Evolution

Both, since you have asserted both. It's up to you which one you tackle first. I'm nice like that

 

However, since, as you say, many use the word "faith" incorrectly, it is quite possible that the Bible does so. Therefore the Bible definition of it could just as easily be wrong.

There are other issues with the above, but they're more general issues surrounding language construction which I know you won't like.

 

The word "know" means to percieve directly. For you to know evolution is false you would have to witness it not happening for the last 3 billion years.

 

So that would also mean that to "know" evolution is true you would have to directly witness it happening for the last 3 billion years. Interesting.

 

That's true. I don't know if it happens. As a theory it fits well with what I see around me.

 

Personally, I look at evolution, like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by shaving off the edges but in the end no matter how close it seems to fit it's still trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

But as you say neither one of us "know" one way or the other.

 

So in this analogy, what would be considered the round hole?

And what would be considered the square peg?

 

The round hole is reality and the square peg is evolution or so it seems to me.

 

Other than biblical, what reasons can you sight to justify your disbelief in the fact that the fossil record shows distinct periods of great extinction followed by periods of time that produced animals that previously were non existent?

 

How does a person have an "assured expectation" of something hoped for? (What is an "assured expectation, anyway? an assurance that you're expecting something or an assurance that the thing expected will come about? If the latter, what is the basis for that?) And how can there be an "evident demonstration" of "realities not beheld". Presentation of evidence leading to a conclusion about something not directly observed, like evolution, maybe? From the security of your closed system, you can spout verse after verse in the "assured expectation" that your conclusions are irrefutable. That's the difference between metaphysics and science, or between apologetics and honest inquiry.

 

An assured expectation of something hoped for, would like a child who hopes to get a bike and his father calls home and tells the child I've brought the bike, a red one just like you wanted and it's in the car and I'll be home with it in a half hour, now that child has an assured expectation of something hoped for.

The evident demonstration of realities not beheld is like knowing that tomorrow the sun will come up, it hasn't happened yet but because it's happened every day of your life you know it will, that is the evident demonstration of realities not beheld.

You know for a Christian, you don't seem to have much trust in the Bible or God, why is that?

 

I would say that seeing as those animals no longer exist, it would seem logical that there was a time that they ceased to exist or went extinct and that would show up in the fossil record. As for for animals coming into existence that had not previously existed, that would be consistent with a God creating the animals and seeing as God created them over a fairly long period time, I would say that he didn't create them all at the same time. I would say that but that's kind of Biblical so I won't.

 

I have complete trust in God and the Bible. I have complete distrust of your interpretation of it.

 

So when I quoted the definition of faith straight from the Bible with no interpretation and you seemly disagreed with it, that was showing complete trust in the Bible?

 

While I on the other hand have distrust of the Bible... but I trust OWB interpretation of it.

 

You quoted Paul's definition. I've never agreed with his definition of faith.

 

:smilielol5: Well ain't that a first.

 

So if Paul said it, it's not part of the Bible?

 

It is certainly part of the Bible, and is perfectly defensible, but as I think you've argued often enough, one passage out of context is not necessarily definitive. The Greek term for faith in the New Testament is pistis conveying forensic proof. When Peter defended the Christian faith to the people of Israel (Acts 2:22-36), his appeals were primarily evidentiary. Faith is also a pledge of trust, an existential commitment if you will, to our patron (Jesus) who has provided tangible proofs of His reliability. That connection needs to be made. It is consistent with, but not necessarily obvious from, the passage from Paul that you quoted.

 

Some believe that Faith is belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. Is that something you would believe is true and is consistent with what the Bible says about Faith?