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
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 2:44 pm

tuttle wrote:
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.
I'm getting lost in the weeds in my own mental jungle.
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
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 8:14 pm

"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 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:17 pm

infidel wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:44 pm
tuttle wrote:
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.
I'm getting lost in the weeds in my own mental jungle.
Evolution cannot nullify a creator or name a creator unless it speaks of what is created within nature itself. Even then it cannot determine the cause or purpose of nature itself. It could perhaps be seen as a way to strengthen the gulf between the Uncreated/Supernatural and the created/natural. Evolution is subject to the natural laws found on this earth, which itself is subject to laws of the universe. Evolution cannot speak of why these laws exist, why they work or if they were meant to exist at all. Don't Christians believe in an omniscient God? Isn't this God of yours separate from creation in a sense? Isn't the greatest miracle of all time when God became incarnate?

Is there some requirement for God to create from nothing each and every time he made something? Wasn't Adam created from the earth? I think perhaps Tuttle might be telling us that God must create supernaturally only, never through natural process already in place by the same maker. Perhaps your omniscient God could foresee billions of years into the future what his initiative of creation ex nihilo would become?

Then again, I think it's merely a philosophical idea that isn't substantiated by material evidence that requires the concept of ex nihilo of anything at all. Ex nihilo stood in contrast to previously held ideas of "chaos" upon which gods acted upon the pre existing matter to create the world. A first cause was needed to break the mystical barrier of "chaos." It's fun to ponder, good mental gymnastics, but perhaps not actually true. Regardless, it's seems to me that for some, the idea reigns supreme.

User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10802
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Onyx » Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:14 pm

tuttle wrote:
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.
Why does God have to create everything in a finished state to bestow purpose? To use an imperfect analogy, as parents we don't complete the making of our children, they aren't perfect, and yet we still love them fully and have aspirations for them.
But the main thing is that both are beliefs.
No, this is fundamentally wrong. I'm sure there are people for whom both are "beliefs" because of they way they believe in or disbelieve in each. But that a basic mischaracterization of evolution. Evolution is just a theoryTM. Remember? Ok, it's fact also. But it is a scientific theory which means that it stands or falls by the evidence that it accounts for, and the predictions it makes. In that sense, it's a good theory. That is very different from a "belief".

I might say - I have $10 in my pocket. And I might also say - I have $1,000,000 in my pocket. You might say that either can be believed, either is a belief. But that is a misleading picture, because I have in fact checked my pocket, and there is $10. No more could be found! So to say they are both "beliefs" might make some sense if you have no evidence, but it is a misreading of the situation if you have evidence. The evidence for the theory of evolution was solid, compelling and persuasive before DNA research. Now...
4. No more signatures that quote other CPS members.
-- Thunktank

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 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:35 am

Thunktank wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:17 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:44 pm
tuttle wrote:
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.
I'm getting lost in the weeds in my own mental jungle.
Evolution cannot nullify a creator or name a creator unless it speaks of what is created within nature itself. Even then it cannot determine the cause or purpose of nature itself. It could perhaps be seen as a way to strengthen the gulf between the Uncreated/Supernatural and the created/natural. Evolution is subject to the natural laws found on this earth, which itself is subject to laws of the universe. Evolution cannot speak of why these laws exist, why they work or if they were meant to exist at all. Don't Christians believe in an omniscient God? Isn't this God of yours separate from creation in a sense? Isn't the greatest miracle of all time when God became incarnate?

Is there some requirement for God to create from nothing each and every time he made something? Wasn't Adam created from the earth? I think perhaps Tuttle might be telling us that God must create supernaturally only, never through natural process already in place by the same maker. Perhaps your omniscient God could foresee billions of years into the future what his initiative of creation ex nihilo would become?

Then again, I think it's merely a philosophical idea that isn't substantiated by material evidence that requires the concept of ex nihilo of anything at all. Ex nihilo stood in contrast to previously held ideas of "chaos" upon which gods acted upon the pre existing matter to create the world. A first cause was needed to break the mystical barrier of "chaos." It's fun to ponder, good mental gymnastics, but perhaps not actually true. Regardless, it's seems to me that for some, the idea reigns supreme.
Yes, it could be seen as a way to strengthen the gulf between the uncreated/supernatural and the created/natural...a way to explain the created, so to speak. However, my point (I've been trying to be clear about it) was that we can't derive that from the narrative of evolution. Looking at evolution as a way to explain how God created the world comes from outside of the evolutionary narrative. So much so that academic evolutionists mock not only Young Earth Creationists, but Theistic Evolutionists.

