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
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12798
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:28 am

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:24 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:21 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:00 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:42 am
infidel wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:32 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:27 pm
Dinosaur footprints found on Skye
Nae a single feaither mentioned.
And I posted it already the day before in the appropriate forum: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=43129&p=1187059#p1187059
You two may benefit from reading the first post of this thread, again.
50 pages in... I think we've pretty much settled this thread into it's own little niche, which happens to happily reflect the thread title.
Exactly. That niche is not just reporting on dino feathers, though.
Hey, whatever fluffs yer feathers, but still seems the paleontology thread is the best place for general paleontology articles/news, though.
"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 34366
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:39 am

tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:28 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:24 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:21 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:00 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:42 am
infidel wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:32 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:27 pm
Dinosaur footprints found on Skye
Nae a single feaither mentioned.
And I posted it already the day before in the appropriate forum: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=43129&p=1187059#p1187059
You two may benefit from reading the first post of this thread, again.
50 pages in... I think we've pretty much settled this thread into it's own little niche, which happens to happily reflect the thread title.
Exactly. That niche is not just reporting on dino feathers, though.
Hey, whatever fluffs yer feathers, but still seems the paleontology thread is the best place for general paleontology articles/news, though.
LOL! I was curious to see if anyone read another reporting of the article:

WHAT ARE THEROPOD AND SAUROPOD DINOSAURS? INCREDIBLE 170-MILLION-YEAR-OLD TRACKS DISCOVERED IN SCOTLAND
Theropoda, meaning "wild beast" in ancient Greek, is an order of dinosaurs including species like the famous Tyrannosaurus rex. Older cousins of this beast were found on Skye.

Originally carnivorous, some theropods evolved to become herbivores, omnivores and even insectivores. Most theropod lineages, scientists think, had feathers in some form or another. Birds evolved from certain small theropods and coelurosauria during the Jurassic period.
Here is the journal report: A sauropod-dominated tracksite from Rubha nam Brathairean (Brothers’ Point), Isle of Skye, Scotland
"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

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 34366
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:46 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

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 34366
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Wed May 02, 2018 3:34 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

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12798
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Thu May 03, 2018 7:14 am

"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19026
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by wosbald » Thu May 03, 2018 7:30 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 7:14 am
Cool bird story.
The title is kinda like "How Did Men Lose Their Fins And Get Their Hands?", innit?
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12798
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Thu May 03, 2018 7:47 am

wosbald wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 7:30 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 7:14 am
Cool bird story.
The title is kinda like "How Did Men Lose Their Fins And Get Their Hands?", innit?
:lol:

It's really hard to fault the reporters, but I still fault them. :lol:
"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 34366
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Tue May 15, 2018 7:50 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

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12798
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Tue May 15, 2018 11:24 am

Here's a cool one: T. Rex Didn’t Have Feathers, New Study of Fossil Skin Finds
Image

The findings stem from the first-ever detailed study of tyrannosaur skin, done in an effort to determine what role feathers might have played in dinosaur evolution.

“I think it’s been a tantalizing option for people to assume T. rex had feathers,” said Dr. Phil Bell, paleontologist at Australia’s University of New England, who led the new study.

“Of course, the historic view is that all dinosaurs had scales because we all thought they were reptiles, but after feathered dinosaurs started showing up in China, it became very vogue to splash feathers onto everything in sight.”

The results of Bell’s study showed that feathers apparently vanished between two big boosts in body size during the evolution of tyrannosaurids.

a new study has found that Tyrannosaurus, and many other large carnivores of the Cretaceous, were likely covered only in scales.
A section of a fossil of Tyrannosaurus rex, excavated in eastern Montana, reveals skin from the animal’s neck. (Photo by Pete Larson. May not be used without permission.)
In the first boost, more than 130 million years ago in what’s now China, early tyrannosaurs began to grow long and tall — such as the 9-meter-long Yutyrannus — but they retained the feathers that their smaller theropod predecessors had.

But when tyrannosaurids bulked up in size again, this time in Western North America 20 million years later, those features disappeared.
The whole article is worth the read but I find a couple things interesting:

1) I'm surprised that this is the first ever study on T. Rex skin. You'd think with all the feather talk, and the proliferation of feathery T. Rex images, someone would have done it before 2017...

2) I like how the paleontologist recognizes the feather overreach, noting "it became very vogue to splash feathers onto everything in sight". That's a refreshing observation from an evolutionist in the media.

