Hey Bertot, hope you don't mind me piping in.
Oh, and Percy, I'll try an keep it brief.
Bertot writes:
I appreciate your willingness to make an attempt at defending your CONFIDENCE in the theory of evolution. Yet it should be obvious to anyone that you are trying to redifine BELIEF for youself and your cohorts and ascribe another definition for those of us that believe in God or the scriptures.
I can't speak for Modulous, but for me, with all the data I have right now, I KNOW evolution is true. I also know there is absolutely no data that supports the existence of god, so as far as that is concerned, I also KNOW god does not exist.
If I make a statement that the bridge will not collapse before I cross it. This statement is obviously unfalsifiable
No it isn't. If the bridge were to collapse before you crossed it, it would be falsified.
The THEORY of evolution and its methodologies therefore fails in presenting itself as a superior method of a belief
Why did you emphasize theory? Don't tell me you still don't know what theory means in science. Since the ToE is based on evidence, it can't be a method of belief, since belief requires an absence of evidence.
Simply because a valid belief in God is unfalsifiable does not mean it is not based in material evidence and should not be accepted for terminology sake.
Perhaps not, but there is no material evidence for god, and if there was, it wouldn't be belief, it would be knowing.
I hunt for the truth