I don't believe most evolutionists incorporate your kind of thinking (or infidel's for that matter). You are honestly expressing that evolution cannot speak of why certain laws exist, etc.

And I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think that God created everything only ex nihilo. As you point out, Adam was created from the earth. Eve from Adam and their children from them. I feel like you're pulling an infidel and inserting something into this that I wasn't saying.
"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 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:20 am

Onyx wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:14 pm
tuttle wrote:
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.
Why does God have to create everything in a finished state to bestow purpose? To use an imperfect analogy, as parents we don't complete the making of our children, they aren't perfect, and yet we still love them fully and have aspirations for them.
Um. I'm trying to find where I said God created everything in a finished state to bestow purpose....that's not an accurate reflection of what I was saying.

Just because something is incomplete doesn't mean it cannot also have been created with a purpose. To use your offspring analogy, a couple can come together for the purpose of creating a child. Nothing in that needs to contain the idea that any sort of creation must be in a finished state to bestow purpose.
Onyx wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:14 pm
But the main thing is that both are beliefs.
No, this is fundamentally wrong. I'm sure there are people for whom both are "beliefs" because of they way they believe in or disbelieve in each. But that a basic mischaracterization of evolution. Evolution is just a theoryTM. Remember? Ok, it's fact also. But it is a scientific theory which means that it stands or falls by the evidence that it accounts for, and the predictions it makes. In that sense, it's a good theory. That is very different from a "belief".
Evidence can be the basis of belief, yes or no? I'm not denying that the evolutionary narrative is formed by natural evidence. My point is that, ultimately, there is a faith element. If you take this rock, this tree, this star, this bone, study it every which way, measure it, test it, observe it; you begin to form an idea based on all of it, an idea of how it formed, where it formed, what it came from, etc. At some point the scientist has to step from the realm of observed fact based on his skilled measurements and step into the realm of belief in an effort to make sense of everything he can't observe or measure. I understand why scientists and evolutionists say evolution is based on factual observations, but you can't deny that any attempt to connect the dots, any unobserved explanation, however many facts it is built upon, is ultimately an element of belief. "This observed fact leads me to this conclusion about what we cannot observe."

Just because the narrative is informed by natural evidence, and the narrative was created by observed natural evidence, doesn't negate the idea that the element of belief is not involved. (And I'm talking scientists here. It is especially true when it becomes entrenched in the minds of a public that has no scientific training or reason to question. They simply believe what they are told with no real way for them to actually discover for themselves if what is being told to them is true, except by way of other experts (unless they decide to become an expert themselves). In this way, how is the information received by Joe Schmo at a trip to the Natural History museum any different than the way it's received while he's sitting in the pew at First Presbyterian? In both places he hears 'experts' telling him what they've studied and researched and believe to be true and he believes them.) And when we are talking about the origin of life itself, the event that no one living today is able to observe, we are in the ultimate sense dealing with, however many facts we have now, belief. We have to.
Onyx wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:14 pm
I might say - I have $10 in my pocket. And I might also say - I have $1,000,000 in my pocket. You might say that either can be believed, either is a belief. But that is a misleading picture, because I have in fact checked my pocket, and there is $10. No more could be found! So to say they are both "beliefs" might make some sense if you have no evidence, but it is a misreading of the situation if you have evidence. The evidence for the theory of evolution was solid, compelling and persuasive before DNA research. Now...
When is 'belief' only a belief if it is void of evidence? I wonder how many scientists have said, "This data leads me to believe..."
"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
gaining_age
What's-his-name - President: Devo Fan Club Intl
What's-his-name - President: Devo Fan Club Intl
Posts: 15185
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: sun soaked Arizona

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by gaining_age » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:33 am

Out of control odd rare old man (or possibly an hobbyist). -- Label by The Big R.
The 6s of 1st John:
2:6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus walked
3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning

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 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:34 am

tuttle wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:35 am
Thunktank wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:17 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:44 pm
tuttle wrote:
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.
I'm getting lost in the weeds in my own mental jungle.
Evolution cannot nullify a creator or name a creator unless it speaks of what is created within nature itself. Even then it cannot determine the cause or purpose of nature itself. It could perhaps be seen as a way to strengthen the gulf between the Uncreated/Supernatural and the created/natural. Evolution is subject to the natural laws found on this earth, which itself is subject to laws of the universe. Evolution cannot speak of why these laws exist, why they work or if they were meant to exist at all. Don't Christians believe in an omniscient God? Isn't this God of yours separate from creation in a sense? Isn't the greatest miracle of all time when God became incarnate?

