Wow - not to jump in here, but is there no room for faith in both creation and evolution?
OFFICER ON DECK! Sir - Excellent question to which I'll answer, exactly, yes.
In fact, both evolution and creation are based entirely on faith (gasp).
Let me explain.
Earlier in the thread I kept reading statements along the lines of 'all the evidence points to evolution' and 'there's no evidence for creation' and 'creation is only a Christian thing' and 'if you want to follow science you'll accept evolution. If you want to follow myths fairy tales and fantasys you'll follow creation', etc., etc..
When in reality, both the evolutionist and the creationist use the same evidence - the same 'facts'...
They're both pointing to the same earth, the same solar system, the same galaxy, the same universe. They're both using the same laws of physics, the same scientific data -- yet interpreting them through very different eyeglasses. It's not a lack of paper on either side, but rather, how the paper is being interpreted.
Now at this point I'll put on my Creationist suit and say that, once all the facts are considered and weighed, once all the arguments are thoroughly digested, the most reasonable conclusion is Creationism. That having been said, while there are many strong proofs of Creationism, I can't PROVE Creationism anymore than an evolutionist can PROVE evolution.
If we want to talk facts, the simple fact of the matter is that neither camp can PROVE their side. Neither camp can KNOW for an absolute certainty. Both must rely entirely on (gasp again) faith.
They must both take up the burden of considering and weighing all the evidence, chewing over all the arguments, and reaching the most reasonable conclusion.
But this is grueling work and most folks simply don't want to do it. Hence, my signature line...
Although not the same, aren't faith and hope somewhat interrelated?[/QUOTE]
You'll likely get two different answers to this one.
My answer to you is - Secularly, yes. Theologically, no.
Faith based on pure 'hope' is no better than faith based on pure chance. Theologically speaking, faith MUST be grounded - faith must be substance and evidence.
While entirely my opinion as a Theist, and having nothing but my opinion on which to stand, I believe that each man will be held accountable for what they did with the intelligence they were given. The man to whom much was given, and for whom faith was a matter of pure chance not having bothered with substance and evidence, will not be a happy camper standing before his Creator. Again, purely my opinion.
The question in these kinds of debates to me boils down to passion and discussion -I refuse to refer to intelligent debate, because people often confuse intelligence with education, or the ability to find some obscure quote in a book or on the internet and proclaim intelligence based on a pronounciation of "indisputable facts" that have no source or reference. [/QUOTE]
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you've just said, but I'll refer to an obscure quote from a forgotten source (
) from long ago:
Debate, in order to be meaningful, has to come from the inside of your hair.
The mistake that many people make in these kinds of conversations is trying to sway opinion by preaching to the converted amassing the power of numbers - sometimes successful in gaining acquiescence through peer pressure. [/QUOTE]
Like Busas -vs- ZXs ?
Sorry
Sir...
(like a good Marine I begin and end with 'Sir'...)
"|1157045232 -->
