>How does science and faith reconcile when one claims with certainty that the >Earth is millions of years old and the other says with certainty that the >earth is not more than 6,000 years old? >
Faith does not say you *must* believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis...only the fundamentalists say that. You know, sometimes science actually does a pretty good job of reconciling with faith. Case in point...the Shroud of Turin. Before you pooh-pooh this, do some research on Google...it's really pretty fascinating stuff what science has been able to learn about it (if you didn't know, the carbon dating evidence has pretty much been thrown out as invalid at this point, and far more evidence points to 1st century Palestine.) While it certainly cannot be *proved* that it was caused by the resurrection of Christ...the very fact that science has yet to come up with a viable explanation for how it was made does give one pause...as does all the evidence showing that it is the actual burial cloth of a Roman-style crucifixion victim, with unique traits that exactly mirror the passion story. Christian faith is not based on relics and/or science and the Church itself does not makes any claims to the true nature of the Shroud, so its authenticity (or lack thereof) should not be the basis of faith...but it's a good example of where science does support what faith might have us believe. Here's a site that covers mainly the science of the Shroud, very comprehensive: http://www.shroudstory.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250104 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
