When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25034
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Rusty » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:44 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:04 pm
Cleon wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:37 am
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:19 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:14 am
infidel wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:08 am
IMO, this stubborn adherence to Genesis literalism is doing irreparable harm to Christianity in the long run.
I have thought about this for some time but I don't think believing in Genesis literalism harms Christianity but, rather, arguing against scientific evidence by using philosophy/theology I think does. If literalists wanted to argue against evolution, they need to conduct scientific study to do any good. But this means that they can't start with the conclusion and investigate to that same conclusion--that's not how it works.
They can't do it. They know it too. If YEC is supportable by enough evidence, you don't need YEC scientists to bring forth the evidence.
Yes, I think you are correct, although they would need YEC scientists to bring any YEC scientific evidence. But that is the issue: YEC is not science. Insisting that YEC is science, or belongs in the science classroom, is what damages Christianity, IMO. The evolution narrative does not have a place in a YEC Sunday school classroom and the YEC narrative has no place in the evolutionary biology classroom.
The wall of separation between science and belief is a smokescreen, IMO, since we are, after all, wholistic creatures. The mix of corporeal and incorporeal is is what makes us human after God's own image.

Cue wosbald...
Well, science is a method for understanding and describing the natural world contingent on observation and replication while belief is often simply a decision little to do with empirical facts. I choose to believe in God because of my experiences but I cannot offer any empirical evidence (let alone any proof). One can choose to ignore or deny empirical data, if one wishes, but to do so is to deny reality--which is the realm of belief, often. Empirical evidence and belief seldom seem to have much to do with each other, nowadays. But gathering empirical data is work while belief is often a choice. This difference alone seems to be significant. Frankly, people more often choose a belief and then work to keep it rather than work to understand natural phenomena, IMO.
Of course the "understanding and describing the natural world" is neutral language for theories that explain the world and enable predictions about what happened or will happen next. These are the analogy to belief. It's not like it's a different species engaged in science. Theories too are a choice and they are labored over. They are not derived from empirical data but rather are free creations of the human mind that are often guesses or inspired leaps of imagination. The early generation die fast because they're not consistent with the empirical data available. But the key thing about science is that evidence from nature can often distinguish between competing theories, consistent with one and refuting others. And this is never ending. That doesn't mean that every scientist gives up their pet theories or "beliefs" when they are refuted by nature itself. Fred Hoyle never did accept the big bang. He persisted to his dying day believing in the steady state theory of ongoing creation. Hoyle contributed a lot to the understanding of Stellar processes but on cosmology his theory went to the trash bin. At least so it appeared. Now cosmologists are again asking about the nature of the big bang event and whether it was the beginning. Of course for Christians this is nothing but heresy. The nature of explanation in science is not at all like that in religion.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 20858
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:57 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:04 pm
Cleon wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:37 am
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:19 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:14 am
infidel wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:08 am
IMO, this stubborn adherence to Genesis literalism is doing irreparable harm to Christianity in the long run.
I have thought about this for some time but I don't think believing in Genesis literalism harms Christianity but, rather, arguing against scientific evidence by using philosophy/theology I think does. If literalists wanted to argue against evolution, they need to conduct scientific study to do any good. But this means that they can't start with the conclusion and investigate to that same conclusion--that's not how it works.
They can't do it. They know it too. If YEC is supportable by enough evidence, you don't need YEC scientists to bring forth the evidence.
Yes, I think you are correct, although they would need YEC scientists to bring any YEC scientific evidence. But that is the issue: YEC is not science. Insisting that YEC is science, or belongs in the science classroom, is what damages Christianity, IMO. The evolution narrative does not have a place in a YEC Sunday school classroom and the YEC narrative has no place in the evolutionary biology classroom.
The wall of separation between science and belief is a smokescreen, IMO, since we are, after all, wholistic creatures. The mix of corporeal and incorporeal is is what makes us human after God's own image.

Cue wosbald...
Well, science is a method for understanding and describing the natural world contingent on observation and replication while belief is often simply a decision little to do with empirical facts. I choose to believe in God because of my experiences but I cannot offer any empirical evidence (let alone any proof). One can choose to ignore or deny empirical data, if one wishes, but to do so is to deny reality--which is the realm of belief, often. Empirical evidence and belief seldom seem to have much to do with each other, nowadays. But gathering empirical data is work while belief is often a choice. This difference alone seems to be significant. Frankly, people more often choose a belief and then work to keep it rather than work to understand natural phenomena, IMO.
Some people perhaps make that choice, the other choices a lot of people make are to become lukewarm doubters, unbelievers or they find another solution to the problem by changing their beliefs. The later I'm also interested in discussing with YEC adherents. I wonder if perhaps they view changing their beliefs to align with evidence as a threat to their belief in God. I think it's a viable concern because as I noted above, a lot of people change their beliefs and leave Christianity altogether. I have grappled with this myself. I went to churches with a belief structure that permitted non YEC evolution to be individually held. But still, this is understandably a big deal. It's rife with questions, it's insecure, it's unknown. It might require a change in family culture and certainly a change in the relationship people have with a God they believe they know. To them perhaps, God cannot be the God of evolution. Is that because of what Evolution is or is it because the God they know cannot author evolution for some reason? Even when I changed my beliefs I still experience attachments to much earlier beliefs in some way, that's human.

Hopefully a YEC supporter will chime in. I fear they may wish to avoid the wall of evolutionists here and avoid the conversation at this point. Please don't.

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25034
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Rusty » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:24 pm

Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:57 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:04 pm
Cleon wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:37 am
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:19 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:14 am
infidel wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:08 am
IMO, this stubborn adherence to Genesis literalism is doing irreparable harm to Christianity in the long run.
I have thought about this for some time but I don't think believing in Genesis literalism harms Christianity but, rather, arguing against scientific evidence by using philosophy/theology I think does. If literalists wanted to argue against evolution, they need to conduct scientific study to do any good. But this means that they can't start with the conclusion and investigate to that same conclusion--that's not how it works.
They can't do it. They know it too. If YEC is supportable by enough evidence, you don't need YEC scientists to bring forth the evidence.
Yes, I think you are correct, although they would need YEC scientists to bring any YEC scientific evidence. But that is the issue: YEC is not science. Insisting that YEC is science, or belongs in the science classroom, is what damages Christianity, IMO. The evolution narrative does not have a place in a YEC Sunday school classroom and the YEC narrative has no place in the evolutionary biology classroom.
The wall of separation between science and belief is a smokescreen, IMO, since we are, after all, wholistic creatures. The mix of corporeal and incorporeal is is what makes us human after God's own image.

Cue wosbald...
Well, science is a method for understanding and describing the natural world contingent on observation and replication while belief is often simply a decision little to do with empirical facts. I choose to believe in God because of my experiences but I cannot offer any empirical evidence (let alone any proof). One can choose to ignore or deny empirical data, if one wishes, but to do so is to deny reality--which is the realm of belief, often. Empirical evidence and belief seldom seem to have much to do with each other, nowadays. But gathering empirical data is work while belief is often a choice. This difference alone seems to be significant. Frankly, people more often choose a belief and then work to keep it rather than work to understand natural phenomena, IMO.
Some people perhaps make that choice, the other choices a lot of people make are to become lukewarm doubters, unbelievers or they find another solution to the problem by changing their beliefs. The later I'm also interested in discussing with YEC adherents. I wonder if perhaps they view changing their beliefs to align with evidence as a threat to their belief in God. I think it's a viable concern because as I noted above, a lot of people change their beliefs and leave Christianity altogether. I have grappled with this myself. I went to churches with a belief structure that permitted non YEC evolution to be individually held. But still, this is understandably a big deal. It's rife with questions, it's insecure, it's unknown. It might require a change in family culture and certainly a change in the relationship people have with a God they believe they know. To them perhaps, God cannot be the God of evolution. Is that because of what Evolution is or is it because the God they know cannot author evolution for some reason? Even when I changed my beliefs I still experience attachments to much earlier beliefs in some way, that's human.