3) I can't read the full scientific paper because it seems it's locked behind a paywall or a membership login, but I'm interested in what kind of conclusions they'd make regarding the T. Rex actually losing it's fuzz and what that means for their theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Did the T. Rex devolve at some point, regaining the fuzz that evolution took away? It seems a little counter-intuitive (though hardly insurmountable I'm quite sure) to the dino to birds theory.
"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Tue May 15, 2018 12:49 pm

tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 11:24 am
1) I'm surprised that this is the first ever study on T. Rex skin. You'd think with all the feather talk, and the proliferation of feathery T. Rex images, someone would have done it before 2017...
I don't know the specifics but soft tissues like skin are exceptionally rare in fossil form. And even here they're drawing conclusions about the entire animal from a single patch of skin.
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 11:24 am
2) I like how the paleontologist recognizes the feather overreach, noting "it became very vogue to splash feathers onto everything in sight". That's a refreshing observation from an evolutionist in the media.
A lot of the hype comes from the media and artists moreso than the scientists, but yes it's always good to be reminded that its hype.
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 11:24 am
3) I can't read the full scientific paper because it seems it's locked behind a paywall or a membership login, but I'm interested in what kind of conclusions they'd make regarding the T. Rex actually losing it's fuzz and what that means for their theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
It doesn't mean anything to the theory of bird origins unless someone has claimed that T Rex is a direct ancestor of some birds, which I've never heard. What we do hear is things like "T Rex's closest living relative is the chicken". That doesn't mean chickens are descendants of T Rex, more like that they are cousins, a hundred million times removed. The same way you and me and Harambe are (very) distant cousins.
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 11:24 am
Did the T. Rex devolve at some point, regaining the fuzz that evolution took away? It seems a little counter-intuitive (though hardly insurmountable I'm quite sure) to the dino to birds theory.
I can't remember the examples offhand, but there are cases of lost features evolving again. This is not "devolution", just evolution working within the ever-changing environment.

EDIT: https://web.archive.org/web/20040608125 ... 00796.html
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
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12798
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Tue May 15, 2018 2:19 pm

infidel wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 12:49 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 11:24 am
1) I'm surprised that this is the first ever study on T. Rex skin. You'd think with all the feather talk, and the proliferation of feathery T. Rex images, someone would have done it before 2017...
I don't know the specifics but soft tissues like skin are exceptionally rare in fossil form. And even here they're drawing conclusions about the entire animal from a single patch of skin.
There was more than just a single patch. It might not have been reported in the article I linked but they have samples from stomach, chest, neck, pelvis, and tail.
infidel wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 12:49 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 11:24 am
3) I can't read the full scientific paper because it seems it's locked behind a paywall or a membership login, but I'm interested in what kind of conclusions they'd make regarding the T. Rex actually losing it's fuzz and what that means for their theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
It doesn't mean anything to the theory of bird origins unless someone has claimed that T Rex is a direct ancestor of some birds, which I've never heard. What we do hear is things like "T Rex's closest living relative is the chicken". That doesn't mean chickens are descendants of T Rex, more like that they are cousins, a hundred million times removed. The same way you and me and Harambe are (very) distant cousins.
I get that concept...but we're not told, in the same way, that men are gorillas. In fact, that's considered racist. Evolutionists mock creationists who use terminology like "man from monkeys", but they use "birds from dinosaurs" all the live long day. Scratch that, they don't even say 'from' they say 'are'! We're told repeatedly that birds are dinosaurs.

And to a degree I'm aware that the theory doesn't go T. Rex (specifically) > Intermediary Creature > modern bird, but that's the way it is constantly presented (ie. T. rex was 'chicken' -- ancestor, that is) Also, from the Scientific American:
“A bird didn’t just evolve from a T. rex overnight, but rather the classic features of birds evolved one by one; first bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings,” Brusatte said. “The end result is a relatively seamless transition between dinosaurs and birds, so much so that you can’t just draw an easy line between these two groups.”
This is more to the point of what I was saying. He even uses T. Rex as the starting point, then saying "first bipedal locomotion, then feathers," then, etc... When T. Rex had feathers as a theory, it was put forward as evidence. You never read or see anything discussing birds and dinosaurs being descended from a common ancestor. You always read that birds are "modern day dinosaurs". It's almost an inevitability in popular articles. I get that there's a bit of media hype (how flippin easy and attractive it is to write a T. Rex is a Chicken headline!?), but there's also a need to keep pushing the narrative, facts be damned in the public square. If we have to say a T. Rex is a chicken to get people to understand our theory, then by the unprovable God we're gonna do it! Dinosaurs are finger licken good!

