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
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21017
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Post by Thunktank » Tue May 17, 2011 3:56 pm

tuttle wrote:
infidel wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_ ... f_feathers

Somehow I think you'll continue to rail against it no matter what.
it's like you know me or something :wink:
We know you pretty well. Understand you we do not. :no:

User avatar
Bigwill
Near! Far!
Near! Far!
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Woodstock, IL
Contact:

Post by Bigwill » Tue May 17, 2011 4:07 pm

infidel wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Bigwill wrote:The short (and bluntly serious) answer to Darth's question: It's PBS.

As but another example of their 'agenda' (which the liberal media wants the average American to think is nothing but a right-wing conspiracy theory) is Arthur. In one episode, one of Arthur's friends is going to have a baby brother or sister, and Arthur asks his Mom if he can have one too. Her answer, I kid you not, was 'babies are nice, but if we had one, we wouldn't have enough money to go on vacation and buy you toys.' I told my son 'no more Arthur'.
Ouch. That sounds more like a joke for The Simpsons than a line for (a supposedly educational) Arthur.
I don't think it was a 'sarcastic joke'. Sarcasm is lost on three year olds.

It was indoctrination. Plain and simple.
Arthur already has a baby sister :huh:
He has a little sister, but she's not a baby.

The mother was rejecting Arthur's idea of a third child. Three's too many, remember? ZPG.
Not DW, Baby Kate. You must have seen an older episode I guess. Or you live in some alternate PBS universe
It must have been an older episode. This was years ago, and, like I said, I immediately said 'no more Arthur'.

When I set a rule for my kids, that's the end of it.

Maybe enough parents were outraged by the writing on that episode that they wrote in complaining, and the writers chose to give the family a new baby as a sort of peace offering. I hope so.
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21017
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Post by Thunktank » Tue May 17, 2011 4:15 pm

Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
TNLawPiper wrote:
Bigwill wrote:The short (and bluntly serious) answer to Darth's question: It's PBS.

As but another example of their 'agenda' (which the liberal media wants the average American to think is nothing but a right-wing conspiracy theory) is Arthur. In one episode, one of Arthur's friends is going to have a baby brother or sister, and Arthur asks his Mom if he can have one too. Her answer, I kid you not, was 'babies are nice, but if we had one, we wouldn't have enough money to go on vacation and buy you toys.' I told my son 'no more Arthur'.
Ouch. That sounds more like a joke for The Simpsons than a line for (a supposedly educational) Arthur.
I don't think it was a 'sarcastic joke'. Sarcasm is lost on three year olds.

It was indoctrination. Plain and simple.
Arthur already has a baby sister :huh:
He has a little sister, but she's not a baby.

The mother was rejecting Arthur's idea of a third child. Three's too many, remember? ZPG.
Not DW, Baby Kate. You must have seen an older episode I guess. Or you live in some alternate PBS universe
It must have been an older episode. This was years ago, and, like I said, I immediately said 'no more Arthur'.

When I set a rule for my kids, that's the end of it.

Maybe enough parents were outraged by the writing on that episode that they wrote in complaining, and the writers chose to give the family a new baby as a sort of peace offering. I hope so.
I find something wrong with every TV show sooner or later.

User avatar
Rainman498
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: St. Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by Rainman498 » Tue May 17, 2011 4:36 pm

What is so hard to accept about dinosaurs having feathers? Read your Robert T. Bakker if you want to know about it. Given the knowledge that we have about their lifestyle, it is hard to accept that they could have been cold blooded reptiles after all. They were too active, and some were far too big to ever survive as a cold blood. There's a certain body mass to surface area ratio that must be maintained for a cold blood to properly manage his temp, and the really big fellas just don't fit with the math.