Hopefully a YEC supporter will chime in. I fear they may wish to avoid the wall of evolutionists here and avoid the conversation at this point. Please don't.
Wall of evolutionists? LOL! You can't swing a cat without hitting a creationist here.

The evidence is that understanding of science need not affect one's faith or lack of faith at all. We can hold different and contradicting ideas in different contexts. There is no meshing of gears in this. The entire spectrum of mixing of religious faith with ideas of science or other things are quite possible. It's again a personal choice or the dictates of personality that determine how one balances it all. Some insist on one view dominating and some may not.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 20858
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:43 pm

Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:24 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:57 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:04 pm
Cleon wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:37 am
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:19 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:14 am
infidel wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:08 am
IMO, this stubborn adherence to Genesis literalism is doing irreparable harm to Christianity in the long run.
I have thought about this for some time but I don't think believing in Genesis literalism harms Christianity but, rather, arguing against scientific evidence by using philosophy/theology I think does. If literalists wanted to argue against evolution, they need to conduct scientific study to do any good. But this means that they can't start with the conclusion and investigate to that same conclusion--that's not how it works.
They can't do it. They know it too. If YEC is supportable by enough evidence, you don't need YEC scientists to bring forth the evidence.
Yes, I think you are correct, although they would need YEC scientists to bring any YEC scientific evidence. But that is the issue: YEC is not science. Insisting that YEC is science, or belongs in the science classroom, is what damages Christianity, IMO. The evolution narrative does not have a place in a YEC Sunday school classroom and the YEC narrative has no place in the evolutionary biology classroom.
The wall of separation between science and belief is a smokescreen, IMO, since we are, after all, wholistic creatures. The mix of corporeal and incorporeal is is what makes us human after God's own image.

Cue wosbald...
Well, science is a method for understanding and describing the natural world contingent on observation and replication while belief is often simply a decision little to do with empirical facts. I choose to believe in God because of my experiences but I cannot offer any empirical evidence (let alone any proof). One can choose to ignore or deny empirical data, if one wishes, but to do so is to deny reality--which is the realm of belief, often. Empirical evidence and belief seldom seem to have much to do with each other, nowadays. But gathering empirical data is work while belief is often a choice. This difference alone seems to be significant. Frankly, people more often choose a belief and then work to keep it rather than work to understand natural phenomena, IMO.
Some people perhaps make that choice, the other choices a lot of people make are to become lukewarm doubters, unbelievers or they find another solution to the problem by changing their beliefs. The later I'm also interested in discussing with YEC adherents. I wonder if perhaps they view changing their beliefs to align with evidence as a threat to their belief in God. I think it's a viable concern because as I noted above, a lot of people change their beliefs and leave Christianity altogether. I have grappled with this myself. I went to churches with a belief structure that permitted non YEC evolution to be individually held. But still, this is understandably a big deal. It's rife with questions, it's insecure, it's unknown. It might require a change in family culture and certainly a change in the relationship people have with a God they believe they know. To them perhaps, God cannot be the God of evolution. Is that because of what Evolution is or is it because the God they know cannot author evolution for some reason? Even when I changed my beliefs I still experience attachments to much earlier beliefs in some way, that's human.

Hopefully a YEC supporter will chime in. I fear they may wish to avoid the wall of evolutionists here and avoid the conversation at this point. Please don't.
Wall of evolutionists? LOL! You can't swing a cat without hitting a creationist here.

The evidence is that understanding of science need not affect one's faith or lack of faith at all. We can hold different and contradicting ideas in different contexts. There is no meshing of gears in this. The entire spectrum of mixing of religious faith with ideas of science or other things are quite possible. It's again a personal choice or the dictates of personality that determine how one balances it all. Some insist on one view dominating and some may not.
Of course it's a choice. But no, you really can't hold contradicting beliefs, at least not gracefully. People must find solutions to contradictions they see in themselves. Anxiety and depression are just two possible outcomes that may result in contradictory beliefs or actions. Certain faiths are hostile to established science, the faith I was raised to was. It created problems for some of us, meanwhile others sought livelihoods that continued the tradition and YEC narrative. It's basically a subculture within our nation really. They are somewhat insulated from the secular world and other religious people. At least that's my own view of it. But I wonder if any YEC believers here will add to or refute my own perspective.

But if we are realists, we know that truth exists regardless of how we describe it or perceive it. For one to insist that one view dominate the other when the contradict concerning the same truth suggests nominalism. I don't know any YEC believers who claim to be nominalistic. Somehow we all need to find solutions to competing or different forms of information to create a holistic belief.

Btw, many evolutionists here are also creationists. :wink:

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:16 pm

Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:43 pm
Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:24 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:57 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:04 pm
Cleon wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:37 am
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:19 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:14 am
infidel wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:08 am
IMO, this stubborn adherence to Genesis literalism is doing irreparable harm to Christianity in the long run.
I have thought about this for some time but I don't think believing in Genesis literalism harms Christianity but, rather, arguing against scientific evidence by using philosophy/theology I think does. If literalists wanted to argue against evolution, they need to conduct scientific study to do any good. But this means that they can't start with the conclusion and investigate to that same conclusion--that's not how it works.
They can't do it. They know it too. If YEC is supportable by enough evidence, you don't need YEC scientists to bring forth the evidence.
Yes, I think you are correct, although they would need YEC scientists to bring any YEC scientific evidence. But that is the issue: YEC is not science. Insisting that YEC is science, or belongs in the science classroom, is what damages Christianity, IMO. The evolution narrative does not have a place in a YEC Sunday school classroom and the YEC narrative has no place in the evolutionary biology classroom.
The wall of separation between science and belief is a smokescreen, IMO, since we are, after all, wholistic creatures. The mix of corporeal and incorporeal is is what makes us human after God's own image.

Cue wosbald...
Well, science is a method for understanding and describing the natural world contingent on observation and replication while belief is often simply a decision little to do with empirical facts. I choose to believe in God because of my experiences but I cannot offer any empirical evidence (let alone any proof). One can choose to ignore or deny empirical data, if one wishes, but to do so is to deny reality--which is the realm of belief, often. Empirical evidence and belief seldom seem to have much to do with each other, nowadays. But gathering empirical data is work while belief is often a choice. This difference alone seems to be significant. Frankly, people more often choose a belief and then work to keep it rather than work to understand natural phenomena, IMO.
Some people perhaps make that choice, the other choices a lot of people make are to become lukewarm doubters, unbelievers or they find another solution to the problem by changing their beliefs. The later I'm also interested in discussing with YEC adherents. I wonder if perhaps they view changing their beliefs to align with evidence as a threat to their belief in God. I think it's a viable concern because as I noted above, a lot of people change their beliefs and leave Christianity altogether. I have grappled with this myself. I went to churches with a belief structure that permitted non YEC evolution to be individually held. But still, this is understandably a big deal. It's rife with questions, it's insecure, it's unknown. It might require a change in family culture and certainly a change in the relationship people have with a God they believe they know. To them perhaps, God cannot be the God of evolution. Is that because of what Evolution is or is it because the God they know cannot author evolution for some reason? Even when I changed my beliefs I still experience attachments to much earlier beliefs in some way, that's human.

Hopefully a YEC supporter will chime in. I fear they may wish to avoid the wall of evolutionists here and avoid the conversation at this point. Please don't.
Wall of evolutionists? LOL! You can't swing a cat without hitting a creationist here.

