But while there is plenty of Hebrew-Christian evidence for faith; evidence for faith! well that about sums up the intellectual fortitude of the theists.
I think it is ironic that you are employing the products of scientific achievement to convey your disdain for the "religion of science."
Come on my atheist friends, I still await the answer to the simple question. Why is it called scientific theory and not scientific fact ? So far all I have seen is some pathetic ad hominem from the scholars. I don't really expect anyone to answer it truthfully because the very answer is against all you stand for in your atheist religion.
How is placing faith in a scientist's beliefs any different ? If a theory is fact then why is it called scientific theory and not scientific fact. Until it is tested and found 100% true, then it can be called the truth, till that happens it is nothing more than an assumption that science wants you to place faith in.
There are two types of people in the world. The first believe the nearly infinite universe (indeed, we don't even know if the universe has an end) was created by an incomprehensibly gigantic explosion. The second believe that all things were created by a God.
What if you're like me and you believe that the incomprehensibly gigantic explosion was created by a God as part of the process? I mean, if you're going to make bread, you use flour, right? Eve was created from a rib. Wine was made from water. Lots of fishes and loaves were made from a few fishes and loaves. There are a many examples where God starts with something natural to make a miracle. Why can't the big bang and evolution be part of the process of creation? SM
This single fact has eluded so many people , and will continue to elude many more in the future. Some simply cannot grasp this concept, no matter how you try to explain it to them.