On the whole, though, I was just pointing out the weird little divergence from the once tidy narrative that T. Rex and his kin had fuzz (it really isn't feathers) and then when they got bigger at a later date, had scales. At least that's what the current scientists are saying. I'm curious about their conclusions of why that might be and how that jives or doesn't jive with their dino to bird theory. But...
infidel wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 12:49 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 11:24 am
Did the T. Rex devolve at some point, regaining the fuzz that evolution took away? It seems a little counter-intuitive (though hardly insurmountable I'm quite sure) to the dino to birds theory.
I can't remember the examples offhand, but there are cases of lost features evolving again. This is not "devolution", just evolution working within the ever-changing environment.

EDIT: https://web.archive.org/web/20040608125 ... 00796.html
...as I suspected, it doesn't throw a monkey wrench into evolution's narrative.
"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Tue May 15, 2018 3:01 pm

tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 2:19 pm
I get that concept...but we're not told, in the same way, that men are gorillas. In fact, that's considered racist. Evolutionists mock creationists who use terminology like "man from monkeys", but they use "birds from dinosaurs" all the live long day. Scratch that, they don't even say 'from' they say 'are'! We're told repeatedly that birds are dinosaurs.
What we have here is a failure to communicate :-)

"Dinosaur" is a very broad term. In taxonomic terms it's probably roughly equivalent to "mammal" or "primate". So birds are dinosaurs in the same way that Humans are primates. Primates include us, the apes, the monkeys, the lemurs, and some other less common families.
Wikipedia wrote:Birds are classified as belonging to the subgroup Maniraptora, which are coelurosaurs, which are theropods, which are saurischians, which are dinosaurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur
When creationists say "man from monkeys" they are (generally) creating a straw man to either mock scientists for being foolish, or as a dogwhistle for people to be offended that we're being lumped in with lesser creatures.
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 2:19 pm
“A bird didn’t just evolve from a T. rex overnight, but rather the classic features of birds evolved one by one; first bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings,” Brusatte said. “The end result is a relatively seamless transition between dinosaurs and birds, so much so that you can’t just draw an easy line between these two groups.”
This is more to the point of what I was saying. He even uses T. Rex as the starting point, then saying "first bipedal locomotion, then feathers," then, etc...
I'll just chalk this up to sloppy writing causing misinterpretation. T Rex is mentioned only as an example of what didn't happen, the rest of the quote refers to "dinosaurs" generally. There's an implicit shift halfway through the first sentence that you missed. Many dinosaurs were bipedal long before T Rex.
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 2:19 pm
...as I suspected, it doesn't throw a monkey wrench into evolution's narrative.
I know it's disappointing to you, maybe next week you'll finally get the monkey wrench you're longing for. I wouldn't hold my breath, though :-)
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
CodeMonkey
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 4758
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Dark side of the moon

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by CodeMonkey » Tue May 15, 2018 6:01 pm

I heard it was on a Tuesday afternoon, but I have no proof that is true.
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play” – Newspaper reporter.

"Trying is the first step towards failure" - Homer Simpson

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12798
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Tue May 15, 2018 6:44 pm

infidel wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 3:01 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 2:19 pm
I get that concept...but we're not told, in the same way, that men are gorillas. In fact, that's considered racist. Evolutionists mock creationists who use terminology like "man from monkeys", but they use "birds from dinosaurs" all the live long day. Scratch that, they don't even say 'from' they say 'are'! We're told repeatedly that birds are dinosaurs.
What we have here is a failure to communicate :-)