The evidence is that understanding of science need not affect one's faith or lack of faith at all. We can hold different and contradicting ideas in different contexts. There is no meshing of gears in this. The entire spectrum of mixing of religious faith with ideas of science or other things are quite possible. It's again a personal choice or the dictates of personality that determine how one balances it all. Some insist on one view dominating and some may not.
Of course it's a choice. But no, you really can't hold contradicting beliefs, at least not gracefully. People must find solutions to contradictions they see in themselves. Anxiety and depression are just two possible outcomes that may result in contradictory beliefs or actions. Certain faiths are hostile to established science, the faith I was raised to was. It created problems for some of us, meanwhile others sought livelihoods that continued the tradition and YEC narrative. It's basically a subculture within our nation really. They are somewhat insulated from the secular world and other religious people. At least that's my own view of it. But I wonder if any YEC believers here will add to or refute my own perspective.

But if we are realists, we know that truth exists regardless of how we describe it or perceive it. For one to insist that one view dominate the other suggests nominalism. I don't know any YEC believers who claim to be nominalistic. Somehow we all need to find solutions to competing or different forms of information to create a holistic belief.

Btw, many evolutionists here are also creationists. :wink:
You don't have to believe in evolution to understand how it works and the evidence for it. You go to science class, you learn the method, you look at the evidence, and you learn how it works. No belief necessary. So when you graduate from HS or college you understand how it works and you can explore it if you choose or ignore it as you think best. By insisting that YEC doctrine be included in the science class, the YEC may have forced belief into the matter.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25034
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Rusty » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:18 pm

Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:43 pm
Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:24 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:57 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:04 pm
Cleon wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:37 am
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:19 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:14 am
infidel wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:08 am
IMO, this stubborn adherence to Genesis literalism is doing irreparable harm to Christianity in the long run.
I have thought about this for some time but I don't think believing in Genesis literalism harms Christianity but, rather, arguing against scientific evidence by using philosophy/theology I think does. If literalists wanted to argue against evolution, they need to conduct scientific study to do any good. But this means that they can't start with the conclusion and investigate to that same conclusion--that's not how it works.
They can't do it. They know it too. If YEC is supportable by enough evidence, you don't need YEC scientists to bring forth the evidence.
Yes, I think you are correct, although they would need YEC scientists to bring any YEC scientific evidence. But that is the issue: YEC is not science. Insisting that YEC is science, or belongs in the science classroom, is what damages Christianity, IMO. The evolution narrative does not have a place in a YEC Sunday school classroom and the YEC narrative has no place in the evolutionary biology classroom.
The wall of separation between science and belief is a smokescreen, IMO, since we are, after all, wholistic creatures. The mix of corporeal and incorporeal is is what makes us human after God's own image.

Cue wosbald...
Well, science is a method for understanding and describing the natural world contingent on observation and replication while belief is often simply a decision little to do with empirical facts. I choose to believe in God because of my experiences but I cannot offer any empirical evidence (let alone any proof). One can choose to ignore or deny empirical data, if one wishes, but to do so is to deny reality--which is the realm of belief, often. Empirical evidence and belief seldom seem to have much to do with each other, nowadays. But gathering empirical data is work while belief is often a choice. This difference alone seems to be significant. Frankly, people more often choose a belief and then work to keep it rather than work to understand natural phenomena, IMO.
Some people perhaps make that choice, the other choices a lot of people make are to become lukewarm doubters, unbelievers or they find another solution to the problem by changing their beliefs. The later I'm also interested in discussing with YEC adherents. I wonder if perhaps they view changing their beliefs to align with evidence as a threat to their belief in God. I think it's a viable concern because as I noted above, a lot of people change their beliefs and leave Christianity altogether. I have grappled with this myself. I went to churches with a belief structure that permitted non YEC evolution to be individually held. But still, this is understandably a big deal. It's rife with questions, it's insecure, it's unknown. It might require a change in family culture and certainly a change in the relationship people have with a God they believe they know. To them perhaps, God cannot be the God of evolution. Is that because of what Evolution is or is it because the God they know cannot author evolution for some reason? Even when I changed my beliefs I still experience attachments to much earlier beliefs in some way, that's human.

Hopefully a YEC supporter will chime in. I fear they may wish to avoid the wall of evolutionists here and avoid the conversation at this point. Please don't.
Wall of evolutionists? LOL! You can't swing a cat without hitting a creationist here.

The evidence is that understanding of science need not affect one's faith or lack of faith at all. We can hold different and contradicting ideas in different contexts. There is no meshing of gears in this. The entire spectrum of mixing of religious faith with ideas of science or other things are quite possible. It's again a personal choice or the dictates of personality that determine how one balances it all. Some insist on one view dominating and some may not.
Of course it's a choice. But no, you really can't hold contradicting beliefs, at least not gracefully. People must find solutions to contradictions they see in themselves. Anxiety and depression are just two possible outcomes that may result in contradictory beliefs or actions. Certain faiths are hostile to established science, the faith I was raised to was. It created problems for some of us, meanwhile others sought livelihoods that continued the tradition and YEC narrative. It's basically a subculture within our nation really. They are somewhat insulated from the secular world and other religious people. At least that's my own view of it. But I wonder if any YEC believers here will add to or refute my own perspective.

But if we are realists, we know that truth exists regardless of how we describe it or perceive it. For one to insist that one view dominate the other when the contradict concerning the same truth suggests nominalism. I don't know any YEC believers who claim to be nominalistic. Somehow we all need to find solutions to competing or different forms of information to create a holistic belief.

Btw, many evolutionists here are also creationists. :wink:
Let me gently suggest that you're telling us about the requirements for you. And you're not alone. History seems to tell us that Darwin felt there was a conflict and, to his wife's displeasure, he wouldn't attend church anymore and he lost his faith. There are other clear signs of stress and guilt over all this. He hoped that he could have the book published after his death. Wallace pushed him ahead of schedule. Lemaitre responded quite differently and held the two together and appeared to treat them as different worlds. He avoided 'crossing the beams'. And he had to deal with the big bang baiter Hoyle, who was a pal, and Einstein. Both of whom argued with him, and told him he was wrong and a horrible physicist etc etc. Einstein gave in, Hoyle didn't. And then there was the Pope. It's not as if Lemaitre could just play with the big bang; he was a well trained and very skilled mathematical physicist. Then there is the example of the Indian Mathematician Ramunajan who appeared to believe that he wasn't the author of his own ideas but rather they came from a goddess. There are likely examples today that are very similar. The evidence is that the entire spectrum is possible but of course varies individually from person to person.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25034
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Rusty » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:55 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:16 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:43 pm
Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:24 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:57 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:04 pm
Cleon wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:37 am
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:19 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:14 am


I have thought about this for some time but I don't think believing in Genesis literalism harms Christianity but, rather, arguing against scientific evidence by using philosophy/theology I think does. If literalists wanted to argue against evolution, they need to conduct scientific study to do any good. But this means that they can't start with the conclusion and investigate to that same conclusion--that's not how it works.
They can't do it. They know it too. If YEC is supportable by enough evidence, you don't need YEC scientists to bring forth the evidence.
Yes, I think you are correct, although they would need YEC scientists to bring any YEC scientific evidence. But that is the issue: YEC is not science. Insisting that YEC is science, or belongs in the science classroom, is what damages Christianity, IMO. The evolution narrative does not have a place in a YEC Sunday school classroom and the YEC narrative has no place in the evolutionary biology classroom.
The wall of separation between science and belief is a smokescreen, IMO, since we are, after all, wholistic creatures. The mix of corporeal and incorporeal is is what makes us human after God's own image.

