Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

Kinda like the Big Bang or macroevolution are repeatable, huh?

We have evidence of the Big Bang, not proof. We have evidence of macro-evolution, not proof. The evidence, however, is overwhelmingly in favor of both. Should some contrary evidence come up, these ideas would be reevaluated after evaluating the new evidence for validity.

We have theoritical hypostsis based on what has been found. For Macroevolution another more plausible explaination is the fossils attributed to evolution are just an extinct sub-species of a given phila, and for the big bang we have nothing more than observation and theory which again does not fit the defination of empirical evidence. Neither do. And, if you take a step back because neither of these theories can be tested or repeated therefore they do not fit the 'scientific method' (as testing and repeating a process are crutial/what is used to disqualify God.) qualifier you all have been going on about (what seperates Faith from science.) Because the big bang and the theory of marcroevolution do not fit the Scientific method, and because neither can be supported with empirical evidence, both are indeed On the fringes of science and not apart of legitmate science/applied science. Meaning it takes a rather large measure of faith to accept them.

Now God on the other Hand only requires a mustard seed's worth of faith. If one can invest this mustardseed's faith in Him, He will provide the empirical evidence needed to establish and maintain a life time of belief.