Did God create the dinosaurs?

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

Oh, we have our share of Bible thumpers.

But they have no conclusive explanation for dinosaurs. Obviously, there is some reason we're finding bones and footprints in the rock but Christianity's best explanation, to date, is that who are we to know the mysteries of the Lord, faith will suffice once again - at least until we each die and the dinosaur remains become a moot point. This defense is like an unnourishing gruel to the body of philosophy.

Armed with no better ammunition than the same ineffective rhetoric, GFF's Christians simply know better than to wander into an argument they can't win. The existence of fossils is pretty fucking empyrical.

Time for a Long-winded TL;DR post.

Don't lie, Crash. You know as well as I do that any political palace debate is like one big doggie pile initially, which quickly digresses into a big pedantic squabble over the definition of terms, should the victim choose to continue posting. If someone dares to pipe up and express a dissenting opinion, they are washed away by a deluge of invectives resembling an army of a hundred angry firehoses. Contrarily to what you have said, I have heard many a theist argue that the majority of compelling evidence backs their side of the debate. Let's think about this, if you didn't find the argument for atheism most compelling, you wouldn't 'subscribe' to that philosophy. I think it is presumptuous of you to claim the intellectual high ground simply because at GFF, atheists outnumber theists and overwhelm their victims with copious amounts of insults and copy - pasta from such 'reputable' web sources as talk origins. (Forum bullying, on MY internet? Not surprising.)

I think I've taken enough sciences in university to have had any confidence in evolutionary theory wrenched right out from under me. If anything, what 'they' don't know was what surprised me the most. Highschool and first year university classes tend to deliver the knowledge in a rather pretty package, and really don't discuss 'the problems'. From a pedagogical standpoint, this makes the most sense because one really must have a solid grounding in basic biology, chemistry, physics, and archeology, before one can seriously get into the minute details of scientific theorem, and really examine the glaring holes in the knowledge collectively acquired by the human race.

**disclaimer** Although I am establishing a clear dichotomy in philosophical thought between atheists and theists, this is a somewhat artificial construct because people's personal beliefs are surprisingly varied. This synthetic duality is being established simply for examining two common tenants of thought. i.e. An atheist does not believe in the existence of a supernatural power while the theist does.

Scientific inconsistencies, problems, etc. aside, there are some elements of thinking that should be considered before launching into a derogatory diatribe against someone who does not share your worldview. Consider this: I think I've often considered this topic of atheism vs theism and the conclusion I've come to is that they are really two contradictory worldviews. When approached from the philosophical standpoint of atheism, theism makes no sense and vice versa. (simple, right? People don't consider this when debating because a debate always begins with the assumption that 'I' am right and the opponent is wrong.)

Because people have such a differing set of expectations or 'norms' from which they view their lives, there are arguments that are taken for granted and not considered in a situation of discussion / debate. Because you have so kindly provided the viewpoint of that atheist, lets see what the other side has to say: You speak of Faith. Well, the Theist 'laughs' at the atheist for having faith that life came from nonlife by a very long and complex series of chemical events happening one after another which eventually results in live forming and being able to sustain and reproduce itself. An all powerful super being just breathing everything into existence seems so much simpler. You know, law of parsimony and all that. Theists 'laugh' at atheists for believing that "although we don't know everything about life yet, humans (scientists) will discover it in due time." Also "it had to happen this way, therefore it is only a matter of time before we uncover the answer. We simply haven't investigated the situation enough."

This is a commonly held viewpoint among atheistic scientists and it is overlooked because it is considered the norm. Of course, in much the same way that a theist assumes that God exists, an atheist assumes that he does not. This is not a bottom up scientific inquiry, (evidence --> conclusion --> Philosophy), this is a philosophical decision. (Evidence ---- |Philosophy| --> Conclusion) The existence of a supernatural being cannot be proven or disproven so the notion of such a figure existing is dismissed for the sake of scientific investigation. This is because science is founded on the principle of discovering naturalistic processes. I think the point of confusion is that people begin to infer that science is by nature atheistic because of this philosophical approach to research.

So that being said, when a theist says 'a supernatural power created all life and by extension of this, dinosaurs' an atheist reacts strongly. A Theist doesn't believe this because he is stupid. An Atheist thinks it is stupid because the notion of a supernatural power is not part of his philosophical worldview. The accepted belief that is taken for granted is that 'all physical manifestations in the universe must have a naturalistic explanation' which stems from the philosophy stance that a 'supernatural power does not exist', something that CANNOT be demonstrated scientifically.

So, in short, my point is this: Whether you believe a supernatural power exists or not is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one. The decision becomes a lense through which you view all facets of life, and when a contradictory idea does not fit the expectations generated by this lense, it is dismissed as being ludicrous. No effort is made to examine an idea from the philosophical lense through which it was created so it obviously makes no sense. Any explanation a Theist would offer for the existence of Dinosaurs would be dismissed because it does not conform to the philosophical expectations of an Atheist. This does not mean that one or more do not exist.

How ya doing, buddy?

Ya Paco, I think I had a similar experience to Bill Maher when I was a boy. I thought it was odd that scientists were able to construct an entire transitional fossil from a single fossilized tooth they found at an excavation site.

I was considering my massive post and I feel the need to qualify it. I think such notions as the one guyinrubbersuit posted are ridiculous. People who come to such conclusions are obviously not learned and their opinion should not represent the viewpoint of all theists.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Leknaat

Same God, Different Names.

This IS unitarian. You're confusing this with monotheism.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.