Cue wosbald...
Well, science is a method for understanding and describing the natural world contingent on observation and replication while belief is often simply a decision little to do with empirical facts. I choose to believe in God because of my experiences but I cannot offer any empirical evidence (let alone any proof). One can choose to ignore or deny empirical data, if one wishes, but to do so is to deny reality--which is the realm of belief, often. Empirical evidence and belief seldom seem to have much to do with each other, nowadays. But gathering empirical data is work while belief is often a choice. This difference alone seems to be significant. Frankly, people more often choose a belief and then work to keep it rather than work to understand natural phenomena, IMO.
Some people perhaps make that choice, the other choices a lot of people make are to become lukewarm doubters, unbelievers or they find another solution to the problem by changing their beliefs. The later I'm also interested in discussing with YEC adherents. I wonder if perhaps they view changing their beliefs to align with evidence as a threat to their belief in God. I think it's a viable concern because as I noted above, a lot of people change their beliefs and leave Christianity altogether. I have grappled with this myself. I went to churches with a belief structure that permitted non YEC evolution to be individually held. But still, this is understandably a big deal. It's rife with questions, it's insecure, it's unknown. It might require a change in family culture and certainly a change in the relationship people have with a God they believe they know. To them perhaps, God cannot be the God of evolution. Is that because of what Evolution is or is it because the God they know cannot author evolution for some reason? Even when I changed my beliefs I still experience attachments to much earlier beliefs in some way, that's human.

Hopefully a YEC supporter will chime in. I fear they may wish to avoid the wall of evolutionists here and avoid the conversation at this point. Please don't.
Wall of evolutionists? LOL! You can't swing a cat without hitting a creationist here.

The evidence is that understanding of science need not affect one's faith or lack of faith at all. We can hold different and contradicting ideas in different contexts. There is no meshing of gears in this. The entire spectrum of mixing of religious faith with ideas of science or other things are quite possible. It's again a personal choice or the dictates of personality that determine how one balances it all. Some insist on one view dominating and some may not.
Of course it's a choice. But no, you really can't hold contradicting beliefs, at least not gracefully. People must find solutions to contradictions they see in themselves. Anxiety and depression are just two possible outcomes that may result in contradictory beliefs or actions. Certain faiths are hostile to established science, the faith I was raised to was. It created problems for some of us, meanwhile others sought livelihoods that continued the tradition and YEC narrative. It's basically a subculture within our nation really. They are somewhat insulated from the secular world and other religious people. At least that's my own view of it. But I wonder if any YEC believers here will add to or refute my own perspective.

But if we are realists, we know that truth exists regardless of how we describe it or perceive it. For one to insist that one view dominate the other suggests nominalism. I don't know any YEC believers who claim to be nominalistic. Somehow we all need to find solutions to competing or different forms of information to create a holistic belief.

Btw, many evolutionists here are also creationists. :wink:
You don't have to believe in evolution to understand how it works and the evidence for it. You go to science class, you learn the method, you look at the evidence, and you learn how it works. No belief necessary. So when you graduate from HS or college you understand how it works and you can explore it if you choose or ignore it as you think best. By insisting that YEC doctrine be included in the science class, the YEC may have forced belief into the matter.
I would ask, at which point does evidence convince us? How is that different than belief? And if we incorporate the concepts into our thinking then what? One only has to read Jerry Coyne's books to see this.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:04 pm

Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:55 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:16 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:43 pm
Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:24 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:57 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:04 pm
Cleon wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:37 am
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:19 am


They can't do it. They know it too. If YEC is supportable by enough evidence, you don't need YEC scientists to bring forth the evidence.
Yes, I think you are correct, although they would need YEC scientists to bring any YEC scientific evidence. But that is the issue: YEC is not science. Insisting that YEC is science, or belongs in the science classroom, is what damages Christianity, IMO. The evolution narrative does not have a place in a YEC Sunday school classroom and the YEC narrative has no place in the evolutionary biology classroom.
The wall of separation between science and belief is a smokescreen, IMO, since we are, after all, wholistic creatures. The mix of corporeal and incorporeal is is what makes us human after God's own image.

Cue wosbald...
Well, science is a method for understanding and describing the natural world contingent on observation and replication while belief is often simply a decision little to do with empirical facts. I choose to believe in God because of my experiences but I cannot offer any empirical evidence (let alone any proof). One can choose to ignore or deny empirical data, if one wishes, but to do so is to deny reality--which is the realm of belief, often. Empirical evidence and belief seldom seem to have much to do with each other, nowadays. But gathering empirical data is work while belief is often a choice. This difference alone seems to be significant. Frankly, people more often choose a belief and then work to keep it rather than work to understand natural phenomena, IMO.
Some people perhaps make that choice, the other choices a lot of people make are to become lukewarm doubters, unbelievers or they find another solution to the problem by changing their beliefs. The later I'm also interested in discussing with YEC adherents. I wonder if perhaps they view changing their beliefs to align with evidence as a threat to their belief in God. I think it's a viable concern because as I noted above, a lot of people change their beliefs and leave Christianity altogether. I have grappled with this myself. I went to churches with a belief structure that permitted non YEC evolution to be individually held. But still, this is understandably a big deal. It's rife with questions, it's insecure, it's unknown. It might require a change in family culture and certainly a change in the relationship people have with a God they believe they know. To them perhaps, God cannot be the God of evolution. Is that because of what Evolution is or is it because the God they know cannot author evolution for some reason? Even when I changed my beliefs I still experience attachments to much earlier beliefs in some way, that's human.

Hopefully a YEC supporter will chime in. I fear they may wish to avoid the wall of evolutionists here and avoid the conversation at this point. Please don't.
Wall of evolutionists? LOL! You can't swing a cat without hitting a creationist here.

The evidence is that understanding of science need not affect one's faith or lack of faith at all. We can hold different and contradicting ideas in different contexts. There is no meshing of gears in this. The entire spectrum of mixing of religious faith with ideas of science or other things are quite possible. It's again a personal choice or the dictates of personality that determine how one balances it all. Some insist on one view dominating and some may not.
Of course it's a choice. But no, you really can't hold contradicting beliefs, at least not gracefully. People must find solutions to contradictions they see in themselves. Anxiety and depression are just two possible outcomes that may result in contradictory beliefs or actions. Certain faiths are hostile to established science, the faith I was raised to was. It created problems for some of us, meanwhile others sought livelihoods that continued the tradition and YEC narrative. It's basically a subculture within our nation really. They are somewhat insulated from the secular world and other religious people. At least that's my own view of it. But I wonder if any YEC believers here will add to or refute my own perspective.

But if we are realists, we know that truth exists regardless of how we describe it or perceive it. For one to insist that one view dominate the other suggests nominalism. I don't know any YEC believers who claim to be nominalistic. Somehow we all need to find solutions to competing or different forms of information to create a holistic belief.

Btw, many evolutionists here are also creationists. :wink:
You don't have to believe in evolution to understand how it works and the evidence for it. You go to science class, you learn the method, you look at the evidence, and you learn how it works. No belief necessary. So when you graduate from HS or college you understand how it works and you can explore it if you choose or ignore it as you think best. By insisting that YEC doctrine be included in the science class, the YEC may have forced belief into the matter.
I would ask, at which point does evidence convince us? How is that different than belief? And if we incorporate the concepts into our thinking then what? One only has to read Jerry Coyne's books to see this.
Immaterial, really. That is up to the individual when and/or if the choose to believe.