Is there some requirement for God to create from nothing each and every time he made something? Wasn't Adam created from the earth? I think perhaps Tuttle might be telling us that God must create supernaturally only, never through natural process already in place by the same maker. Perhaps your omniscient God could foresee billions of years into the future what his initiative of creation ex nihilo would become?

Then again, I think it's merely a philosophical idea that isn't substantiated by material evidence that requires the concept of ex nihilo of anything at all. Ex nihilo stood in contrast to previously held ideas of "chaos" upon which gods acted upon the pre existing matter to create the world. A first cause was needed to break the mystical barrier of "chaos." It's fun to ponder, good mental gymnastics, but perhaps not actually true. Regardless, it's seems to me that for some, the idea reigns supreme.
Yes, it could be seen as a way to strengthen the gulf between the uncreated/supernatural and the created/natural...a way to explain the created, so to speak. However, my point (I've been trying to be clear about it) was that we can't derive that from the narrative of evolution. Looking at evolution as a way to explain how God created the world comes from outside of the evolutionary narrative. So much so that academic evolutionists mock not only Young Earth Creationists, but Theistic Evolutionists.

I don't believe most evolutionists incorporate your kind of thinking (or infidel's for that matter). You are honestly expressing that evolution cannot speak of why certain laws exist, etc.

And I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think that God created everything only ex nihilo. As you point out, Adam was created from the earth. Eve from Adam and their children from them. I feel like you're pulling an infidel and inserting something into this that I wasn't saying.
It's more about me trying to clarify your position. I see your position one way, you correct my wrong perception of your POV. This is all good. This is why I like discussing things with you.

I don't know if most evolutionists incorporate my kind of thinking. I don't subscribe to it per se myself anymore. I was using such logic to try and bring the two different forms of information (science and Christian tradition) into sync as an individual Christian. I had to find a way to accept the material world and it's truths understood via scientific evidence, while finding room for the revealed narrative of the Bible and Christian tradition. I think quite a few theistic evolutionists do similar sorts of things. It's not altogether an unworkable solution. Science is relegated to one sphere of the mind, Christian revelation another. How often or how much they must interact is another matter for each person to contend with as needed.

Christian tradition doesn't allow for adaptations and changes. In other words, Christianity can't change the Bible to make it conform to modern scientific evidence. The Bible and the Gospel are considered full, somewhat static in nature because it's an attribute of that sort of belief in God who doesn't change. So for me, I had to try and find a way to adapt that static Uncreated Truth with the changing knowledge base about the material world that appears to physically change to some degree. The hard part of course was the fact that the Bible/tradition actually talk about the material world that is inherently associated with the spiritual and eternal truths. As you seem to identify, separating these differing ideas is no easy task without a major upset in metaphysics. The moment metaphysics brings in a spiritual form of energy, it has the theoretical potential to upend the material which is really all modern science can deal with. Perhaps this is what you demand? Any narrative or theory must include a complete set of metaphysics that can allow those revelations of Christian truths. It reminds me of infidel's comment from a few weeks ago when he said something along the lines of this.

Once upon a time, theology was considered science.

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

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:36 am

tuttle wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:35 am
However, my point (I've been trying to be clear about it) was that we can't derive that from the narrative of evolution. Looking at evolution as a way to explain how God created the world comes from outside of the evolutionary narrative. So much so that academic evolutionists mock not only Young Earth Creationists, but Theistic Evolutionists.
Ok, I get it now. We cannot inductively reason God out of the material evidence, and we cannot deductively reason evolution starting from God. I feel like I've already had this dance with BigWill a long time ago.

So, like I said elsewhere not too long ago, if the people who start from God and work down would loosen up a little on the scriptural literalism, and the people who start from nature and work up would loosen up a little on the materialism (scientism?), then maybe we could find some common ground.
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 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:24 pm

Thunktank wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:34 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:35 am
Thunktank wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:17 pm
infidel wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:44 pm
tuttle wrote:
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.
I'm getting lost in the weeds in my own mental jungle.
Evolution cannot nullify a creator or name a creator unless it speaks of what is created within nature itself. Even then it cannot determine the cause or purpose of nature itself. It could perhaps be seen as a way to strengthen the gulf between the Uncreated/Supernatural and the created/natural. Evolution is subject to the natural laws found on this earth, which itself is subject to laws of the universe. Evolution cannot speak of why these laws exist, why they work or if they were meant to exist at all. Don't Christians believe in an omniscient God? Isn't this God of yours separate from creation in a sense? Isn't the greatest miracle of all time when God became incarnate?

