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
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Mon May 21, 2018 11:52 am

infidel wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 11:09 am
tuttle wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 8:55 am
Yep. Sorry for being unclear. Your assessment is more or less correct. Evolution disallows C as a consideration. If they were at all to consider option C, it would be a direct challenge to the entire paradigm of evolution. Therefore they are restricted to A & B, which is exactly the two paths that are being taken. My thought is this: Consider, just for a moment, that the tissue found actually does mean that the fossils are younger (the realm of thousands, even tens of thousands of years old vs 65-125 million years old). If that's actually the case, then what kind of impact would that make on other observations/experiments/etc that scientists will make from here on out? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I ponder if they cut themselves off from what really happened. Instead of considering the implications of what might lead to an astounding scientific breakthrough (because surely, a timescale adjustment would revolutionize how science is done), they'll never allow any evidence to be interpreted outside of their narrative.
It's like this... Geologists have established the age of the various layers of the Earth to very high degrees of certainty using a variety of radiometric dating processes. In particular, the K-T boundary (or whatever it's called now) is known to be ~63 million years old. T Rex fossils are always found below that layer so we know they must be older than that layer. Entertaining option C doesn't just mean shortening the timespan of Evolution but overturning everything we know about the physics of radioactive decay and geologic processes. So let's expand on our options a little:

A) the soft tissues are not from the fossil, i.e. external contamination;
B) it actually IS possible for soft tissues to survive through some mechanism we don't yet understand
C) the fossils are actually much younger than believed and everything we know about radioactive decay and geology is wrong

Now it's easy to see, from a purely scientific POV, why most critics default to A, some are coming around to B, and nobody seriously considers C.

YECs, on the other hand, swap options B and C. C is easy for you to accept. It fits your "narrative" and you have no problem throwing out all of geology and radioactive physics if necessary. So we have two narratives. And two conclusions. Science dismisses the YE conclusion because it would require dismissing all of the physical evidence for the old Earth, and YEC dismisses the old Earth conclusion because it would require dismissing a literal reading of ancient scriptures.

All of the scientific disciplines converge on the same narrative. Seriously, ALL of them. Cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc etc everything we have learned about the physical universe supports the "narrative" that it is 13+ billion years old, the Solar system formed ~4.5 billion years ago, life started in the simplest forms 3+ billion years ago and has evolved over that time into the diversity we see today. Your side has a few pages of ancient myths and a handful of cherrypicked controversies.
To be fair I did say that if someone were to allow option C it would "revolutionize how science is done". And it doesn't rattle me that cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc etc supports the narrative. Of course it does. I've been banging that drum for like 30 pages. The creationist interpretation of the evidence supports the creationist narrative. Things that are "known to be" fit within their narrative. Again, it's more about premise than process. If we get the premise wrong at the outset, and continue down that path, we're liable to wind up at the wrong destination.

Besides, I thought science was all about adapting to the shifts in knowledge. If the fossils are actually much younger than believed then a re-evaluation about how radioactive decay and geology will have to take place. What was it that caused two different 'timescales' to be measured, etc. That'd be a fun one for scientists. But is it that big of a leap to think something we know now might be wrong? For pretty much always we believed that there is no possible way soft tissue could be found in a fossil. We're essentially learning that everything we thought we knew to be sure about proteins remaining in fossils was wrong! So the shifting of what we thought was right scientifically today, but needed re-evaluation after a key discovery, isn't really a negative argument for option C. It's just science doing its thing. The real reason that option C is rejected is because the shift is too great to be contained within the narrative. The narrative would break. Can't risk that.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"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 » Mon May 21, 2018 12:11 pm

tuttle wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 11:52 am
The real reason that option C is rejected is because the shift is too great to be contained within the narrative. The narrative would break. Can't risk that.
Yeah, that must be it.
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: 13588
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Mon May 21, 2018 1:31 pm

infidel wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 12:11 pm
tuttle wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 11:52 am
The real reason that option C is rejected is because the shift is too great to be contained within the narrative. The narrative would break. Can't risk that.
Yeah, that must be it.
:wink:

I'm just an outsider looking in. That's my interpretation of it and I know full well that isn't how people on the inside would think of it.

