[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Then you will have to define what you mean by "faith based people". I took it as all people of faith, ie, non atheists/agnostics. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

By “faith-based people” I meant people whose beliefs are based principally on the concept of faith, by which I mean holding certain beliefs as true despite no supporting evidence. Undoubtedly there is some overlap in “people of faith” but the distinction is an important one.

For instance, a person who believes they have spoken directly to God and so convinced of his existence is not faith-based. While they may not be able to reproduce such evidence they are basing their belief on evidence that is convincing to them. The question at that point is about evaluative rigor rather than faith.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

There is no hypocrisy. Any rational person would be offended by you attacking/insulting them for their faith. The same for deriding what you predict they would think/do, when you have no way of knowing what they would think, or how they would act, in a given situation.

As a rational person I disagree that questioning someone’s beliefs must automatically lead to offense; indeed, without this questioning progress would be much more difficult.

By your own reasoning since “any rational person would be offended” you have attempted to predict what every rational person would think or do. This is exactly what you claimed is impossible and offensive. Maybe you claim to be an exception.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I've already told you why I have no conflict between my faith and science.
You apparently don't believe it on the grounds that, for a person of faith that isn't possible. Hmm, I must be lying.

No, you have *stated* that you find no conflict between faith and science. You have shown examples where you accept conclusions based on evidence, but offered no clear examples of conclusions based on faith. The closest example I can come up with is your original claim that “…everything is the way God made it, often through his helper, Mother Nature.”

I take this to mean that you believe God is the origin of the universe. You have already stated that you have no problem with a bird having come about because of dinosaurs, so I will assume that you are willing to continue that chain back to the origin of the universe. At what point does God become the cause of an effect?

Obviously this cannot be at a point where science has an explanation based on hard evidence, otherwise there would by definition be a conflict between faith and science. Instead the point of faith must reside beyond the progress of science and retreat before it. Because of this science and faith *cannot* coexist without conflict.