, so...we exploded from nothing!" A lot of creationists like to simplify the Big Bang Theory as such as an attempt to disparge science, but it's the strawman fallacy.  the difference between that macro and the one disparging religion is that the one disparging religion is far more acccurate.  there's no science behind god, no evidence pointing towards a divine creator;  God IS the placeholder the religious put there that the scientific community isn't foolish enough to resort to. 

Not knowing doesn't make you a lesser man.  Sometimes it's okay to accept that "I don't know for sure" where the universe came from, and it's much more intelligent and humble than making something up to fill in the blank and killing people for not believing you, or otherwise judging them as fools.  

Dude, no need to get your panties in a knot - I accept the Big Bang Theory. I have absolutely no quarrels with Science. I simply believe, logically, that Science points to a Creator. Again I say Wii Us don't just fall out of the sky nor nor does water, ...well , you know what I mean. If everything that is complex and perfect, e.g. a computer, has a creator, isn't it then logical to think that nature or humans which are so complex and pefect, must also have a Creator?

Moreover created things, e.g. machines or a computer, can only do what their creator designed them to do. If it doesn't do what is was created to do then there is some sort of abnomality (or RROD). Nature and Humans are the same way, in that they were created to do only certain things. That's why cars don't have wings and neither do humans. Planes do and so do birds, because they were CREATED that way - is that not logical? 

And by the way, I don't know for sure that there is a God, however, I have FAITH (evidence and substance) that there is a God. And by the way, you should stop reducing your arguments agaisnt Religion/Christianity to a rant about Homosexuality and Murder, because it just makes you into the same type of fanatical nut that you're fighting against. Try quoting the bible back a Religious zealots - that's what Jesus did

But that's it, Science does not lead to a creator, there is no evidence and I don't see how you could possibly argue that point.  Just becuase life is complex doesn't mean it had to be created.  Mountains are not life, yet they required millions of years of very specific circumstances to get where they are.  Just becuase something is awe inspiring doesn't mean it has to be the work of something greater.  Just becuase something is a one in a billion chance doesn't mean a divine creator cheated to make it happen; in a universe as vast as it is, with too numerous interactions happening every second, you really think that somewhere soemthing couldn't possibly happen?  

You're applying something where it doesn't need to be applied.  You're using a variation of the watchmaker gambit, and it's been debunked plenty of times.  

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

What it basically says is that the analogy is just that: an analogy.  It is not proof of anything, it's just an analogy.  You're taking it as proof, and that is pretty illogical.   

No, you don't have to apply faith at all. Science theorizes on how the universe formed. It doesn't attempt to explain why it formed, or what happened before it formed (if such a time even existed). There's a big difference between science and religion here. When encountered with a question that's currently impossible to know (for example: why the universe exists), science doesn't make any blind guesses just for the sake of having an answer. Science admits it doesn't have the answer and works towards finding an answer. Science doesn't even claim that there is no God (well, for certain Gods, it does). It makes no claims on the matter whatsoever. So where is the faith?

On the other hand, certain religions make all types of assumptions about why the universe was formed, what/who existed before the universe formed, the existence of a creator, etc. Not only does it assume a creator, but it also assumes very specific traits for that creator. Clearly, making assumptions requires a lot more faith than admitting that the answer currently isn't available.

But you still haven't responded to this:

It's one thing to believe in a creator. But what leads you to believing in a single (rather than multiple), invisible, omnipotent, omnibeloved, omnipresent, omniscient, spaceless, timeless, absolute, and perfect creator? 

Nothing, you can see happended by chance. The whole of creation fits together to perfectly to be by chance, for even if Big Bang was by chance, that would also have to mean that everything after were also by chance. And that is higly rediculous. So Big Bang made you have 2 legs instead of 9? Why do women always only have two breasts - is that by chance or by design? Why is water clear, and not pink - is that by chance as well?

Or, are you assuming that Big Bang happened by chance, but everything after that is not by chance or not randum?

The more you continue, the more I realise how flawed Sciece really is I mean seriously, Science tries to prove everything, the problem with that is it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove everything. At some point you must apply FAITH and plain old fashioned belief = that's part of what I mean by Science pointing to a Creator. Science proves that everything is by design and not radom.

To answer your question is simple - I believe in one god because the written source of my belief in a Creator aka the Bible, says there is only one God. But practically, the other two major religions (Jews and Muslims) also believe in one God.

You just ignored a giant piece of text. Here, I'll post it again:

"No, you don't have to apply faith at all. Science theorizes on how the universe formed. It doesn't attempt to explain why it formed, or what happened before it formed (if such a time even existed). There's a big difference between science and religion here. When encountered with a question that's currently impossible to know (for example: why the universe exists), science doesn't make any blind guesses just for the sake of having an answer. Science admits it doesn't have the answer and works towards finding an answer. Science doesn't even claim that there is no God (well, for certain Gods, it does). It makes no claims on the matter whatsoever. So where is the faith?

On the other hand, certain religions make all types of assumptions about why the universe was formed, what/who existed before the universe formed, the existence of a creator, etc. Not only does it assume a creator, but it also assumes very specific traits for that creator. Clearly, making assumptions requires a lot more faith than admitting that the answer currently isn't available."

As for your answer, I will respond with two questions. Firstly, what makes the Bible accurate? Secondly, what do other religions have to do with validating your beliefs? If you're a Christian, then you don't agree with their texts to begin with, so how do they support your claim? Moreover, what does being "major" have to do with being correct? Popularity is not an indicator of accuracy.

hun, please go back to school.  There are so many problems with what you posted (and what you posted in reaction to Jay) that I honestly can't continue this 'debate' with you.  Pretty much your entire platform is that you 'believe' that you 'must' have 'faith' in order to understand the universe, while conveniently disregarding everything that anyone has said to the contrary. 

If you're content being ignorant, that's fine, just do the world a favor and keep that attitude far away from schools and government.  And please, do go back to school, join a debate club or something, you have a long way to go before your 'opinion' can be taken seriously.  

I really hate having to resort to ad hominem, but I might as well be arguing with a street-corner prophet.  You're so entrenched in your beliefs that you dismiss all evidence to the contrary and won't even accept that your assertion concerning the validity and purpose of scientific advancement is just plain wrong. you are not worth my time or the time of anyone else in this thread.  

The saddest part?  I know that you are going to find a way to turn this into a victory, or that I gave up, or that I'm wrong becuase my convictions weren't pure and strong.   the truth is that there comes a time when I would be making better use of my time doing virtually anything else, and it's time to move on. 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I don't argue with religious folks.