But hey, it's been fun. We haven't had a snip/snip conversation in a while. I know it's a lot of tit for tat, but if nothing was accomplished, at least it proves Onyx's 24 month prediction was wrong :lol:
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

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

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 22099
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Mon May 21, 2018 2:32 pm

tuttle wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 1:31 pm
infidel wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 12:11 pm
tuttle wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 11:52 am
The real reason that option C is rejected is because the shift is too great to be contained within the narrative. The narrative would break. Can't risk that.
Yeah, that must be it.
:wink:

I'm just an outsider looking in. That's my interpretation of it and I know full well that isn't how people on the inside would think of it.

But hey, it's been fun. We haven't had a snip/snip conversation in a while. I know it's a lot of tit for tat, but if nothing was accomplished, at least it proves Onyx's 24 month prediction was wrong :lol:
Well, now that you proved him wrong about that, will you consider adjusting your doctrine so that you can accept real science? Or will I have to predict that you will still be stubbornly misunderstanding the science behind evolution in 24 months? :wink:
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

“I grew up in a church with Ned Flanders. Down to the mustache. But so did a bunch of people I assume, which makes it so fun-diddly-unny.” -tuttle

User avatar
Cleon
The Mad Hatter
The Mad Hatter
Posts: 15069
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Indiana - South of 40
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Cleon » Mon May 21, 2018 3:17 pm

Why does it matter to the evolutionist whether the creationist believes them or not?
"Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven" - Jesus

"More people need to put their big boy britches on." - JMG

"Dang, a pipe slap." - JimVH

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 22099
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Mon May 21, 2018 3:59 pm

Cleon wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 3:17 pm
Why does it matter to the evolutionist whether the creationist believes them or not?
Because young earth creationists vote. How’s that for an answer? :lol:

More explanation:

But that’s an interesting question you posit and one that can just as quickly be asked of young earth creationists as to why they care if evolutionists believe in creation. Why have they challenged evolutionists to debates? Of course they have preferred to challenge atheist evolutionists to debates as though they were conflating evolution and atheism, a situation that some atheists themselves were all too eager to support. The entire question revolves around the question of truth. Rather than viewing creation and evolution as two different, but potentially complimentary perspectives of truth, they instead view them as hostile to each other as though neither has a particular grasp on objective testing or philosophical proofs within their own spheres.

From a religious perspective, what does “creation” have to mean? Does it require constant supernatural inputs or can the mere law of nature be seen as the cause and sustaining role of God? Is God required to act supernaturally or may he use the laws of nature that He authored itself to create? Why do some Christians have as a matter of doctrine that God created the universe in six 24 hour days? Things like that are artifacts of faith that really aren’t subject to science and cannot form science as we practice it today.

I believe it’s actually quite harmful to Christianity when many Christians are anti science. And yes, I do believe that young earth creationist leaders and many of their supporters are anti science and anti truth. I will not mince words about that. It shows a witness poorly and marginalizes the Christian faith in several ways. I mayself have been one casualty to it. It’s dishonest and false. There’s guilt by association that spills over to all Christians in the eyes of unbelievers. It also effects other areas of social concerns that we cannot discuss here.

People are at liberty to believe as they wish. But to be clear, I don’t suggest one do away with the traditional Christian narrative of creation in favor of evolution. But the tradional view may need doctrinal tweaking or at least parsing of different types of knowledge as it partains to life in the world today. I do know that some atheists do use evolution as a type of Godless creation narrative of their own. They are are at liberty to do that. But the objective truth of evolution as known through modern science is a type of revelation and truth, a fact on many levels. It is not a religion or even religious replacement. It only speaks of specific things concerning life.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

“I grew up in a church with Ned Flanders. Down to the mustache. But so did a bunch of people I assume, which makes it so fun-diddly-unny.” -tuttle

