Netwolf, many things are not testable and so can be viewed as faith in the absence of hard empirical fact. Regardless if a faith system promotes 6 x 24 hour days or 6 gazillion years for creation, it is not testable because we can't go back there and verify the reality. However, there are some things that are testable;
Quote:
And from water we made all living things. Would they believe? "
<Qur'an-Anbiyaa 21:30>
|
when life departs a formerly living body, what is ultimately left? Is it steam? Is it a puddle of water? No, it is a powdery residue from the many and varied chemical elements/molecules that contributed to that bodies form. True a body in good nic contains a lot of water, but it is a testable fact that it is not made from water. As Adam was reportedly told 'from dust you came and to dust you will return'. Now that is testable, we have the testimony of the evidence of our own eyes. At the time of writing, a precise chemical analysis would have been both meaningless and superfluous to the intent. It is testable; it does have a high correlation of truth; unless a person is in complete denial. What we can eventually find after life departs a formerly living body is a 'dusty' residue. Even bone given the right conditions will break down to a dusty residue.
I like to check most references given on the internet, and I am dismayed at the amount of false information or falsely represented information that is published. Faith can be good in certain circumstances where it is used to fill a void in knowledge and understanding, but when any faith system fails to find the support of its own testable claims, it needs to be amended don't you think?
Doug