You have some good points @yimmye. If I did enough research, I am sure I could come up with another counter argument, but I'm getting a bit tired of this debate, and being accused of not listening, being stupid, etc. I am going on holiday today, so goodbye, friend!

Those chemicals were arranged and formed in the lab by an intelligent creator, the scientist. We have never observed an instance of abiogenesis occur, anywhere.
@kamatsu, welcome to this comment thread! The cosmic background microwave radiation actually poses some major problems to the evolutionary model. How did it get so uniformly distributed, when bulges are required to supposedly create stars? Creationary models made by Dr. Russel Humphreys and R. V. Gentry which use uniform distribution can account for the cosmic background microwave radiation, in the context of a young world.
I am not against science, I love learning and exploring our world! I am against the act of labelling hypothetical models as irrefutably true, which is what many people say of evolution.

Evolution also doesn't fully explain the mechanism by which life can evolve from non-life. The natural law of biogenesis, which is observable, testable, repeatable, and predictable, states that animals and other life forms can only come from parent life forms, not non-living objects. Abiogenesis (the first life) does not correspond to this scientific law. By definition, it is a SUPERnatural process.
God did not 'come' from anywhere; He is outside His creation, including space and time. He has no beginning or end, because He created the physics behind time.
Surely if information can come from no information, which is an an integral assumption of the evolutionary theory, you can offer some examples of it observably happening in the present?

Science is not the opposite of religion. The Bible and science intertwine beautifully, and many scientific discoveries affirm the truth in the Bible. Evolutionism is anti-creationism, but it is just another world view used to explain unobservable past events, so it cannot be considered scientific. No human can know the absolute truth (or else they would be omniscient), so they use science to try and explain how the universe works in the present. No amount of science or research can prove what truly happened in the past, so we must have some world view full of assumptions to explain how we got here. The only valid options boil down to: either we were created by a supernatural entity (God), or we originated by pure chance (which also requires events that do not comply with well-observed scientific and natural laws). To call old-age evolution a scientific theory is detrimental to science.

Yeah, we should be searching for truth in all areas and studies. My "benefit of the doubt" was just a suggestion, not an imperative.

It is within his power, certainly. But God does not do things that way. He has given us freedom and the ability to make our own choices, but He will not allow any sin to enter heaven, so only those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour will have their sins covered and be allowed into heaven. He has given visions and revelations to many people throughout history, and some of those stories are recorded in the Bible. I agree that the most concrete evidence for His existence would be for Him to reveal Himself to you. The great thing about God is that He loves you, and wants to have a personal relationship with you, and all people. Why don't you give Him the benefit of the doubt, and ask him to show you He is real? I believe He will astound you.

I cannot disporve that point, because at this stage we only have guesses as to how the light arrived here. I can say, light years are a measure of distance, not a measure of time. A person thinking in terms of deep time would assume everything happens as they always have, but this cannot be true in some cases. The light somehow arrived here at the time of creation. What about the Big Bang theory, how did matter explode out from a single point of nothingness at speeds faster than the speed of light, to avoid collapsing back into a single black hole? That is not possible, as it disobeys well-observed natural scientific laws. You cannot explain how matter can travel faster than light, just as I cannot explain how the light arrived here in such a short time. Oh, what would you say is valid proof for God's existence?

We are arguing about different interpretations of observable facts which are based on different presuppositions. You say I am making a bold claim that God exists, but in my mind you are making a bold claim that God doesn't exist. This difference in world views is why we are in disagreement. I sadly think that no amount of arguing will convince you (or you convince me) that the opposite world view is true. About the distant starlight, it also creates a problem for evolutionary deep time. How did the cosmic microwave background radiation become so uniform in such a (relatively) short time? Creationists have created several models for how the distant starlight arrives to Earth in only 6000 years, just as Evolutionist scientists have several theories for the formation of: the universe, the chemical elements, the stars, planets and systems, the first life, etc.

God has been an active force in my life, even at this very moment. I have heard and witnessed many miracles, which have no natural explanation. Such as complete healing of cancer in one night.
You could say that the people before the Flood of Noah didn't see God have an active role in the time leading up to the Flood. But at that point, ALL humans were not faithful to God, except Noah and his family. I doubt we've reached that extreme yet in the present.

Give me some evidence that proves all the universe came into existence about 4.6 billion years ago, or that life can evolve from non-life. Lemme tell you, it won't be easy. By the way, scientific consensus DOES NOT determine truth. For instance, Ignaz Semmelweis theorised and successfully tested that the mortality rates in hospitals could be lowered immensely if doctors washed and cleaned equipment, etc, before operations. He was shunned and ignored. Thirty years later, Louis Pasteur, a Creationist scientist, made important discoveries about microorganisms. http://www.typesofbacteria.co.uk/how-when-were-bacteria-discovered.html

@yimmye Why do you think creationists don't do the same? There is plenty of evidence For creation and Against evolution, which is one of the reasons why it is an ongoing debate.
@third But with God, there is a source of ultimate truth. He is omniscient (He knows everything about our universe), so He can reveal to us (and we can believe with certainty) what is absolute truth. We can use this fundamental basis to logically deduce other truths. But with atheism, there are no absolute truths, which essentially means there is a possibility that you could be entirely wrong about everything you just said, right?

Scientific consensus does not determine truth, and neither does peer review. Many scientific journals have refused to publish or even look at scientific papers, simply because they were made by creationist scientists, regardless of the science inside the papers. All scientific discoveries rely on exploring ideas beyond the scientific consensus, sometimes even in direct opposition to the current theory.
I would argue the opposite to what you have said, and that all the evidence we have at our disposal at this time point towards the evolutionary big bang myth being flat out wrong about nearly everything. One such instance where it fails is for predicting the strength of magnetic fields around certain moons and planets in our solar system. http://ianjuby.org/our-young-solar-system-this-is-genesis-week-episode-23-season-2/

What do you mean by evolution?

Both world views, Creation and Evolution, rely on faith. And from various research, the Creation model fits the observable facts much better than the Evolutionary model.

Here's my longer comment. The contradictions in the Bible are not actually contradictory, if you understand the context they were written in (but I'll leave that topic for another day). Yes, I believe the Book of Genesis was literal history, and that the universe was created about 6000 years ago by God. I assume you believe in the Evolutionary/Humanist world view, that the universe appeared from nothing about 4.6 billion years ago. The problem with studying history before mankind is that it was never and can never be observed, tested, repeated, or predicted; we can only deal with the facts in the present. The facts do not change, but we can have different interpretations of how they may have originated. The only way to know the truth of what happened in the past is to have divine revelation, but this can of course be challenged by skeptics. The bottom line is, you were not there, so you cannot know with certainty what truly happened.

@smitty knows what's up.
As a quick response, how about human footprints in dinosaur tracks (near the Paluxy river)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaQqa90e9KQ
Or how "Physicist Wayne Spencer had been pointing out the problems that Jupiter’s moon, Io, presents to deep time because of the ridiculous amount of heat the moon is pumping out"? http://ianjuby.org/our-young-solar-system-this-is-genesis-week-episode-23-season-2/

Have you tried those watermelon lollipops? They taste great! I wouldn't be surprised if the cake tasted just as good.

Rational thought, evidence, and data are required, but peer review does not inherently make it scientific.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1516
"Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and Newton's Principia. Einstein's original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review."