Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Welsh cake]

One has to wonder why we see so many Christian theologians trying to interpret a Jewish book (Genesis) without ever calling upon the authors (Jews) to get them to explain it.

Evidence, please: list for me a few of the "so many Christian theologians" who do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...heologians

I am interested in what is true, not in what is simpler.

If you are being intellectually honest about your position and you really care whether your beliefs are justified, i.e. whether they are true or not, I can't see you prolonging a deconversion-to-atheism process for very much longer, granted if you are actually being *serious about your position* and not preaching in the heat of the moment.

I'm not afraid of sorting through arguments with informed reason to get at the truth, including scientarded arguments. Moreover, Occam's razor is a heuristic principle, not a criterion for truth, which together with logic renders scientism an incoherent pile of twaddle.

I can appreciate it if you have objections to the scientific view-point taken as authoritative, (I do too) and I can understand if you have criticisms that the scientific practice can be manipulated with political and ideological agendas, and not actually enquiring into what is demonstrably true (same here also). However, you do realise that by identifying where science is being misused to test claims outside the context they apply, scientism is also a counter argument to these aforementioned appeals to authority?

I know a good few theists who assert god or magic-man or whatever is transcendent and thereby beyond investigation or the field of inquiry, but then hypocritically proceed to bash scientific concepts or philosophies as "incoherent" because it cannot test or account for logically impossible/unknowable concepts such as deities for which they claim. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it.

If reason and evidence disproved God as creator (i.e., delusion), I would not have left atheism.

As much as I enjoy reading the infamous skeptics' account of being a former-atheist but then they either found god or god found them, ever heard of the phrase Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence?

If you find arguments from ignorance convincing that's your prerogative, I find them insufficient (to say the least) to discern fact from fantasy and cannot understand how anyone else ever could consider them acceptable.