What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.
"There are problems with faith-based belief??"
That has to be the most arrogant statement you've made so far, and it's also demonstrably false.
Faith-based belief is by definition based on faith, not evidence or science. What "problems" do you have with someone else's faith?
It's neither an arrogant statement or an innacurate one. It's simply the case that faith based beliefs are problematic. You only have to look at the contradictions between faiths, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc, etc, to see the problems with faith as a means of determining truth.
Nice non-answer. I'll ask again: What "problems" do you have with other people's faith?
It's not that I gave a 'non answer' but that my answer was not understood.
The issue is not with what is wrong with someones faith, which may bring comfort, a sense of community, a sense of meaning, but the efficacy of faith as a means of sorting fact from fiction. The history of faith with its countless contradictory beliefs, religions, ideologies, testifies that faith is not a reliable means of discovery or determining truth.
What an arrogant prick. Your non-answer was understood for what it was. Are you saying that the fact that there are different faith-based beliefs negates all of them?
If so, does the fact that there are different theories on the same phenomenon negate all of those theories?