"Dinosaur" is a very broad term. In taxonomic terms it's probably roughly equivalent to "mammal" or "primate". So birds are dinosaurs in the same way that Humans are primates. Primates include us, the apes, the monkeys, the lemurs, and some other less common families.
Wikipedia wrote:Birds are classified as belonging to the subgroup Maniraptora, which are coelurosaurs, which are theropods, which are saurischians, which are dinosaurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur
When creationists say "man from monkeys" they are (generally) creating a straw man to either mock scientists for being foolish, or as a dogwhistle for people to be offended that we're being lumped in with lesser creatures.
That's fair. I, admittedly, am not working on the same assumption. Though I do think of "Dinosaur" broadly, as I do "Primate", I don't think of it as say, "mammal" and definitely don't include birds under that umbrella (just as I wouldn't include Man under the Primate category). That's not to say I don't see what you're saying. I do, but I wasn't thinking that way in my previous comments.
infidel wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 3:01 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 2:19 pm
“A bird didn’t just evolve from a T. rex overnight, but rather the classic features of birds evolved one by one; first bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings,” Brusatte said. “The end result is a relatively seamless transition between dinosaurs and birds, so much so that you can’t just draw an easy line between these two groups.”
This is more to the point of what I was saying. He even uses T. Rex as the starting point, then saying "first bipedal locomotion, then feathers," then, etc...
I'll just chalk this up to sloppy writing causing misinterpretation. T Rex is mentioned only as an example of what didn't happen, the rest of the quote refers to "dinosaurs" generally. There's an implicit shift halfway through the first sentence that you missed. Many dinosaurs were bipedal long before T Rex.
Oh, I didn't miss the shift, but I was pointing out the sloppy way he spoke because I don't think it's just a random bit of sloppiness, but sloppiness on account of trying to keep things simple in order to fit the narrative. Sloppy, like creationists do when they say "man from monkey", that is, they know better but want as much zing as they can muster.
infidel wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 3:01 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 2:19 pm
...as I suspected, it doesn't throw a monkey wrench into evolution's narrative.
I know it's disappointing to you, maybe next week you'll finally get the monkey wrench you're longing for. I wouldn't hold my breath, though :-)
:lol:

Certainly not holding my breath! I'm convinced that there is no evidence that an evolutionist cannot cram into the evolutionist narrative. It's a thing of beauty really. Nothing can disprove the theory because the narrative doesn't allow any room for other opinions. Neither does creationism, mind you. That's the advantage (and if you're wrong, the curse) of having a really good narrative.
"Do mo betta." -FredS

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

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Wed May 16, 2018 10:21 am

tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 6:44 pm
That's fair. I, admittedly, am not working on the same assumption. Though I do think of "Dinosaur" broadly, as I do "Primate", I don't think of it as say, "mammal" and definitely don't include birds under that umbrella (just as I wouldn't include Man under the Primate category). That's not to say I don't see what you're saying. I do, but I wasn't thinking that way in my previous comments.
Ultimately this is what burns the biscuits of creationists so much. We are supposed to be the pinnacle of God's special creation, uniquely imbued with His image out of all the things he made, formed from the clay by the master artist himself. The suggestion that we came from, that we in some essential way still are "primates" is therefore highly offensive. There's some kind of crisis of worldview involved in accepting evolution if you come from a religious upbringing. I went through it myself a long time ago. If the Creationist narrative is wrong, as it clearly is in the most literal sense, then probably the rest of what I was taught in church is wrong too. That's a heavy thing to wrestle with and it's no surprise to me that most people knee jerk one way or the other.
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 6:44 pm
Certainly not holding my breath! I'm convinced that there is no evidence that an evolutionist cannot cram into the evolutionist narrative. It's a thing of beauty really. Nothing can disprove the theory because the narrative doesn't allow any room for other opinions. Neither does creationism, mind you. That's the advantage (and if you're wrong, the curse) of having a really good narrative.
Ok, but why is evolution such a good narrative? What does it tell us? What does Creationism tell us? They don't have to be mutually exclusive. IMO a more beautiful picture emerges when you find a way to hold on to them both.
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: 34366
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Wed May 16, 2018 1:52 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

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Wed May 16, 2018 2:29 pm

Not sure what makes this so surprising other than the dumbass AP reporter calling them amphibians.
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: 21570
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Wed May 16, 2018 4:19 pm

infidel wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:21 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 6:44 pm
That's fair. I, admittedly, am not working on the same assumption. Though I do think of "Dinosaur" broadly, as I do "Primate", I don't think of it as say, "mammal" and definitely don't include birds under that umbrella (just as I wouldn't include Man under the Primate category). That's not to say I don't see what you're saying. I do, but I wasn't thinking that way in my previous comments.
Ultimately this is what burns the biscuits of creationists so much. We are supposed to be the pinnacle of God's special creation, uniquely imbued with His image out of all the things he made, formed from the clay by the master artist himself. The suggestion that we came from, that we in some essential way still are "primates" is therefore highly offensive. There's some kind of crisis of worldview involved in accepting evolution if you come from a religious upbringing. I went through it myself a long time ago. If the Creationist narrative is wrong, as it clearly is in the most literal sense, then probably the rest of what I was taught in church is wrong too. That's a heavy thing to wrestle with and it's no surprise to me that most people knee jerk one way or the other.
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 6:44 pm
Certainly not holding my breath! I'm convinced that there is no evidence that an evolutionist cannot cram into the evolutionist narrative. It's a thing of beauty really. Nothing can disprove the theory because the narrative doesn't allow any room for other opinions. Neither does creationism, mind you. That's the advantage (and if you're wrong, the curse) of having a really good narrative.
Ok, but why is evolution such a good narrative? What does it tell us? What does Creationism tell us? They don't have to be mutually exclusive. IMO a more beautiful picture emerges when you find a way to hold on to them both.
+1