It is different from belief because it is just a technique--a method of inquiry. One can choose to use it (or not) but by forcing an either/or decision in the science classroom, many people are bound to reject YEC and Christianity--and with reasons that they associate with reality.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 25034
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Rusty » Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:02 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:04 pm
Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:55 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:16 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:43 pm
Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:24 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:57 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:04 pm
Cleon wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:37 am


Yes, I think you are correct, although they would need YEC scientists to bring any YEC scientific evidence. But that is the issue: YEC is not science. Insisting that YEC is science, or belongs in the science classroom, is what damages Christianity, IMO. The evolution narrative does not have a place in a YEC Sunday school classroom and the YEC narrative has no place in the evolutionary biology classroom.
The wall of separation between science and belief is a smokescreen, IMO, since we are, after all, wholistic creatures. The mix of corporeal and incorporeal is is what makes us human after God's own image.

Cue wosbald...
Well, science is a method for understanding and describing the natural world contingent on observation and replication while belief is often simply a decision little to do with empirical facts. I choose to believe in God because of my experiences but I cannot offer any empirical evidence (let alone any proof). One can choose to ignore or deny empirical data, if one wishes, but to do so is to deny reality--which is the realm of belief, often. Empirical evidence and belief seldom seem to have much to do with each other, nowadays. But gathering empirical data is work while belief is often a choice. This difference alone seems to be significant. Frankly, people more often choose a belief and then work to keep it rather than work to understand natural phenomena, IMO.
Some people perhaps make that choice, the other choices a lot of people make are to become lukewarm doubters, unbelievers or they find another solution to the problem by changing their beliefs. The later I'm also interested in discussing with YEC adherents. I wonder if perhaps they view changing their beliefs to align with evidence as a threat to their belief in God. I think it's a viable concern because as I noted above, a lot of people change their beliefs and leave Christianity altogether. I have grappled with this myself. I went to churches with a belief structure that permitted non YEC evolution to be individually held. But still, this is understandably a big deal. It's rife with questions, it's insecure, it's unknown. It might require a change in family culture and certainly a change in the relationship people have with a God they believe they know. To them perhaps, God cannot be the God of evolution. Is that because of what Evolution is or is it because the God they know cannot author evolution for some reason? Even when I changed my beliefs I still experience attachments to much earlier beliefs in some way, that's human.

Hopefully a YEC supporter will chime in. I fear they may wish to avoid the wall of evolutionists here and avoid the conversation at this point. Please don't.
Wall of evolutionists? LOL! You can't swing a cat without hitting a creationist here.

The evidence is that understanding of science need not affect one's faith or lack of faith at all. We can hold different and contradicting ideas in different contexts. There is no meshing of gears in this. The entire spectrum of mixing of religious faith with ideas of science or other things are quite possible. It's again a personal choice or the dictates of personality that determine how one balances it all. Some insist on one view dominating and some may not.
Of course it's a choice. But no, you really can't hold contradicting beliefs, at least not gracefully. People must find solutions to contradictions they see in themselves. Anxiety and depression are just two possible outcomes that may result in contradictory beliefs or actions. Certain faiths are hostile to established science, the faith I was raised to was. It created problems for some of us, meanwhile others sought livelihoods that continued the tradition and YEC narrative. It's basically a subculture within our nation really. They are somewhat insulated from the secular world and other religious people. At least that's my own view of it. But I wonder if any YEC believers here will add to or refute my own perspective.

But if we are realists, we know that truth exists regardless of how we describe it or perceive it. For one to insist that one view dominate the other suggests nominalism. I don't know any YEC believers who claim to be nominalistic. Somehow we all need to find solutions to competing or different forms of information to create a holistic belief.

Btw, many evolutionists here are also creationists. :wink:
You don't have to believe in evolution to understand how it works and the evidence for it. You go to science class, you learn the method, you look at the evidence, and you learn how it works. No belief necessary. So when you graduate from HS or college you understand how it works and you can explore it if you choose or ignore it as you think best. By insisting that YEC doctrine be included in the science class, the YEC may have forced belief into the matter.
I would ask, at which point does evidence convince us? How is that different than belief? And if we incorporate the concepts into our thinking then what? One only has to read Jerry Coyne's books to see this.
Immaterial, really. That is up to the individual when and/or if the choose to believe.

It is different from belief because it is just a technique--a method of inquiry. One can choose to use it (or not) but by forcing an either/or decision in the science classroom, many people are bound to reject YEC and Christianity--and with reasons that they associate with reality.
The technique and method of inquiry is not the point of the exercise. It's true that a lot of analysis and effort goes into methodology but it's not the important end product.

I'm not trying to tell you that you have to accept or believe anything. What I'm asking is what does it take to convince? There are very few issues where science and religion have any conflict. Most of science is peripheral and irrelevant to religion. There is no argument about condensed matter or materials science etc. It's only on a few questions that there is any stress.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:02 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:04 pm
Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:55 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:16 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:43 pm
Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:24 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:57 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:04 pm
Cleon wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am

The wall of separation between science and belief is a smokescreen, IMO, since we are, after all, wholistic creatures. The mix of corporeal and incorporeal is is what makes us human after God's own image.

Cue wosbald...
Well, science is a method for understanding and describing the natural world contingent on observation and replication while belief is often simply a decision little to do with empirical facts. I choose to believe in God because of my experiences but I cannot offer any empirical evidence (let alone any proof). One can choose to ignore or deny empirical data, if one wishes, but to do so is to deny reality--which is the realm of belief, often. Empirical evidence and belief seldom seem to have much to do with each other, nowadays. But gathering empirical data is work while belief is often a choice. This difference alone seems to be significant. Frankly, people more often choose a belief and then work to keep it rather than work to understand natural phenomena, IMO.
Some people perhaps make that choice, the other choices a lot of people make are to become lukewarm doubters, unbelievers or they find another solution to the problem by changing their beliefs. The later I'm also interested in discussing with YEC adherents. I wonder if perhaps they view changing their beliefs to align with evidence as a threat to their belief in God. I think it's a viable concern because as I noted above, a lot of people change their beliefs and leave Christianity altogether. I have grappled with this myself. I went to churches with a belief structure that permitted non YEC evolution to be individually held. But still, this is understandably a big deal. It's rife with questions, it's insecure, it's unknown. It might require a change in family culture and certainly a change in the relationship people have with a God they believe they know. To them perhaps, God cannot be the God of evolution. Is that because of what Evolution is or is it because the God they know cannot author evolution for some reason? Even when I changed my beliefs I still experience attachments to much earlier beliefs in some way, that's human.

Hopefully a YEC supporter will chime in. I fear they may wish to avoid the wall of evolutionists here and avoid the conversation at this point. Please don't.
Wall of evolutionists? LOL! You can't swing a cat without hitting a creationist here.

The evidence is that understanding of science need not affect one's faith or lack of faith at all. We can hold different and contradicting ideas in different contexts. There is no meshing of gears in this. The entire spectrum of mixing of religious faith with ideas of science or other things are quite possible. It's again a personal choice or the dictates of personality that determine how one balances it all. Some insist on one view dominating and some may not.
Of course it's a choice. But no, you really can't hold contradicting beliefs, at least not gracefully. People must find solutions to contradictions they see in themselves. Anxiety and depression are just two possible outcomes that may result in contradictory beliefs or actions. Certain faiths are hostile to established science, the faith I was raised to was. It created problems for some of us, meanwhile others sought livelihoods that continued the tradition and YEC narrative. It's basically a subculture within our nation really. They are somewhat insulated from the secular world and other religious people. At least that's my own view of it. But I wonder if any YEC believers here will add to or refute my own perspective.

But if we are realists, we know that truth exists regardless of how we describe it or perceive it. For one to insist that one view dominate the other suggests nominalism. I don't know any YEC believers who claim to be nominalistic. Somehow we all need to find solutions to competing or different forms of information to create a holistic belief.

