I might say that it's a warm day and that is my subjective opinion about a temperature that can be objectively verified, but someone else might say it is cool in their opinion. So each of the opinions are subjective evidence.
Evidence of what? That one needs a sweater and the other doesn't? This seems to be the basis of the god belief in many - subjective experience. Just as the warm person has no need for a sweater, the atheist has no need for a god belief.
And if you can't do that [obtain sufficient evidence to justify belief] with God we either delay belief or say that the lack of objective evidence shows there is no God or we believe anyway on the grounds that God is possible and has subjective evidence for us that we believe.
That pretty well sums up the three logical possibilities available - say gods exist based on the available evidence, say they don't based on the same evidence, or say neither.
why should my beliefs worry you
Your beliefs don't worry me.
So me having what I consider good reason to believe in my God does not bother you also I presume even if you don't like my evidence or how I came to the conclusions I did.
Correct. Why would I mind? Your god belief doesn't impact my life except to serve as a topic of discussion on RF, which is a positive impact, since I enjoy this activity.
I don't see the Bible creation story as denying evolution altogether however.
Why do you think that matters to the discussion? The biblical and scientific narratives overlap in some places and are contradictory (mutually exclusive) in others. It seems you prefer to focus on the former, but it's the latter that rules out the god of Abraham.
I don't think that discrediting the Bible creation story is the way to show that the Biblical God does not exist.
I could have predicted that. I also predict that you cannot argue that position or rebut my original argument that the existing evidence for evolution rules that god out even if the theory were ever falsified. I understand that you are unwilling and unprepared to look at that argument dispassionately and open-mindedly, evaluate it for soundness, and successfully rebut it if it contains an error of fact or reasoning, but hopefully you understand that that means that your opinion above has no value except to you and others trying to defend biblical creationism.
Faith in the truth and existence of things that we aren't 100% certain about is just part of what humans do
I don't have any known unjustified beliefs. One can learn to think critically at all times, which prevents accumulating faith-based (unsound) beliefs. I rank it among the most valuable things I have learned to do. One doesn't need 100% certainty to act, but that doesn't make one's beliefs or choices unjustified. My car has started the last several hundred times it was tested, but in the past, it sometimes hasn't. I turn the key expecting it likely to start, but it doesn't. The battery is dead. Do you think unjustified belief (religious-type faith) was part of that? I say religious-type faith because that is what I mean by unjustified belief. As you know, some use the word faith to mean justified belief as well, such as my belief that the car would probably start, but I never do for obvious reasons, the same reason I wouldn't call two daughters Faith.
Ambiguity like that can lead to an equivocation fallacy, which occurs when two different meanings of a word are used interchangeably, as when one is told that banks are a good place to keep money, and that rivers have banks. I think that's what you're doing with the word faith when you imply we all have some - conflating justified and unjustified belief.
It's not that easy for chemicals to come together and form the things that need to be formed for life and evolution to begin and continue.
The factors required for life to arise and evolve coming together on some planet or moon occur on far fewer than 10% of these natural satellites, but our own solar system has several candidate worlds for life past, present, and future. Mars looks like it had life, but if so, probably never got past the unicellular stage. Why? It wasn't massive enough to contain a hot core long enough for multicellular life to evolve, which meant that it lost its magnetic field, its oceans, and its atmosphere. Enceladus and Europa may have subsurface life in ice-encrusted oceans now, and Titan may support life when it warms in the future as the sun heats and expands.
Life forming is the first hurdle. Evolving to phototrophs and multicellular animals that reduce oxygen is another, evolving consciousness and intellect (language, civilization, and technology) another, and surviving that another.
The story of how that happened on earth is fascinating. Mars-sized Theia impacted the proto-earth at just the right angle to give it the mass and iron content necessary to sustain a magnetic field for billions of years, and to give the resulting earth a large, single satellite needed to stabilize its axial tilt and thus climate by latitude (we don't want the poles pointing toward the sun some of the time). Jupiter wandered and set off the late heavy asteroidal bombardment, which delivered oceans and volatiles to the inner solar system including earth.
You cannot say where I went wrong if indeed what I post is subjective evidence for God to me. You can say that it is not good evidence for you.
Wrong in this context means in violation of the rules of critical thought. If those aren't your rules, you won't find conclusions they reject wrong for yourself, but if so, you have a private method of connecting evidence to conclusions that the academic community considers unjustified.
"More rational belief" sounds like a subjective thing in this case.
But it's not. The rules of proper reasoning are not subjective. Those who bring their own ways of processing information to the matter, arrive at different conclusions, and say that they are supported by that process are being subjective.