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16948
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Tue May 17, 2011 4:50 pm

Before they were big and then they...no after they were big and developed into...wait, before and after they...crud, I don't know. They keep freakin changing it.
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 16948
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Kerdy » Tue May 17, 2011 4:53 pm

darthsaturn wrote:
It just seems they are making up "facts" to prove their theory's.
Now yer gettin mate!
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6380
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Tue May 17, 2011 5:02 pm

Kerdy wrote:
darthsaturn wrote:
It just seems they are making up "facts" to prove their theory's.
Now yer gettin mate!
It just seems like it to you because you don't like the theories :-)
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
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21017
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Tue May 17, 2011 5:57 pm

infidel wrote:
Kerdy wrote:
darthsaturn wrote:
It just seems they are making up "facts" to prove their theory's.
Now yer gettin mate!
It just seems like it to you because you don't like the theories :-)
Exactly, people of faith and people of science sure like to talk past each other and offend each other because both groups like to take on more than it can chew. People who try their best to bring the truth of both systems to light end up in the crosshairs from both sides of the debate even while they try to hold both sides accountable. <redacted_emoji>

User avatar
Irish-Dane
I'm a pro at tobacco canning
I'm a pro at tobacco canning
Posts: 33039
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: The beautiful mountains of Western North Carolina
Contact:

Post by Irish-Dane » Tue May 17, 2011 6:27 pm

Bigwill wrote:The mother was rejecting Arthur's idea of a third child. Three's too many, remember? ZPG.
I know you and I (or Del, who adamantly disagrees with me) will never see eye-to-eye on this, but your question causes my hair to stand on end and makes me want to respond even though I know it won't change your mind. (And please know I don't say anything hoping to change your mind or challenge your dogma.) In the case of her point, it would be too many. Why do so many people think it's a bad thing to want more for their existing children that more children would take away? I would never, never tell someone their children aren't the best things in their life, but future children aren't. They don't even exist, for crying out loud. When comparing exact circumstances (same career, same lifestyle, etc.) you can give more (admittedly material) to less kids. Why is that a bad thing? Seriously.
It's not available because if you try it you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body. --Colton

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21017
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Post by Thunktank » Tue May 17, 2011 6:30 pm

Rainman498 wrote:What is so hard to accept about dinosaurs having feathers? Read your Robert T. Bakker if you want to know about it. Given the knowledge that we have about their lifestyle, it is hard to accept that they could have been cold blooded reptiles after all. They were too active, and some were far too big to ever survive as a cold blood. There's a certain body mass to surface area ratio that must be maintained for a cold blood to properly manage his temp, and the really big fellas just don't fit with the math.
That's fine and dandy to believe that dinosaurs may have been warm blooded. This doesn't in and of itself prove that some dinosaurs didn't have feather like characteristics that could have developed into feathers in another species. Just taking what we can see so far leads me to believe that's it's entirely possible that some dinosaurs may have developed some sort of feathers. What's the big deal about that? I don't know. It just seems that far too many Christians are way to fast to discount anything that might challenge their own preconceived ideas of what they think creation must have looked like based on Sunday school handouts in the first grade. The same thing can be said in reverse to those who have preconceived ideas about dinosaurs and evolution. I wouldn't be surprised if some kid who watches this show ends up believing that certain dinosaurs have feathers of a certain color.

On a side note, I always enjoy watching Bakker.

User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10808
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Post by Onyx » Tue May 17, 2011 6:35 pm

Irish-Dane wrote:
Bigwill wrote:The mother was rejecting Arthur's idea of a third child. Three's too many, remember? ZPG.
I know you and I (or Del, who adamantly disagrees with me) will never see eye-to-eye on this, but your question causes my hair to stand on end and makes me want to respond even though I know it won't change your mind. (And please know I don't say anything hoping to change your mind or challenge your dogma.) In the case of her point, it would be too many. Why do so many people think it's a bad thing to want more for their existing children that more children would take away? I would never, never tell someone their children aren't the best things in their life, but future children aren't. They don't even exist, for crying out loud. When comparing exact circumstances (same career, same lifestyle, etc.) you can give more (admittedly material) to less kids. Why is that a bad thing? Seriously.
This is a very interesting point. Some choose to have no children, some a single child. Some two, some three or four... each child changes the shape of the family. While each child is a precious individual, the family is becomes a different kind of family, not necessarily better or worse.

