Welcome to Gaia! ::

yeah, there's a few misconceptions in there.

Firstly, on "coming from monkeys" vs. "coming from fish." The basis for evolutionary biology isn't that anything comes from anything, but that we share common ancestors. Something similar to both humans and monkeys diverged many millions of years ago, splitting off into two branches which led to the separate development of both monkeys and humans. The same thing happened a much longer time ago (on a scale of magnitude of about a couple hundred or so) between fish and mammals, having one branch stay and develop into fish/reptiles/therapsids and the other develop into mammals (NOTE: this is a HUGE oversimplification of the evolutionary process. If you really want me too, I can dust off my old bio books and detail out the phylogenic trees of branching off).

Logic and reasoning in science (like any man-made system) is only as good as the information available at the time. As technology and thought progresses, we are given greater access to information and discoveries, which is why we know now that the world is not flat and that the sun is the center of the solar system. It's not that logic or reasoning is flawed, only the information is incomplete. We can assert that evolution and physics work because of all those centuries of scientific study (many, many early theories have been proven completely and totally wrong thanks to new technology). Isaac Newton once said "If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." This applies to men of study in all fields, including theology. We expand and learn by building upon the work left for us by those who studied before us.

The main difference between "faith" and scientific theory is evidence. The most evidence most religions use is holy scripture and documented transcripts of holy figures. The modern scientific community (at least in the natural and physical sciences) generally require repeatable results of experimentation. I don't quite understand the math analogy, please forgive me. In any case, it is based much more than on just "faith."

Also, it should be noted that there isn't a lot of money in scientific research. Nobody really goes into science thinking that they'll come out rich. They're not really that bad off, but there are plenty of much more lucrative careers out there. Also, most scientists here in the States (I am also an American, so you can calm down about the other thread as well) are Christian as well. However, most are willing to attribute a higher being (god, generally) to the cause behind natural phenomena, not as a replacement for it. At its core, the existence of any deity can't be proven or disproven, as it lies outside the range of empirical and experimental study. You seem to possess a bias against science and reasoning, but I'm willing to attribute it to a young age. I hope that as you grow older, you'll come to understand what I'm talking about.

"hypocrite" is the wrong word. as the other guy said religion does have more gaps.I believe in god as well, but you cannot attack other people that dont have the same beliefs as you. dont go over your head, and you have to accept other ideas,im not saying to believe the ideas but just accept their answers say ok and move on. being so close minded could only get you into trouble, and set people off.

i dont read the dictonary,sue me.tell me the right word and i'll say it.anyway,i'm not bias against science,it happens to be my favorite subject,it's just that when people think science gives all the right answers and start to dictate things no one was there for as fact i feel thats just wrong since there is no proof(i define proof as cold hard evedince.aka,it can be seen or heard or any of the six sense can detect it,not something written about it,but it itself,without modern tecniolagical assistence.)true this is not provided by for god but you gotta think.alot of things hapen that cant really be explained by science,a lot of things happen that arnt just cowincedence)i now i have bad spelling,i dont need to be notified)

you sound soo immature right now. so ill just keep the argument short. as i said before i believe in god. second, as it was said before science has more proof than religion. and even if something is unexplained it doesn't mean that someone has to believe in religion as the answer. people can believe what they wish is not right or wrong is how they view it. and if you are trying to persuade people to believe in what you believe in you are not doing a good job, by attacking them you are only causing people to be defensive and hate you. i think I'm done here.
p.s if you dont want to be notified (too bad)

ive heard and beleive in a slightly different thing
god was created by men who wanted power so they started spreading false tales about a being who will send you to a bad place if you were evil/bad and that the only way to be good is by beleiving in what they beleived and by giving them "donations" of material wealth, its not that thwey wanted the money its that they needed it to help their church out

one of the things that makes us human is the ability to wonder. if people didnt wonder about things, we'd never have invented the airplane for example. it's in our nature.

there is no harm in having discussions about things we cant prove. one day, we may very well be able to prove them. science is not flawed, it's just not complete. scientists find out new things all the time and some of those things make them have to question what they previously thought they knew. spirituality is also not complete. the problem is that both sides THINK they are complete and hence give no credence whatsoever to the other side (science especially does this, but so does religion). they're completely hard headed about it. but I think they are 2 sides of the same coin. branches off of the same tree.

and there is nothing wrong with discussion beliefs.. provable or not. it's how we learn from eachother (provided neither side is so closed minded as to get angry, then the discussion turns into an argument, sometimes very heated). perhaps one person has a point (a single point, out of their whole belief system) that the other hadnt thought of and could be integrated in the others way of thinking, something new to be considered. with an open mind, its the only way we're ever going to understand eachother. and with understanding comes tolerance.

All I'm going to say is, read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins if you want to know what scientists have to say about religion.