• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

fact vs bible??

M

matey

Member
In the broad sense of the word, it, evolution, is a religion.

about the confusion, what I wrote was not "'the follows of the religion of evolution'", it was "...maybe He put the fossils there to test the faith of His followers when the new religion of evolution was started." When fossils became a part of the evidence for evolution, maybe God planned it that way as a(nother) test. God knew evolution would become another religion in opposition to His ways, so He placed evidence which could support the new religion of evolution as a test for His true followers. (i.e. if you drop God for evolution, you are not a true follower.)

A footprint is still a fossil, isn't it? (yes...)
 
M

matey

Member
Also, the question of has anyone everseen a dinosaur walk? was based off of the first page of this wire in which dinosaurs were being discussed.
 
Dinogrrl

Dinogrrl

peeb!
Evolution is a branch of science. You might as well call chemistry a religion, if you want to call evolution a religion. There's a /ton/ of stuff you can't /prove/ in chemistry--including the structure of atoms. Sure, we theorize about atoms, we're very sure what atoms look like, how they react, but we don't know why, and whenever we use super-duper microscopes to try to look directly at atoms, the light causes the electrons to shift and therefore, we can never get an accurate picture of an atom.

Atoms are, btw, the backbone of chemistry.

Yet, nobody seems to have a problem with calling chemistry a science...
 
J

jorylore

Member
Ok. This is what I think. Genesis discusses the preparation of the already existing earth for man to inhabit it. Right? And the animals were created first, including the dinosaurs. The one's that eat vegetation were made to clear the earth for pastures and fields. The meat eaters were created to eat the plant eaters when they died. So these giant beasts were made to help prepare the earth for man to live on it. Once their purpose was completed there was no longer a need for them and they died out.

I have no biblical support for this idea, it's just my opinion.:eek:
 
KirbyFan101

KirbyFan101

Resident Ball of Fluff
jorylore said:
Ok. This is what I think. Genesis discusses the preparation of the already existing earth for man to inhabit it. Right? And the animals were created first, including the dinosaurs. The one's that eat vegetation were made to clear the earth for pastures and fields. The meat eaters were created to eat the plant eaters when they died. So these giant beasts were made to help prepare the earth for man to live on it. Once their purpose was completed there was no longer a need for them and they died out.

I have no biblical support for this idea, it's just my opinion.:eek:
Click to expand...
You seem to be implying that this world purely for humans, and once something is of no benefit to humans they should be eliminated from existance.

A very disturbing viewpoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top