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

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Mon May 21, 2018 4:27 pm

Thunktank wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 3:59 pm
Cleon wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 3:17 pm
Why does it matter to the evolutionist whether the creationist believes them or not?
Because young earth creationists vote. How’s that for an answer? :lol:
Not only that but they run for and hold office. Our state board of education is currently revising the standards for science curriculum and the superintendent is pushing for "intelligent design" to be presented as an alternative theory. Again. Every time the standards are up for revision we go through this.
Last edited by infidel on Mon May 21, 2018 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 22099
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Mon May 21, 2018 5:08 pm

Sigh, we can't talk about that.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

“I grew up in a church with Ned Flanders. Down to the mustache. But so did a bunch of people I assume, which makes it so fun-diddly-unny.” -tuttle

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

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by infidel » Mon May 21, 2018 5:11 pm

Oh right. :baghead:

Image
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: 13588
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Tue May 22, 2018 9:41 am

Thunktank wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 3:59 pm
I believe it’s actually quite harmful to Christianity when many Christians are anti science. And yes, I do believe that young earth creationist leaders and many of their supporters are anti science and anti truth. I will not mince words about that. It shows a witness poorly and marginalizes the Christian faith in several ways. I mayself have been one casualty to it. It’s dishonest and false. There’s guilt by association that spills over to all Christians in the eyes of unbelievers. It also effects other areas of social concerns that we cannot discuss here.
Two things:

1) Concerning 'anti-science', I made the observation that it is a term that is
tuttle wrote:used as a weapon to silence anyone standing in the way. A differing opinion, even one backed by scientific data, is deemed 'anti-science'. Why is a differing opinion considered anti-science? One may disagree with an interpretation... One may believe the other is faulty science... One may think a differing opinion may involve some bias... but anti-science? No. That's a catchword. It's a domestic abuser word. One meant to cast the victim of the beatings in an indefensible role so that onlookers won't feel the full sympathetic impact of the abuse. "Yeah, teaching children anti-science is child abuse." "People who don't get on board with science should probably go to jail."
2) I do actually hear and share your concern regarding situations of dishonesty and falsehood, especially when it leads to casualties. The church is not invulnerable to hucksters, moneygrubbers, power whores, or just merely stupid people, infiltrating her ranks. The nefarious are not above abusing good things for their own gain and the stupid are often happy to comply. I'll admit that there are a fair share of the nefarious and the stupid mucking about in Creationism, but they're also mucking about in all facets of Christianity (and business and government and, and, etc). I'll also admit/agree that they have tarnished aspects of the faith for outsiders who can't (or won't) see past the corruption.

But if one holds a genuine philosophically viable belief that conflicts with the current scientific understanding of the world, and offers interpretations within that philosophical/metaphysical framework, you cannot simply say that these people are 'anti-science' or 'anti-truth' and insist that they must adjust the teachings/beliefs they've held for a couple millennia in order to appease the minds of the proponents of a new system of belief. And if it's a viable belief system, especially a system that doesn't play by the same rules that the other system has established as THE RULES, accusations of 'anti-science' not only smells like hubris but it ultimately rings hollow in the ears of the accused. That's why it's a term that does nothing but serve as a way to desensitize the unthinking majority who adhere to THE RULES like sheep to the abuses of those labeled with it.

Christianity holds that the Creator (regardless of how he created) was incarnate as a human and that he actually rose up from the dead. You expect anyone to believe that unbelievers find that belief more credible or less offensive than what some Christians believe about a supernatural creation? A man rising up to live again after being three days dead is about as 'anti-science' as you can get.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"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: 19775
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by wosbald » Tue May 22, 2018 10:01 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 9:41 am
[…]

Christianity holds that the Creator (regardless of how he created) was incarnate as a human and that he actually rose up from the dead. You expect anyone to believe that unbelievers find that belief more credible or less offensive than what some Christians believe about a supernatural creation? A man rising up to live again after being three days dead is about as 'anti-science' as you can get.
Yes, 'tis tru that — and this is something that the diehard Protestant Evolutionist won't want to admit — there's always a fly in the ointment. (And we can expose said flies even without explicit reference to the Christ Event.)

