You should attack yourself man, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Evidence in peer-reviewed journals, not internet blogs. If you don't understand the difference, then go back to school.

Ever been to a museum? Tons of evidence there too. 

You have to be blind not to see the evidence. It's like you are actively avoiding anything which contradicts you perception of the world, which shows you simply aren't interested in truth.

That is why we have a concept of rights and a codified constitution to protect from the tyranny of the majority. There is no pure democracy here.

Once you accept that bible is mostly (completely?) metaphor, it becomes pretty easy to believe in both god and science.

Science is an exploration and understanding of all the physical laws and properties of the universe. God is the being that authored those physical laws. No interventionism or clay moulding necessary.

I'd say the fundamental laws of physics provide a better "watchmaker" argument than biology ever could. Tweak a single universal constant in one direction or the other and the universe as we know it would unravel rather quickly.

There you go again presuming that I believe evolution is completely wrong, no I don't. But when I said articles, I implied peer-reviewed journals and they are the most conclusive proof for godless evolution. However, it is simply because they are scientists that you believe them. You would probably dismiss most evidence of God as most of it is done by theologists. I'm just saying have a shred of doubt if you don't have physical evidence. I'm also pretty sure that the evidence in museums doesn't disprove my concept of the origin of life. 

Kas please, you must have been in a very advanced 4th grade class to have any real understanding of evolution. This is the most ignorant post I ever seen you post.

OT: It sucks to be an atheist/agnostic in America.

I'm not talking about beleiving in God and Science. I'm talking about believing in God and evolution.

There is a really, really huge issue with that comment: no scientist would ever actually do that.

Science, by virtue of what it is, requires proof and study in order to be considered credible in the scientific theory. There is no "blind faith" when it comes to believing what a scientist says about his observations. I'm sorry, but this is a silly argument.

So, let me help you a bit: while your example is poor, I can see what you are getting at, and in a MUCH BROADER sense, you are correct: even science requires "faith". Albeit, I would argue it is a different kind of faith.

Whereas religion is faith without evidence, faith in scripture, faith in tradition, science is faith in reality. In order for all of science to mean anything, scientists have to have faith that what they observe is, in fact, actually being observed. They have to have faith that the way humanity is able to perceive reality is enough to deduct some sort of scientific "truth".

For instance, for all we know we exist in a simulated reality. Or everything that science observes is an elaborate allusion created by some mean God needlessly testing our faith. Even scientist requires some measure of faith, and this is why I find ardent aetheists who believe that the way they perceive the world to be the one and only true way to see it is rather arrogant. Fact is, our ability to observe is limited by what we are, and there is only so much we will be able to understand about the world around us.

The issue with trying to equate this with religious faith, though, is that questioning faith in proven scientific theories (evolution, gravity, etc) is tantamount to asking "Yes, that wall is blue. But is it REALLY blue, or is that just how I perceive it?" It requires questioning whether everything we observe is actually how it is.

Having faith in religion just involves having faith in stories and legends and miracles where little evidence exists. Whereas science has a lot of consensus around basic theories that are backed by a lot of evidence and have become the foundation of many scientific discoveries and disciplines (again, evolution & gravity) there is little consensus in religion. Some in the Christian faith want to take the Bible as literal history. The issue with that is that the progenitors of the Old Testament, the Jews (of which I am one, ethnically) did not write the Tanakh (Old Testament) to be taken literally. On top of that, when the Tanakh was translated into the Old Testament, there were many translation errors that completely changed the meaning of some passages. 

Science relies on current observations of existing evidence, and it has become the foundation of our society. Religion relies on old, vague texts written, translated and reshaped by MEN. Though there is certainly evidence that some things recorded in these text happened, we only have proof of the mundane. Just because we found Troy doesn't mean that everything in the Homer's "The Odyssey" happened. There is no evidence of a God, or of the miracles. That lack of evidence, that lack of capability to observe, is the key difference between science and religin. And though I think the two can easily co-exist, you cannot compare faith in one to faith in the other.  

There are a couple possibilities: One theory is that God created life and from then, evolution naturally occured, another is that God dictated how evolution would happen. The reason you can believe in both is because evolution doesn't prove that life didn't come from god since it doesn't touch on the topic at all

Okay, I can see you're struggling with this concept.

Do you go to a Burger King worker for science information? Do you go to a Priest for medical information?

You go to the experts in their respective fields for such information. If I want to find scientific evidence for something, I go to the experts of science. If I want to find philosophical evidence for something, I go to philosophers. If I have a health complication, I visit a doctor.

What's your problem wtih science?

EDIT:

Physical evidence - fossils and DNA. These are physical things. The entire human genome is sequenced and compared to other animal AND plant life.

Ah, there you go with origin. Evolution isn't about origin, sir. You show a fundamental ignorance again. It's about diversification of species from the first life form forward. It makes no attempt to say how life originated.

Perhaps my wording is poor but if I imply in the first sentence that I don't think that evolution is completely wrong,  it means that accept evolution as part of my philosophy of life. I feel you are really ignoring the point of my comments. Its not to disprove evolution, but to say that simply present data is having faith. While I wouldn't go to a priest for medical information he may know some. The inverse can be also true. He may be a priest professionally but when he makes sermons, he could be easily talking out of his ass. I am only using scientists because you keep focusing on that point that evolution as a scientific theory. Really, this entre thread is philosophical.