If Bigwill's criticism was valid, then perhaps we should extend the logic. What if you have 10 children and then decide that your resources (mental, emotional, time, youthfulness...) just might stretch a little thin by having another 10? Fair enough. If another parent makes that same judgment after 2 children, who are we to criticize?
4. No more signatures that quote other CPS members.
-- Thunktank

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21017
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Post by Thunktank » Tue May 17, 2011 6:43 pm

Onyx wrote:
Irish-Dane wrote:
Bigwill wrote:The mother was rejecting Arthur's idea of a third child. Three's too many, remember? ZPG.
I know you and I (or Del, who adamantly disagrees with me) will never see eye-to-eye on this, but your question causes my hair to stand on end and makes me want to respond even though I know it won't change your mind. (And please know I don't say anything hoping to change your mind or challenge your dogma.) In the case of her point, it would be too many. Why do so many people think it's a bad thing to want more for their existing children that more children would take away? I would never, never tell someone their children aren't the best things in their life, but future children aren't. They don't even exist, for crying out loud. When comparing exact circumstances (same career, same lifestyle, etc.) you can give more (admittedly material) to less kids. Why is that a bad thing? Seriously.
This is a very interesting point. Some choose to have no children, some a single child. Some two, some three or four... each child changes the shape of the family. While each child is a precious individual, the family is becomes a different kind of family, not necessarily better or worse.

If Bigwill's criticism was valid, then perhaps we should extend the logic. What if you have 10 children and then decide that your resources (mental, emotional, time, youthfulness...) just might stretch a little thin by having another 10? Fair enough. If another parent makes that same judgment after 2 children, who are we to criticize?
I think in this case Bigwill's primary concern is that people are too materialistic and choosing materialism over the blessing of children that was being taught in the show according to what he saw from it. What one needs is not always the same as what one wants. I know some folks at church that don't make much money but they have 4+ kids yet they are clothed, sheltered, fed and happy.

User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10808
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Post by Onyx » Tue May 17, 2011 6:43 pm

Kerdy wrote:Before they were big and then they...no after they were big and developed into...wait, before and after they...crud, I don't know. They keep freakin changing it.
You are a poster child for the Dunning Kruger effect. Not only do you not understand evolution as it relates to dinosaurs, you seem to lack even enough understanding of science to recognize that scientists have a superior working knowledge of evolution to you.
4. No more signatures that quote other CPS members.
-- Thunktank

User avatar
jruegg
Mr. Eggs
Mr. Eggs
Posts: 25522
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Kingdom of God (Mk 1:15)
Contact:

Post by jruegg » Tue May 17, 2011 6:47 pm

When did Dinosaurs get feathers?.....

Right before they became delicious.

User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10808
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Post by Onyx » Tue May 17, 2011 6:48 pm

Thunktank wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Irish-Dane wrote:
Bigwill wrote:The mother was rejecting Arthur's idea of a third child. Three's too many, remember? ZPG.
I know you and I (or Del, who adamantly disagrees with me) will never see eye-to-eye on this, but your question causes my hair to stand on end and makes me want to respond even though I know it won't change your mind. (And please know I don't say anything hoping to change your mind or challenge your dogma.) In the case of her point, it would be too many. Why do so many people think it's a bad thing to want more for their existing children that more children would take away? I would never, never tell someone their children aren't the best things in their life, but future children aren't. They don't even exist, for crying out loud. When comparing exact circumstances (same career, same lifestyle, etc.) you can give more (admittedly material) to less kids. Why is that a bad thing? Seriously.
This is a very interesting point. Some choose to have no children, some a single child. Some two, some three or four... each child changes the shape of the family. While each child is a precious individual, the family is becomes a different kind of family, not necessarily better or worse.