But, will the diehard Protestant Creationist be willing to admit that there are, mutatis mutandis, equivalent flies in the specific ointment that he's peddlin'?

We shall see.

ImageImage

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."
— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Tue May 22, 2018 10:02 am

infidel wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 4:27 pm
Thunktank wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 3:59 pm
Cleon wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 3:17 pm
Why does it matter to the evolutionist whether the creationist believes them or not?
Because young earth creationists vote. How’s that for an answer? :lol:
Not only that but they run for and hold office. Our state board of education is currently revising the standards for science curriculum and the superintendent is pushing for "intelligent design" to be presented as an alternative theory. Again. Every time the standards are up for revision we go through this.

I'm not really one who thinks politicians should be the ones determining the content of what we teach in schools...(surprise! we homeschool)...but if we as a people want our schools to be run by elected officials then it's a totally legitimate issue. And if people pay taxes for schools, then the fact that they get a say via representatives is kind of how it works. I think it's a fascinating idea to have alternative theories taught and I can completely see why evolutionists freak out about it. It's kind of like having a Christian church where some elders think it would be a good idea for a Muslim to have equal time in the pulpit to present Islam as an alternative theory. If Creationists had the sway that the Evolutionists do now, they'd freak out about evolution being promoted to be presented as an alternative theory. But that's the price we pay to operate our public schools this way. That's why education without the State operating as a middle man (or tyrant) is on the rise.

That was a little off topic, but it leads me to wonder, if it does matter to the evolutionist what the creationist believes (because the creationist can influence education/representation via ballot box), then what is the end game? I've seen people in positions of authority, either via elected office or in academia, that have advocated that teaching/proliferating, etc creationist beliefs ought to be criminalized. I've read that parents who teach their kids creationism are child abusers. (I'm not saying anyone here agrees with that), but it does make me wonder, what is the goal?
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"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: 36301
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Tue May 22, 2018 10:21 am

wosbald wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:01 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 9:41 am
[…]

Christianity holds that the Creator (regardless of how he created) was incarnate as a human and that he actually rose up from the dead. You expect anyone to believe that unbelievers find that belief more credible or less offensive than what some Christians believe about a supernatural creation? A man rising up to live again after being three days dead is about as 'anti-science' as you can get.
Yes, 'tis tru that — and this is something that the diehard Protestant Evolutionist won't want to admit — there's always a fly in the ointment. (And we can expose said flies even without explicit reference to the Christ Event.)

<snip>
Lol! This actually demonstrates that science is misunderstood here. Is the resurrection generalizable? If not, then it is outside of the purview of science. In essence, science here is replaced with "unbeliever"; or, in short, demonstrating a 'gut-level' reaction against science.

This is an example of what many mean when they say Christianity is anti-science: they have not grasp on even the basics--nor the desire to do so.
"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
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Tue May 22, 2018 10:38 am

UncleBob wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:21 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:01 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 9:41 am
[…]

Christianity holds that the Creator (regardless of how he created) was incarnate as a human and that he actually rose up from the dead. You expect anyone to believe that unbelievers find that belief more credible or less offensive than what some Christians believe about a supernatural creation? A man rising up to live again after being three days dead is about as 'anti-science' as you can get.
Yes, 'tis tru that — and this is something that the diehard Protestant Evolutionist won't want to admit — there's always a fly in the ointment. (And we can expose said flies even without explicit reference to the Christ Event.)

<snip>
Lol! This actually demonstrates that science is misunderstood here. Is the resurrection generalizable? If not, then it is outside of the purview of science. In essence, science here is replaced with "unbeliever"; or, in short, demonstrating a 'gut-level' reaction against science.

