There are many outstanding scientific theories that would not conflict with the Bible's definition of "Faith." The scriptures clearly define faith as "The absolute expectation Gr., "hypostasis" of what people hope for. The convincing evidence of what's real even though unseen." Obviously a far cry from many who choose to define faith as simple "Blind Credulity," I believe therefore I am. A conclusion based on the evidence at hand, sounds scientific to me.
for any given question, you go with what the evidence shows. creationists have no argument other than "magic caused it". and that isnt an argument. so there is no creationist vs evolution argument, because they have no real position to examine. there is no "burden of proof". you just accept the facts and move on. there is no argument. what is happening here is that lunatics have faith. that is all. it has nothing to do with evolution or science. lunatics have faith and they hate reality, that is all.
It falls on everybody. Evolution is a scientific principal. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming while it is completely non-existent for creationism. The blind and absolute faith in creation is overwhelming for the pious while it is completely non-existent for the scientific. It is vitally important for one to understand that creationism does not constitute creationology.
Do you not see the inherent contradiction there? "What people hope for" does not constitute "convincing evidence of what is real".
The sun is in the sky: A scientific fact. I hope the sun comes up tomorrow: Faith in a scientific fact. Are you a betting man?
logical syllogism: p1: the sun has risen every morning for as long as we can tell p2: there is a morning scheduled to happen tomorrow, not unlike the other mornings c: the sun will rise tomorrow the above is not really "faith-based" logic. you are using the word "faith" in a context that is not relevant to religion. you are using faith in a way that could also be called "strong inductive reasoning". the sort of faith that causes folks to oppose scientific realities like evolution is not based on inductive reasoning.
Why is my Biblical point of view predicated on organized religions definition? My argument, one often has little to do with the other. I took the time to extract my definition from reference in actual existence, the Bible. Also that strong scientific fact has little to do with dogma of any kind. So my original question for all those listening the first time. How does Scientific fact contradict the Bible? For example?
you are apparently one of these folks that opposes "religion" on the grounds that you are a strict adherent to the bible. congrats. i dont understand your point. magic ghosts and rising from the dead and wizards and everything? have you ever actually opened the bible? it really inst much like a science textbook.
Uhh, . . . the sun is not in the sky. The sun is behind the sky--far, far behind it. I would say that is an valid expectation based on observation. Flabengal's kind of faith would be to say that he has a conviction that God makes the sun rise each day.