Btw, many evolutionists here are also creationists. :wink:
You don't have to believe in evolution to understand how it works and the evidence for it. You go to science class, you learn the method, you look at the evidence, and you learn how it works. No belief necessary. So when you graduate from HS or college you understand how it works and you can explore it if you choose or ignore it as you think best. By insisting that YEC doctrine be included in the science class, the YEC may have forced belief into the matter.
I would ask, at which point does evidence convince us? How is that different than belief? And if we incorporate the concepts into our thinking then what? One only has to read Jerry Coyne's books to see this.
Immaterial, really. That is up to the individual when and/or if the choose to believe.

It is different from belief because it is just a technique--a method of inquiry. One can choose to use it (or not) but by forcing an either/or decision in the science classroom, many people are bound to reject YEC and Christianity--and with reasons that they associate with reality.
The technique and method of inquiry is not the point of the exercise. It's true that a lot of analysis and effort goes into methodology but it's not the important end product.

I'm not trying to tell you that you have to accept or believe anything. What I'm asking is what does it take to convince? There are very few issues where science and religion have any conflict. Most of science is peripheral and irrelevant to religion. There is no argument about condensed matter or materials science etc. It's only on a few questions that there is any stress.
And I'm telling you that there is no formula to convince. If reason and empirical evidence sufficed then there would be little debate over whether global warming exists or whether vaccines cause autism and so on.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 20858
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:03 pm

Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:18 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:43 pm
Rusty wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:24 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:57 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:04 pm
Cleon wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:37 am
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:19 am
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:14 am


I have thought about this for some time but I don't think believing in Genesis literalism harms Christianity but, rather, arguing against scientific evidence by using philosophy/theology I think does. If literalists wanted to argue against evolution, they need to conduct scientific study to do any good. But this means that they can't start with the conclusion and investigate to that same conclusion--that's not how it works.
They can't do it. They know it too. If YEC is supportable by enough evidence, you don't need YEC scientists to bring forth the evidence.
Yes, I think you are correct, although they would need YEC scientists to bring any YEC scientific evidence. But that is the issue: YEC is not science. Insisting that YEC is science, or belongs in the science classroom, is what damages Christianity, IMO. The evolution narrative does not have a place in a YEC Sunday school classroom and the YEC narrative has no place in the evolutionary biology classroom.
The wall of separation between science and belief is a smokescreen, IMO, since we are, after all, wholistic creatures. The mix of corporeal and incorporeal is is what makes us human after God's own image.

Cue wosbald...
Well, science is a method for understanding and describing the natural world contingent on observation and replication while belief is often simply a decision little to do with empirical facts. I choose to believe in God because of my experiences but I cannot offer any empirical evidence (let alone any proof). One can choose to ignore or deny empirical data, if one wishes, but to do so is to deny reality--which is the realm of belief, often. Empirical evidence and belief seldom seem to have much to do with each other, nowadays. But gathering empirical data is work while belief is often a choice. This difference alone seems to be significant. Frankly, people more often choose a belief and then work to keep it rather than work to understand natural phenomena, IMO.
Some people perhaps make that choice, the other choices a lot of people make are to become lukewarm doubters, unbelievers or they find another solution to the problem by changing their beliefs. The later I'm also interested in discussing with YEC adherents. I wonder if perhaps they view changing their beliefs to align with evidence as a threat to their belief in God. I think it's a viable concern because as I noted above, a lot of people change their beliefs and leave Christianity altogether. I have grappled with this myself. I went to churches with a belief structure that permitted non YEC evolution to be individually held. But still, this is understandably a big deal. It's rife with questions, it's insecure, it's unknown. It might require a change in family culture and certainly a change in the relationship people have with a God they believe they know. To them perhaps, God cannot be the God of evolution. Is that because of what Evolution is or is it because the God they know cannot author evolution for some reason? Even when I changed my beliefs I still experience attachments to much earlier beliefs in some way, that's human.

Hopefully a YEC supporter will chime in. I fear they may wish to avoid the wall of evolutionists here and avoid the conversation at this point. Please don't.
Wall of evolutionists? LOL! You can't swing a cat without hitting a creationist here.

The evidence is that understanding of science need not affect one's faith or lack of faith at all. We can hold different and contradicting ideas in different contexts. There is no meshing of gears in this. The entire spectrum of mixing of religious faith with ideas of science or other things are quite possible. It's again a personal choice or the dictates of personality that determine how one balances it all. Some insist on one view dominating and some may not.
Of course it's a choice. But no, you really can't hold contradicting beliefs, at least not gracefully. People must find solutions to contradictions they see in themselves. Anxiety and depression are just two possible outcomes that may result in contradictory beliefs or actions. Certain faiths are hostile to established science, the faith I was raised to was. It created problems for some of us, meanwhile others sought livelihoods that continued the tradition and YEC narrative. It's basically a subculture within our nation really. They are somewhat insulated from the secular world and other religious people. At least that's my own view of it. But I wonder if any YEC believers here will add to or refute my own perspective.

But if we are realists, we know that truth exists regardless of how we describe it or perceive it. For one to insist that one view dominate the other when the contradict concerning the same truth suggests nominalism. I don't know any YEC believers who claim to be nominalistic. Somehow we all need to find solutions to competing or different forms of information to create a holistic belief.

Btw, many evolutionists here are also creationists. :wink:
Let me gently suggest that you're telling us about the requirements for you. And you're not alone.
Yes, I'm hedging on that. Curious as to how YECs grapple with things. Forgetting perhaps that they are innocent of what Evolution actually is. Though curiously they seem quite happy not to pursue it themselves if that's the case.
History seems to tell us that Darwin felt there was a conflict and, to his wife's displeasure, he wouldn't attend church anymore and he lost his faith. There are other clear signs of stress and guilt over all this. He hoped that he could have the book published after his death. Wallace pushed him ahead of schedule. Lemaitre responded quite differently and held the two together and appeared to treat them as different worlds. He avoided 'crossing the beams'. And he had to deal with the big bang baiter Hoyle, who was a pal, and Einstein. Both of whom argued with him, and told him he was wrong and a horrible physicist etc etc. Einstein gave in, Hoyle didn't. And then there was the Pope. It's not as if Lemaitre could just play with the big bang; he was a well trained and very skilled mathematical physicist. Then there is the example of the Indian Mathematician Ramunajan who appeared to believe that he wasn't the author of his own ideas but rather they came from a goddess. There are likely examples today that are very similar. The evidence is that the entire spectrum is possible but of course varies individually from person to person.
I really don't have any problem understanding why people believe in God or practice religion while also holding an open eye to science, the Big Bang, evolution and so on. I really don't. I have no surprise or difficulty accepting the fact that many Christians also accept the theory of evolution and make it fit with their faith using one formula or another. I am also fully aware of the possibility that my lack of belief has more to do with me than belief itself. I Currently don't believe in God because I made the best judgement on the matter that I could. It's a choice subject to change if I learn something that clarifies my own concerns in favor of belief. Others do not share my concerns so it isn't an issue for them. There are some very strong arguments in favor of belief in Jesus too. I have not discounted them, merely found them unconvincing by themselves. Belief in God or gods or goddesses can be quite reasonable. There are many philosophical arguments that can support arguments for such things.

There are various logical arguments people of faith can make for faith itself. I don't for a second believe that Christians are nuts for belief. Though I find certain Christians nuts for believing certain things. YEC is one of those things. It blows my mind. I'm intensely interested in what such people think and why. I questioned it very early on, many times in opposition to all of my peers who didn't appreciate my perspective and doubts. I was surrounded by it, but once I learned what evolution really is as a theory, it was never hard to understand. What did become hard was to try and believe in Young Earth Creation. Perhaps I'm horribly ill suited to such faith groups and perhaps my longing for understanding of them is in vain? I'm quite certain that discussing this with you won't help me know as you seem as confounded as me over it.

