Oh believe me, I have tried to learn. Its just that all that you guys have said was either contradicting my religion, or just plain unbelievable for me.
What do you do when the natural facts and your religion are in conflict? Because that is in essence what's going on.
These natural facts, as you call them are just observed events. A theory in science is the explanation for why and how something took place. This explanation has to fit with all observed events, have practical applicable function function (such as using the the explanation to produce a medicine for example.) and be able to predict that something we haven't observed yet exists (example is how the Big Bang predicted the existence of microwave background radiation.)
Even if there is a God, just saying "God did it" tells us nothing. Assuming God to be real, a theory that included God would have to explain the mechanism and process God used to achieve the outcome we observe.
What we observe doesn't match what the Bible says happened. As for the mechanisms and processes involved, that is vague to non existent in the Bible.
There are definitely things that you guys won't believe, just out of pure spite. We're humans, it's what we do.
Just as you wanted evidence for the Earth being an oblong spheroid before accepting that claim we too want that same level of evidence for the existence of God before we accept the claim that such a being exists.
I can't prove God, but I was born with faith, so I don't have to see.
Belief without evidence, how is this a reliable gauge for reality? You weren't born believing in the God you follow. That was instilled in you, likely by your parents at an early age. That's why religion tends to be regional.
When something is true it doesn't tend to be regional.
Humans need to see to believe.
I want to believe what's true to the best of my abilities. As such I require that I am provided with something verifiable and observable to gauge what I'm being told against before I accept the claim.
This is what earned you a gold star when you didn't accept that the Earth was an oblong spheroid at first. You weren't provided with any evidence to that claim to begin with so you didn't accept it. Why make this exception for something so important such as God? If it is so important then it should require that level of evidence in return to be first accepted.Otherwise you lowering it to the level of acceptance one would give a conartist.
Miracles do happen, and there is proof on the internet, in history books, and even all around you, in a common sense.
Every miracle thus far has been provided on hearsay and/or debunked as a natural occurrence that was mistaken for something else or a con.
"A miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature." -wiki
We don't see natural processes being interrupted all around us. Common sense does not tell us that natural processes suspend themselves, as per what a miracle is.
Faith, in this sense, is the supernatural gift and virtue where we know, love, and serve God from pure senses and common belief.
Faith is belief without proof/evidence, even the Bible described it as such.
Hebrews 11:1(NIV)
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Being certain of what we do not see is a horrid requirement for belief, especially from an all powerful being. I doubt you would accept such a requirement from anything else as being anything but a deception.
proof is evidence to back up a belief. When I want proof, I want proof that I can see in my everyday life.
If there was evidence you wouldn't need faith to believe. Thus making a requirement of faith a useless one, since the evidence can just garner belief.
To swing this back around to the topic. Science will only follow what is observed, from this observation we can from explanations for what is going on. A school is only allowed to teach the explanation that the scientists agree fit all the observations the best. As such it can't teach anything that requires faith.