Is there some requirement for God to create from nothing each and every time he made something? Wasn't Adam created from the earth? I think perhaps Tuttle might be telling us that God must create supernaturally only, never through natural process already in place by the same maker. Perhaps your omniscient God could foresee billions of years into the future what his initiative of creation ex nihilo would become?

Then again, I think it's merely a philosophical idea that isn't substantiated by material evidence that requires the concept of ex nihilo of anything at all. Ex nihilo stood in contrast to previously held ideas of "chaos" upon which gods acted upon the pre existing matter to create the world. A first cause was needed to break the mystical barrier of "chaos." It's fun to ponder, good mental gymnastics, but perhaps not actually true. Regardless, it's seems to me that for some, the idea reigns supreme.
Yes, it could be seen as a way to strengthen the gulf between the uncreated/supernatural and the created/natural...a way to explain the created, so to speak. However, my point (I've been trying to be clear about it) was that we can't derive that from the narrative of evolution. Looking at evolution as a way to explain how God created the world comes from outside of the evolutionary narrative. So much so that academic evolutionists mock not only Young Earth Creationists, but Theistic Evolutionists.

I don't believe most evolutionists incorporate your kind of thinking (or infidel's for that matter). You are honestly expressing that evolution cannot speak of why certain laws exist, etc.

And I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think that God created everything only ex nihilo. As you point out, Adam was created from the earth. Eve from Adam and their children from them. I feel like you're pulling an infidel and inserting something into this that I wasn't saying.
It's more about me trying to clarify your position. I see your position one way, you correct my wrong perception of your POV. This is all good. This is why I like discussing things with you.

I don't know if most evolutionists incorporate my kind of thinking. I don't subscribe to it per se myself anymore. I was using such logic to try and bring the two different forms of information (science and Christian tradition) into sync as an individual Christian. I had to find a way to accept the material world and it's truths understood via scientific evidence, while finding room for the revealed narrative of the Bible and Christian tradition. I think quite a few theistic evolutionists do similar sorts of things. It's not altogether an unworkable solution. Science is relegated to one sphere of the mind, Christian revelation another. How often or how much they must interact is another matter for each person to contend with as needed.

Christian tradition doesn't allow for adaptations and changes. In other words, Christianity can't change the Bible to make it conform to modern scientific evidence. The Bible and the Gospel are considered full, somewhat static in nature because it's an attribute of that sort of belief in God who doesn't change. So for me, I had to try and find a way to adapt that static Uncreated Truth with the changing knowledge base about the material world that appears to physically change to some degree. The hard part of course was the fact that the Bible/tradition actually talk about the material world that is inherently associated with the spiritual and eternal truths. As you seem to identify, separating these differing ideas is no easy task without a major upset in metaphysics. The moment metaphysics brings in a spiritual form of energy, it has the theoretical potential to upend the material which is really all modern science can deal with. Perhaps this is what you demand? Any narrative or theory must include a complete set of metaphysics that can allow those revelations of Christian truths. It reminds me of infidel's comment from a few weeks ago when he said something along the lines of this.

Once upon a time, theology was considered science.
Regarding the bold:

Hmm...I don't think I'd say it's what I demand, nor would I say a theory 'must include' Christian metaphysics**, but I would say that I think those theories/narratives that allow for the 'revelations of Christian truths' are more sound, more holistic than strict naturalism/materialism.


**Because that's basically what I'm pushing back against; a narrative that is demanding I exclude a Christian Creationist worldview. In my arguments against evolution, I'm not necessarily looking to force feed this to anyone. I'm not calling my representatives and demanding they teach my views in science class. I'm not saying I'm against such a thing being publicly taught, I'm just not down with forcing it. One of the good reasons to attack evolution is precisely because those expert evolution wielders in the academic and public squares are demanding and 'must'-ing Creationists all over the place. Consequences of resistance or even asking questions that smell like they could have been formed in a Sunday School room stretch from mockery and derision in the public square to outright blackballing in the upper (and lower) echelons of academia and other spheres of influence. I've even run across people who tell me that homeschooling my children according to my creationist worldview is tantamount to child abuse.
"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 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:43 pm

infidel wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:36 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:35 am
However, my point (I've been trying to be clear about it) was that we can't derive that from the narrative of evolution. Looking at evolution as a way to explain how God created the world comes from outside of the evolutionary narrative. So much so that academic evolutionists mock not only Young Earth Creationists, but Theistic Evolutionists.
Ok, I get it now. We cannot inductively reason God out of the material evidence, and we cannot deductively reason evolution starting from God. I feel like I've already had this dance with BigWill a long time ago.