Lemaitre was a Catholic and was proabably careful to avoid "crossing the beams" until the mind the church could process his work and to ensure his work wouldn't cross out the church. Most likely, it was for faith, not against evidence that made him careful. Einstien was quite possibly a pantheist and wrote about the universe at times with religious adoration. My line of questioning here is specifically in regards to Young Earth Creationsim that really confounds me. It's right up there with denial of climate change. Both have an American social and political side to them too. I honestly can't understand how folks maintain such beliefs or what motivates them to keep them.

I wanted to know what really is. I still do so I remain curious and open to new information. I'm not a believer in God as God is classically described in the west. But I'm continually challenging my own conceptions of that in the interest of truth. It is entirely possible that I may return to church one day, though I presently don't have enough reason to do so. Young Earth Creatinists on the other hand really need to cover up mountains of evidence at this point to continue their stand against evolution. Why? :confused:

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32447
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:48 am

Dinosaur Family Tree Poised for Colossal Shake-Up: “Textbook-changing” analysis of dinosaur bones upends long-accepted relationships among major
Baron and his colleagues’ most notable revision grafts the theropod lizard-hipped lineage onto the branch containing all of the bird-hipped (ornithiscian) dinosaurs, such as Stegosaurus and Triceratops. The team’s analysis indicates that members of both major groups share 21 anatomical traits, ranging from a distinctive ridge on their upper jaw to the fusion of particular bones in their feet. For this newly amalgamated branch of the family tree, the team resurrected a group name that was first proposed in the 1870s but later fell out of favour—the Ornithoscelida, which loosely translated from Greek means 'bird-limbed'.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:43 am

Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:01 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:38 am
Thunktank wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:20 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:11 am
UncleBob wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:17 pm
infidel wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:13 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:01 pm
Surely you could start another thread about Trump. Why wreck the pre-existing threads?

It's not like Tuttle woke up one day with an unsupportable belief, you know. His irrationality predates Trump.

So why was this necessary? What did it add? What "interesting premise" did that article have? How is this not simply shitposting?
Seems to be Bob's hobby lately.
Again, the narrative verses data.
To be fair, if we're going to use 'narrative' as a link to this thread for your hobby horse, whenever I talk about the 'narrative' I don't frame it as 'Narrative vs Data', rather, anyone interpreting data is going to interpret it from their narrative. No one escapes a narrative whether it's Creation or Evolution. Everyone has the same data, not everyone holds to the same narrative. The biggest hurdle is getting people to see that they interpret the data in light of their accepted narrative.
That's the thing. Science narratives change if the data tells a different story. Evolution is the narrative because the evidence is the object of the narrative.
The only changes that occur are theories already developed within its own narrative (same for Creationism...ie YEC, OEC, etc). But it's still evolution. There is nothing from within that will knock down the framework because the newly discovered data is being interpreted by the narrative. The discovery of soft tissue from dinosaur bones caused a huge uproar within the scientific community, but it didn't change the narrative, they simply adjusted the new data according to their narrative. Nothing has changed the narrative. If the narrative changes, then we're no longer talking about evolution. We'd be talking about a whole new paradigm.
In any case, the narrative remains evolution because the data didn't demand a new narrative. The soft tissue in the dinosaur never came remotely close to calling the evolution narrative into question. The premise of the evolution narrative is fundamentally different from Biblical revelation anyway. I find it very difficult to compare them. Sure they both talk about how creation came to be using very different means and for very different purpose. Both use their own methods to provide the substance of their respective narrative, it's apples to oranges. We have a couple of short chapters in Genesis concerned about many things in addition to creation itself, like people's beliefs about God and man's moral obligations in the Garden. We have volumes and volumes of scientific data that is used to explain evolution that really only deals with data from nature alone. Very different.
I pretty much agree with this. Even the dino tissue part. It (and every other discover) will never overturn the narrative. But I'll not say it didn't shake some people's faith in it. That was the uproar. The immediate knee jerk call to arms against creationists, heading them off at the pass. Even if it wasn't a real threat to the narrative, it had the potential to rattle some believers.

But that's a quibble. It's funny, even though we're on complete opposite sides on this, I feel like we are mainly in agreement that each 'side' is not equal in how each goes about the business of their purpose. That they don't mix. That the domain of one isn't the domain of the other. It's very refreshing to see that from the 'other' side, and I think it adds value to your opinion.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:57 am

infidel wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:08 am
The reason we fit/intepret new data into the dominant narrative/paradigm is because said narrative/paradigm is correct, or mostly correct, for all known circumstances. And if there ever came a new narrative/paradigm to supplant evolution as the dominant narrative/paradigm then it must also account for everything that evolution gets right in addition to whatever hypothetical things evolution someday gets wrong. So your "whole new paradigm" would still largely be evolution.
Creationists believe their narrative is correct just like evolutionists. Your statement that it is correct is a statement of faith. Once that is believed then everything, whether one sees it or not, will in some way conform to the narrative because 'duh' the narrative is correct. That's why the new paradigm would still largely fit the narrative. Creationists play that way too, only we are honest enough to call it what it is; a belief.

But evolutionists shy away from that because if they allow themselves to do so, they've lost. They'd no longer be playing by their own established rules.
infidel wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:08 am
IMO, this stubborn adherence to Genesis literalism is doing irreparable harm to Christianity in the long run.
A certain form of literalism is harmful. But I'd argue it's more harmful to those who adhere to it more than those who couldn't give a flying FredS about it. Irreparable harm to a certain sect? Maybe. A certain denomination? Possibly. But to Christianity? Hardly. Out of 2000 years and some of the most heinous things 'justified' in the name of Christianity, I severely doubt an abnormal adherence to literalism will do the girl in.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6186
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:39 am

tuttle wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:57 am
infidel wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:08 am
The reason we fit/intepret new data into the dominant narrative/paradigm is because said narrative/paradigm is correct, or mostly correct, for all known circumstances. And if there ever came a new narrative/paradigm to supplant evolution as the dominant narrative/paradigm then it must also account for everything that evolution gets right in addition to whatever hypothetical things evolution someday gets wrong. So your "whole new paradigm" would still largely be evolution.
Creationists believe their narrative is correct just like evolutionists. Your statement that it is correct is a statement of faith. Once that is believed then everything, whether one sees it or not, will in some way conform to the narrative because 'duh' the narrative is correct. That's why the new paradigm would still largely fit the narrative. Creationists play that way too, only we are honest enough to call it what it is; a belief.
No it all comes down to the evidence. We believe with an extremely high level of confidence that evolution is correct because of all the evidence. And if new evidence comes along that unequivocally refutes it then the new paradigm will have to account for that new evidence and all of the old evidence too. That is how science works and why any such hypothetical replacement would still largely involve evolution as we currently understand it. You also have evidence, but of a completely different kind. Everything you believe hinges on the testimonies of a handful of people from 2000 years ago, and maybe some personal experiences or possibly some miraculous occurrences, all of which is fine, but different. You keep acting as though they are equivalent. They aren't. I choose to accept both and find a point in the middle where they touch. You choose to see them as utterly conflicting and therefore must choose between them.
tuttle wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:57 am
But evolutionists shy away from that because if they allow themselves to do so, they've lost. They'd no longer be playing by their own established rules.
infidel wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:08 am
IMO, this stubborn adherence to Genesis literalism is doing irreparable harm to Christianity in the long run.
A certain form of literalism is harmful. But I'd argue it's more harmful to those who adhere to it more than those who couldn't give a flying FredS about it. Irreparable harm to a certain sect? Maybe. A certain denomination? Possibly. But to Christianity? Hardly. Out of 2000 years and some of the most heinous things 'justified' in the name of Christianity, I severely doubt an abnormal adherence to literalism will do the girl in.
Ok fine, maybe some of the branches will die off, or become increasingly irrelevant, but the tree will certainly live on. I speak from experience, though, as one who had completely written off all of Christianity because the face of it I encountered most was of the young earth creationist type.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:17 am