This is an example of what many mean when they say Christianity is anti-science: they have not grasp on even the basics--nor the desire to do so.
My statement is in response to Thunk who specifically brought up the idea that Christians considered 'anti-science' are tarnishing Christianity. If unbelievers are scandalized and believe Christianity unacceptable on the basis of creationism being 'anti-science', then they'll think the same of the resurrection. I've done nothing but advocate that supernatural creation (and resurrection) transcend evolutionary science.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"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 22, 2018 10:40 am

wosbald wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:01 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 9:41 am
[…]

Christianity holds that the Creator (regardless of how he created) was incarnate as a human and that he actually rose up from the dead. You expect anyone to believe that unbelievers find that belief more credible or less offensive than what some Christians believe about a supernatural creation? A man rising up to live again after being three days dead is about as 'anti-science' as you can get.
Yes, 'tis tru that — and this is something that the diehard Protestant Evolutionist won't want to admit — there's always a fly in the ointment. (And we can expose said flies even without explicit reference to the Christ Event.)

But, will the diehard Protestant Creationist be willing to admit that there are, mutatis mutandis, equivalent flies in the specific ointment that he's peddlin'?

We shall see.
Of course unbelievers are not going to find the resurrection credible. As a lot they generally disbelieve ALL claims of the miraculous or supernatural. Whether the Resurrection is more, the same, or less offensive than YECism depends on the specific unbeliever's reasons for not believing.

But Creation and the Resurrection are qualitatively different things. In respect to Creation we have all the physical evidence (ie the whole universe) vs an ancient story. The story of supernatural creation in 144 hours can be compared to the evidence and found to be unusable in actually explaining anything about the physical universe. For the Resurrection we have eye-witness testimonies vs... nothing. Nothing for science to test, no evidence to examine, nothing that can be repeated - so we are left with believing the testimonies or not.

In general this is why miracles are miraculous. They are one-off violations of the laws of nature, and more often than not there are few if any independent witnesses.
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: 22099
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Thunktank » Tue May 22, 2018 10:53 am

“Tuttle” wrote:But if one holds a genuine philosophically viable belief that conflicts with the current scientific understanding of the world, and offers interpretations within that philosophical/metaphysical framework, you cannot simply say that these people are 'anti-science' or 'anti-truth' and insist that they must adjust the teachings/beliefs they've held for a couple millennia in order to appease the minds of the proponents of a new system of belief. And if it's a viable belief system, especially a system that doesn't play by the same rules that the other system has established as THE RULES, accusations of 'anti-science' not only smells like hubris but it ultimately rings hollow in the ears of the accused. That's why it's a term that does nothing but serve as a way to desensitize the unthinking majority who adhere to THE RULES like sheep to the abuses of those labeled with it.
Ding, ding, ding!

“But if one holds a genuine philosophical viable belief that conflicts with the current scientific understanding of the world. . . “

You just said it. Creationism or intelligent design are more like a philosophy that “conflicts” with science. It’s properly known as a “pseudoscience.”

Tuttle, you’re a smart guy. If you were just some pumpkin rube I wouldn’t say a word to you about this, but you’re not. I’m going to hold your words to the fire. What you are pushing for isn’t modern science. It’s something else entirely, yet it attempts to use science to further it’s goals.

“Tuttle” wrote:Christianity holds that the Creator (regardless of how he created) was incarnate as a human and that he actually rose up from the dead. You expect anyone to believe that unbelievers find that belief more credible or less offensive than what some Christians believe about a supernatural creation? A man rising up to live again after being three days dead is about as 'anti-science' as you can get.
I can see how this logic works, but it doesn’t have to work this way and shouldn’t. This is an attempt to use deductive reasoning without full consideration to other possibilities. The supernatural cannot be studied via science like the natural is. At most we can study the effects of belief in the supernatural or perhaps draw a personal opinion of something being “miraculous” when we observe something in nature we don’t have a scientific explanation for, but all that is something else. Without a doubt, the supernatural is harder to believe for some people because it is often subjective and based in personal experience. It’s untestable and suspect when we see people all over the world believing miracles of God even when there is a natural explanation for it! Of course I would argue that all things in creation have a “miraculous” character, but I’ll regress on that here for now.

Supernatural acts in theory are hard for modern science to accept because we discover over and over again that there is natural cause and effect. It’s also amazingly intricate too. The conservation laws make supernatural energy even harder to believe. Christianity does understand God to be an Uncreated or Supernatural being who became incarnate as a great Mystery. Christianity is right about that! It is a mystery.

