Originally Posted by Evi|ution

I am where you are Rom, and I'm not against you. I was just saying I understand Og's request for proof/evidence and I hope at least in the smallest way I can provide it.

First though, what we have to understand about the spirit is that it is not physical, and therefore can not be tested as such, by physical, man-made tools. What is not always seen by the human eye, or felt with the human hand, is not necessarily a non-existent thing. The universe may be endless, and it may be finite, but the acceptance of any of these is based on faith. As far as we may have seen with our eyes of this galaxy, we do not yet know if there is anything beyond it. We can say, with reason, that there is more to the universe than we have seen, but it must still be accepted by faith because we do not truely know if we have seen its end or not. As I said, by reason any man can say the universe has not been fully discovered as of yet, but he can not say by sure, except by faith, that it is endless because he never traveled far enough to know. In fact, he never could because if it was endless, just pretend it was for a second, he would never receive proof because no matter how far he traveled, it would just appear that it was endless but he never knows if he travels a little bit further he will reach an end point.

This is not the best example, nor is it proof of the existence of the spirit. But no matter how emperical or convincing the evidence, anything accepted, however small a subject it may be, beyond what we have not ourselves seen and experienced, is a faith. The belief in creation is a faith, the belief in evolution is a faith. Both do have foundations of proof to enforce in some way that they are truths, but both must be accepted by faith because neither has actually been observed by either of us. No one has observed one life-from changing into another, just as no one has observed the creation of the universe.

There is a difference between faith and fact, but sometimes what we have faith in, is in fact, a fact.

Gravity is not a faith because every single time I pick up a ball and drop it, I observe and experience the effect of gravity upon it, and this is repeatable. The coelacanth, once though to be the ancestor of all amphibians, which according to evolution should have become extinct 60 million years ago, was discovered to still be alive today and match the the fossil version in every detail. This was once too considered a "scientific fact" and had all confidence of evolutionists in the validity of it. It was proven wrong and discarded and then had to be replaced by something else, and the theory changed to that the coelacanth instead stopped evolving because it didn't need to anymore. This proves that the coelecanth which evolutionists placed their full confidence in as the ancestor of the first amphibians, was in fact faith based and not truely a fact as it was labeled.

Does this mean that evolution is therefore wrong? No it does not. What it means is that there was a mistake in the theory which needed to be discarded. Evolution is a belief accepted by faith otherwise it wouldn't be an ever-changing theory, because facts don't need to be changed again and again to something different. But once again, I do not claim it to be therefore auto-matically false.

There wasn't really any science at all involved in this post but I will get to that, I am just trying to establish simply, that faith is not always unreasonable, nor wrongly attributed.

Because God is not physical, we can not come to know God by physical means. God is spirit and therefore we must worship Him in spirit and in truth, as the Bible says. We can see the intelligence of the Creator behind the marvelous complexity of the universe, and we can come to apreciate the work of His hands, but we can not come to know Him personally by "worshiping the creation more than the Creator."

I plan on discussing some creation science with you guys so don't assume that I am not.