This was my first comment in this debate: "Though both can be (and likely are) true * - Obviously this one (the Big Bang Theory) is much harder to prove and therefore requires a somewhat greater 'leap of faith. '
Liam had it mostly correct.
I was prodding Ave Satanas into looking at the fact that he was relying more heavily on science to support his claims (faith) about the Origin of the Universe than he does for the origin of a new human being.
I can't think of any fears that I have that are anything more than a concern. I have seen Pit-Bulls do horrible things to people and especially to other animals.... so I would just shoot one rather than to trust it in my yard.
Is that fear?
Not sure how the options are really related.
Easy. Some people have a harder time accepting the fact that a new life begins at conception than they do the idea (theory) about how the Universe began.
"Which one requires the bigger leap of faith?"
Without it sounding like I'm stroking his ego.... Andy is the most significant difference between these two sites for me. Both sites have equally good potentials to be a place where people can debate the issues of the day and actually learn something and have fun while debating things. Some people like a more rigid and structured debate and others like less rules and more chaos. Different strokes for different folks I huess.
To be honest, I enjoy the more structured debates and tougher guidelines. I would still be using DDO if it was actually being managed with an accurate measure of the person's debating skills in mind.
Andy doesn't even pretend to be able to do that. The scores here are a joke and he is (seems to be) fully aware of it. His priorities are to create a social environment first and everything else comes after that.
Here, there is no pretentiousness. In DDO, there is.