There are still however “problems” for certain theological schools of thought in allowing evolution. Pretty much this will be a crisis to overcome even if belief in God remains. Many groups, especially those who believe in Biblical inherency will have trouble with it. Even many other traditions have little to no room for evolution within their theological framework, which nevertheless makes it very hard to believe both narratives because both do speak of the physical world and describe very different worlds indeed!

User avatar
durangopipe
Under-secretary to the Minister of Pipe Breaking
Under-secretary to the Minister of Pipe Breaking
Posts: 5581
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:58 pm
Location: Southwest Colorado

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by durangopipe » Wed May 16, 2018 8:31 pm

The following linked discussion of Aquinas and the reconciliation of faith and science, and especially as it pertains to the creation both as examined by scientific inquiry and as described in the biblical account, may be a useful addition to this conversation:

https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/4 ... rroll3.htm

We’ve been around this block many times before. The core of Aquinas’ argument, greatly simplified, is that there is no necessay contradiction between reason and canonical narratives, between science and the Bible.

In the essay the argument is quite fully developed, and the following excerpt exists within that context. I excise it for inclusion here because I believe the “apparent” contradiction that informs this thread occurs (it seems to me) primarily when exegesis is directed by what I believe to be an overly simplified understanding of Biblical innerrancy and the result is a therefore subsequently flawed exegesis:

“Aquinas' firm adherence to the truth of Scripture without falling into the trap of literalistic readings of the text offers valuable correction for exegesis of the Bible which concludes that one must choose between the literal interpretation of the Bible and modern science. For Aquinas, the literal meaning of the Bible is what God, its ultimate author, intends the words to mean. The literal sense of the text includes metaphors, similes, and other figures of speech useful to accommodate the truth of the Bible to the understanding of its readers. For example, when one reads in the Bible that God stretches out His hand, one ought not to think that God has a hand. The literal meaning of such passages concerns God's power, not His anatomy. Nor ought one to think that the six days at the beginning of Genesis literally refer to God's acting in time, for God's creative act is instantaneous and eternal.(25)”

Were I editing this essay, I would have suggested a clarifying change of wording to, “ . . . for God's creative act is simultaneously both instantaneous and eternal.”

How this early modern (13th c.) Christian understanding that reconciles faith and an evolving science came to be abandoned by some (very few) later Christian traditions would seem to be more a matter for social and cultural historians to articulate than theologians. (For that story, I’d refer anyone interested to the scholarship of Mark Noll.)

For most worldwide Christian believers, for the majority of Christian theologians (in both Pre- and Post-Reformation traditions) worldwide, this particular problem has long since ceased to occupy center stage.

For atheists, for those who attack Christian belief, its resurrection and the passion with which the matter continues to be debated by the few provides both ammunition and succor. They love pointing to this debate and insisting that you cannot be both educated and a Christian believer.

I know this post may annoy a few whose theology has been formed within one of those Christian traditions where the question continues to possess great importance. For that, I apologize.
. . . be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you. Ephesians 4:32 (NKJV)

The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.. J.R.R. Tolkien

2017 Morley - Outstanding BRATASS of the Year

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21570
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Wed May 16, 2018 11:18 pm

True story:

Last week my mother-in-law stayed with us. She’s a charismatic Evangelical. My oldest son asked me a question about human evolution while she sat nearby listening. I began to explain in detail the latest theories concerning his question. As I was doing this, my MIL was shaking her head “no” while my son was trying to listen to me. Strike one.

Later that day, she informed my son that God created Adam and Eve Instantly and fully human in the Garden. In a literalist sense of course and that evolution was “wrong” basically countering everything else they’ve been taught. Strike two.

I decided not to say a word to her undermining me like that. Why? Because my kids, both of them are convinced that their grandma is a sweet crazy old lady and this just proves it again. :lol:

This is where the rubber hits the road. Seriously, if your doctrine doesn’t allow for the evolution of man, it’s time to evolve your doctrine. 8)

Post Reply