Wiccan_Child wrote:

elshamah888 wrote:There is in my opinion plenty of reasons to take the bible seriously, as shown in the cited homepage. But its in the end a matter of faith.

If there are plenty of reasons to believe the Bible, how is it a matter of faith?

Faith can have different meanings.

according to wiki :

The term is employed in a religious or theological context to refer to belief, ranging from confident to absolute without evidence[neutrality is disputed] or even in the face of contrary evidence, in the existence of the supernatural and in religious teachings being true.

Faith can however also mean :

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. That statement can be a deduction of a ration and reasoable argument, based on valid scientific premises.
the difference between creationists and evolutionists is not the data, but their interpretation. The interpretation is always a belief, or based - on faith. So both take their position based on faith.

Wiccan_Child wrote: There is more than enough evidence to conclude the truth of evolution, and the falsehood of Creationism.

Exactly this is a belief ( and therefore faith ) , as long as you cannot prove your assertion.

But please, explain how evidence can be 'interpreted' to fit both sides of the argument. Explain how ERVs, human chromosome #2, the fossil record, radiocarbon dating, anatomical and genetic homologies, etc, can all be interpreted to support Creationism.[/b][/color]

as long as there are no absolute proves for on side of the interpretation, both explanations have their supporters, and both interpretations have their right to be.

a example :

http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/human-chromosome-2-a-creationist-response/

In reality, the evidence fits a creationist explanation equally well--there is nothing contrived or tricky about what I have presented, and if evolutionary theory did not exist, there is nothing in this evidence that would make creationists think of common descent. The idea that humans originally had a complete set of chromosomes that correspond to ape chromosomes, rather than only 23 out of 24, does not shake creationist ideas one little bit. We already knew there was a vast amount of similarity between humans and primates both in terms of physical characteristics and genetic material and structure. It is a mistake of the evolutionary mindest to assume that observing similarities necessarily brings you to the conclusion of common descent. Taxonomy based on physical characteristics was already a very well established science when the idea of common descent came on the scene, and people from both the intelligent design and the creationists camps have no problem in understanding physical and genetic similarities that are not rooted in common descent -- that is, it is easy to think of perfectly adequate reasons why a designer (either an unknown intelligence in the case of ID, or God in the case of creationism) might have reused designs.