If Bigwill's criticism was valid, then perhaps we should extend the logic. What if you have 10 children and then decide that your resources (mental, emotional, time, youthfulness...) just might stretch a little thin by having another 10? Fair enough. If another parent makes that same judgment after 2 children, who are we to criticize?
I think in this case Bigwill's primary concern is that people are too materialistic and choosing materialism over the blessing of children that was being taught in the show according to what he saw from it. What one needs is not always the same as what one wants. I know some folks at church that don't make much money but they have 4+ kids yet they are clothed, sheltered, fed and happy.
Yes, and that's fair enough. But not every concern expressed in material terms is of necessity materialistic in the selfish or shallow sense. For example, a parent may talk about how much money the can provide for their kids knowing the additional stress their own parents endured as they struggled to pay for schooling or medicine. I just mean this as a glimpse of a mindset which may value children as much as we all do (you, me, Bigwill), and yet be trying to make a balanced decision for the future.
4. No more signatures that quote other CPS members.
-- Thunktank

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21017
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Post by Thunktank » Tue May 17, 2011 7:03 pm

jruegg wrote:When did Dinosaurs get feathers?.....

Right before they became delicious.
Best answer thus far.

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12300
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Tue May 17, 2011 7:03 pm

Thunktank wrote:
tuttle wrote:
infidel wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_ ... f_feathers

Somehow I think you'll continue to rail against it no matter what.
it's like you know me or something :wink:
We know you pretty well. Understand you we do not. :no:
:lol:
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

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

User avatar
Irish-Dane
I'm a pro at tobacco canning
I'm a pro at tobacco canning
Posts: 33039
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: The beautiful mountains of Western North Carolina
Contact:

Post by Irish-Dane » Tue May 17, 2011 7:04 pm

Thunktank wrote:I think in this case Bigwill's primary concern is that people are too materialistic and choosing materialism over the blessing of children that was being taught in the show according to what he saw from it. What one needs is not always the same as what one wants. I know some folks at church that don't make much money but they have 4+ kids yet they are clothed, sheltered, fed and happy.
If that was actually Will's point and not the normal Catholic kid thing, then I'm not going to argue. With one exception..... Most of us here on CPS live in America and whether we admit it or not, are way more materialistic than the rest of the world. We, of course, justify it by listing the things we "need" to survive and provide for our families which, compared to much of the rest of the world, are simply ridiculous. RIDICULOUS.

My point? Saying you aren't materialistic and using that as an excuse to push aside my diatribe isn't being honest.
It's not available because if you try it you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body. --Colton

User avatar
Bigwill
Near! Far!
Near! Far!
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Woodstock, IL
Contact:

Post by Bigwill » Tue May 17, 2011 7:42 pm

Irish-Dane wrote:
Bigwill wrote:The mother was rejecting Arthur's idea of a third child. Three's too many, remember? ZPG.
I know you and I (or Del, who adamantly disagrees with me) will never see eye-to-eye on this, but your question causes my hair to stand on end and makes me want to respond even though I know it won't change your mind. (And please know I don't say anything hoping to change your mind or challenge your dogma.) In the case of her point, it would be too many. Why do so many people think it's a bad thing to want more for their existing children that more children would take away? I would never, never tell someone their children aren't the best things in their life, but future children aren't. They don't even exist, for crying out loud. When comparing exact circumstances (same career, same lifestyle, etc.) you can give more (admittedly material) to less kids. Why is that a bad thing? Seriously.
I'm willing to have an intellectual conversation about it. And there certainly ARE cases in which prudence demands that families be planned (within reason and according to a well-formed moral theology).

That said, the cartoon was promoting blatant materialism to three-year olds. It wasn't a moral conversation. It was indoctrination. And it was indoctrination I didn't want MY three-year old receiving.

Little kids shouldn't be told that 'vacations and more toys' are more valuable than people. And that's what was going on. This wasn't a message for adults. It was one for their kids.
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

User avatar
Irish-Dane
I'm a pro at tobacco canning
I'm a pro at tobacco canning
Posts: 33039
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: The beautiful mountains of Western North Carolina
Contact:

Post by Irish-Dane » Tue May 17, 2011 7:47 pm

Like I said, Will, I won't argue the point that we are a materialistic society and if you as a parent want to shield your children from an indoctrination of that, kudos to you. As long as you're honest in saying that you or any of us aren't free from its grip, I will agree with you.
It's not available because if you try it you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body. --Colton

Post Reply