infidel wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:39 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:57 am
infidel wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:08 am
The reason we fit/intepret new data into the dominant narrative/paradigm is because said narrative/paradigm is correct, or mostly correct, for all known circumstances. And if there ever came a new narrative/paradigm to supplant evolution as the dominant narrative/paradigm then it must also account for everything that evolution gets right in addition to whatever hypothetical things evolution someday gets wrong. So your "whole new paradigm" would still largely be evolution.
Creationists believe their narrative is correct just like evolutionists. Your statement that it is correct is a statement of faith. Once that is believed then everything, whether one sees it or not, will in some way conform to the narrative because 'duh' the narrative is correct. That's why the new paradigm would still largely fit the narrative. Creationists play that way too, only we are honest enough to call it what it is; a belief.
No it all comes down to the evidence. We believe with an extremely high level of confidence that evolution is correct because of all the evidence. And if new evidence comes along that unequivocally refutes it then the new paradigm will have to account for that new evidence and all of the old evidence too. That is how science works and why any such hypothetical replacement would still largely involve evolution as we currently understand it. You also have evidence, but of a completely different kind. Everything you believe hinges on the testimonies of a handful of people from 2000 years ago, and maybe some personal experiences or possibly some miraculous occurrences, all of which is fine, but different. You keep acting as though they are equivalent. They aren't. I choose to accept both and find a point in the middle where they touch. You choose to see them as utterly conflicting and therefore must choose between them.
A change will never come from within. The only way a change will come about is if something essential to the narrative is rejected. If something from outside the narrative adds to or subtracts from it. It will never come about through evidence because all evidence will always point back to to the narrative.

The rejection of God or the rejection of the supernatural was the birth of a different paradigm. It is one of the things that evolutionism has adhered itself to. That's not to say people cannot be Christians and also evolutionists, but that's to say that nothing within evolution points to God because by its own rules (that make perfect sense, mind you) God or the supernatural cannot be subjected to natural scientific observation. The point being, God is effectively nullified. Neither here nor there. He's outside of the narrative, even if some folks believe He's looking in.

I wasn't acting as if they were equivalent as systems, but that each of the narratives depend upon belief. That's where they are the same, and that's where evolutionists can hardly ever bring themselves to admit. You say it all comes down to the evidence, but it is a belief in evolution (or Christianity, or whatever) that forms the interpretation of the evidence. That's not to say a scientist who believes the evolution narrative cannot accomplish anything in science or that he'll always interpret everything wrong. The evidence that reveals dinosaurs had bird-like characteristics, habits, etc (or to be more accurate; the evidence that reveals birds have dinosaur-like characteristics, habits, etc) can only go so far as your narrative allows. Evolution, by nullifying a Creator that creates with a purpose, cannot take such things into account. In fact, it's dangerous to the narrative to take such things into account (thus the hostility towards creationism).

But the main thing is that both are beliefs. It's not even a matter of Evolution vs YEC. Evolution rejects Old Earth or Mature Earth Creationists simply because they all depend upon that which Evolution, by it's own volition must exclude: a Creator.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6186
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:43 am

tuttle wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:17 am
Evolution, by nullifying a Creator that creates with a purpose, cannot take such things into account. In fact, it's dangerous to the narrative to take such things into account (thus the hostility towards creationism).

But the main thing is that both are beliefs. It's not even a matter of Evolution vs YEC. Evolution rejects Old Earth or Mature Earth Creationists simply because they all depend upon that which Evolution, by it's own volition must exclude: a Creator.
Ah, so it all comes down to this. Purpose. I feel like there's a certain echo or shadow of Calvinism on your side. Everything is going according to God's Plan, ultimately to arrive at the predetermined culmination. Everything must have a "purpose" and therefore you cannot possibly accept that we are here by "accident".
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:58 pm

infidel wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:43 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:17 am
Evolution, by nullifying a Creator that creates with a purpose, cannot take such things into account. In fact, it's dangerous to the narrative to take such things into account (thus the hostility towards creationism).

But the main thing is that both are beliefs. It's not even a matter of Evolution vs YEC. Evolution rejects Old Earth or Mature Earth Creationists simply because they all depend upon that which Evolution, by it's own volition must exclude: a Creator.
Ah, so it all comes down to this. Purpose. I feel like there's a certain echo or shadow of Calvinism on your side. Everything is going according to God's Plan, ultimately to arrive at the predetermined culmination. Everything must have a "purpose" and therefore you cannot possibly accept that we are here by "accident".
First, this isn't really reflecting what I was getting at...

Second, how is believing that God has a purpose and a plan automatically a Calvinist idea? How is not accepting that we are here by accident a shadow of Calvinism? That stuff is straight up mere Christianity. Were there no Calvin, the idea that we're not here by accident and that God has a plan would still be a thing.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6186
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:41 pm

tuttle wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:58 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:43 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:17 am
Evolution, by nullifying a Creator that creates with a purpose, cannot take such things into account. In fact, it's dangerous to the narrative to take such things into account (thus the hostility towards creationism).

But the main thing is that both are beliefs. It's not even a matter of Evolution vs YEC. Evolution rejects Old Earth or Mature Earth Creationists simply because they all depend upon that which Evolution, by it's own volition must exclude: a Creator.
Ah, so it all comes down to this. Purpose. I feel like there's a certain echo or shadow of Calvinism on your side. Everything is going according to God's Plan, ultimately to arrive at the predetermined culmination. Everything must have a "purpose" and therefore you cannot possibly accept that we are here by "accident".
First, this isn't really reflecting what I was getting at...

Second, how is believing that God has a purpose and a plan automatically a Calvinist idea? How is not accepting that we are here by accident a shadow of Calvinism? That stuff is straight up mere Christianity. Were there no Calvin, the idea that we're not here by accident and that God has a plan would still be a thing.
It's the degree to which the purpose and the plan are fixed that makes it Calvinist.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12028
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:07 pm

infidel wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:41 pm
tuttle wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:58 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:43 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:17 am
Evolution, by nullifying a Creator that creates with a purpose, cannot take such things into account. In fact, it's dangerous to the narrative to take such things into account (thus the hostility towards creationism).

But the main thing is that both are beliefs. It's not even a matter of Evolution vs YEC. Evolution rejects Old Earth or Mature Earth Creationists simply because they all depend upon that which Evolution, by it's own volition must exclude: a Creator.
Ah, so it all comes down to this. Purpose. I feel like there's a certain echo or shadow of Calvinism on your side. Everything is going according to God's Plan, ultimately to arrive at the predetermined culmination. Everything must have a "purpose" and therefore you cannot possibly accept that we are here by "accident".
First, this isn't really reflecting what I was getting at...

Second, how is believing that God has a purpose and a plan automatically a Calvinist idea? How is not accepting that we are here by accident a shadow of Calvinism? That stuff is straight up mere Christianity. Were there no Calvin, the idea that we're not here by accident and that God has a plan would still be a thing.
It's the degree to which the purpose and the plan are fixed that makes it Calvinist.
And that degree is...?

The reason I brought up a "Creator that creates with a purpose" is to point out precisely what evolution nullifies. I'm not packing anything into that purpose. It's a generalization made to distinguish between some creative Force that has no will.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

Post Reply