So, like I said elsewhere not too long ago, if the people who start from God and work down would loosen up a little on the scriptural literalism, and the people who start from nature and work up would loosen up a little on the materialism (scientism?), then maybe we could find some common ground.
I think you are right, especially if the common ground is some kind of belief in a Creator. I think from there, especially within Christianity, there is a lot of give and take that can happen, even if both 'sides' disagree.

I've mentioned before (maybe even in this thread?) that I think a woodenly literal interpretation only reared its head once evolution began to rear its head. There are a lot of Christians who have the purest motives and who are also unable to grapple with either the literary context of Scripture or keep up with the machine gun spray of evolutionism shot at them from nearly every corner of the culture, or both, so they baton down the hatches and try to weather the storm the best way they know how. Considering most Christians don't equate a perfect understanding of how God created the world with salvation, it's an issue that can, for many, comfortably take a back seat never to really be thought about again.

I think many of these wooden literalist un-thinkers would be extremely willing to discuss these things on common ground. Strict Naturalists will (most often) not be able to have a conversation with them.
"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 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:55 pm

tuttle wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:43 pm
I think many of these wooden literalist un-thinkers would be extremely willing to discuss these things on common ground. Strict Naturalists will (most often) not be able to have a conversation with them.
In my experience the "wooden literalist un-thinkers" are at least as unwilling if not far more so to entertain the other's arguments, because they have a sola Scriptura position. To admit that any word of Scripture is not 100% literally black-and-white true in every sense of trueness is absolutely unthinkable because then all of it falls into question and they might as well throw it all out.

To which the materialists are all to happy to agree with. Since we know that a wooden literalist reading of Genesis is wrong, then all the rest of it must be garbage too. So it comes from both sides.
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 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:13 pm

infidel wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:55 pm
tuttle wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:43 pm
I think many of these wooden literalist un-thinkers would be extremely willing to discuss these things on common ground. Strict Naturalists will (most often) not be able to have a conversation with them.
In my experience the "wooden literalist un-thinkers" are at least as unwilling if not far more so to entertain the other's arguments, because they have a sola Scriptura position. To admit that any word of Scripture is not 100% literally black-and-white true in every sense of trueness is absolutely unthinkable because then all of it falls into question and they might as well throw it all out.

To which the materialists are all to happy to agree with. Since we know that a wooden literalist reading of Genesis is wrong, then all the rest of it must be garbage too. So it comes from both sides.
Yep. In some ways its like watching the current political situation. One Party justifiably hate the Other Party for their idiocy but then file any good thing they happen to do under 'idiocy and/or HITLER' and vice versa. Neither side can discuss any of the actual good things that can be found because EVERYTHING YOU DO IS EVIL!
"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
Sir Moose
President Jar-Jar Binks fan club: "Meesa tink he da best!" - Perpetually in Trouble
President Jar-Jar Binks fan club: "Meesa tink he da best!" - Perpetually in Trouble
Posts: 2507
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:17 am
Location: NW Washington
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Sir Moose » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:47 pm

I only stick my head into this thread every once in a while, and I really don't want to get sucked into it, but...

It is painful to watch the misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what a literal interpretation of Scripture is and what sola Scriptura means. It has all the makings of a straw man. Please, just stop.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.

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 » Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:29 am

"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 » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:18 am


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 » Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:19 pm

"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 » Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:09 pm

This is pretty cool. The scientists involved in this specifically used methods to avoid any critics of accusing them of contaminating the material. In their report, they said of past studies of dino-tissue: "Unfortunately, these studies rarely provided clear and direct in situ evidence for entire molecules of protein or collagen preservation without complex demineralization and extraction procedures, leading to the criticism that the signals could be the result of exogenous contaminations"

As I said, this has been a somewhat controversial subject among evolutionists, since they are now needing to fit in the idea that these decomposing materials have not decomposed for millions of years. This team specifically sidestepped the haters (on their own side) by their methods. That's not to say they now suddenly support any kind of creationist model, but it does point out the fact that these types of discoveries are meeting certain types of in-house resistance.
"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
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 Apr 13, 2017 7:15 am

"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
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18020
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by wosbald » Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:28 am

+JMJ+
I think this is the pic yer looking for …

Image




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

Post Reply