However, as to evolution of life. This does not require mystery or the supernatural and science has shown to a great degree how it happened and how long it took. This may be a case where “creationists” are looking for “mystery” in the wrong place. Sort of like where some evolutionists (and Protestants) might be looking for nature in places where mystery is.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

“I grew up in a church with Ned Flanders. Down to the mustache. But so did a bunch of people I assume, which makes it so fun-diddly-unny.” -tuttle

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 22, 2018 11:06 am

tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:02 am
That was a little off topic, but it leads me to wonder, if it does matter to the evolutionist what the creationist believes (because the creationist can influence education/representation via ballot box), then what is the end game? I've seen people in positions of authority, either via elected office or in academia, that have advocated that teaching/proliferating, etc creationist beliefs ought to be criminalized. I've read that parents who teach their kids creationism are child abusers. (I'm not saying anyone here agrees with that), but it does make me wonder, what is the goal?
The goal, in general, is for kids to get an appropriate education to prepare them for college.

I think that a slim majority of people want science classes to only teach science but would be fine having other cosmologies presented in, say, world history/geography setting. IMO, there is still a sizeable minority of the public who think they should be presented in a "fair and balanced" way in science class, because they have been misled to believe creationism/ID are equally valid alternative theories. And there are the radicals who are anti-religion in all cases and want to stamp it out like a mental illness. I believe they are a tiny minority, the mirror image of the radicals on the other end who think only literal 144-hour Creationism should be taught.
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: 13588
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Tue May 22, 2018 11:36 am

Thunktank wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:53 am
“Tuttle” wrote:But if one holds a genuine philosophically viable belief that conflicts with the current scientific understanding of the world, and offers interpretations within that philosophical/metaphysical framework, you cannot simply say that these people are 'anti-science' or 'anti-truth' and insist that they must adjust the teachings/beliefs they've held for a couple millennia in order to appease the minds of the proponents of a new system of belief. And if it's a viable belief system, especially a system that doesn't play by the same rules that the other system has established as THE RULES, accusations of 'anti-science' not only smells like hubris but it ultimately rings hollow in the ears of the accused. That's why it's a term that does nothing but serve as a way to desensitize the unthinking majority who adhere to THE RULES like sheep to the abuses of those labeled with it.
Ding, ding, ding!

“But if one holds a genuine philosophical viable belief that conflicts with the current scientific understanding of the world. . . “

You just said it. Creationism or intelligent design are more like a philosophy that “conflicts” with science. It’s properly known as a “pseudoscience.”

Tuttle, you’re a smart guy. If you were just some pumpkin rube I wouldn’t say a word to you about this, but you’re not. I’m going to hold your words to the fire. What you are pushing for isn’t modern science. It’s something else entirely, yet it attempts to use science to further it’s goals.
Ding, ding, ding!

I did say it. I've been saying it for years over fifty plus pages! :lol: I've just changed gears (same vehicle) from 'narrative' to 'philosophy'. I've never denied creationism is an 'ism', and I've been trying to say (forever) that this is the main reason Creation can't fit with Evolution. It's also why I'll amend your statement to say "Creationism or intelligent design are more like a philosophy that “conflicts” with science as interpreted by the evolutionist narrative. (Evolutionism is an 'ism' too). And yes, I've never advocated or pushed for modern science. It isn't quite something else entirely (since Creation deals with All Things) but it is something that transcends modern science. It goes where modern science cannot go. Insofar as it interprets evidence based on its own narrative that reaches beyond the bounds of modern science, yes, it does 'use' science, maybe not to further its goals (generally speaking) but to aid in understanding things within this worldview.
Thunktank wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:53 am
However, as to evolution of life. This does not require mystery or the supernatural and science has shown to a great degree how it happened and how long it took. This may be a case where “creationists” are looking for “mystery” in the wrong place. Sort of like where some evolutionists (and Protestants) might be looking for nature in places where mystery is.
I'd say (from my angle) that science has shown to a great degree how it seems to have happened within their limitations. It'd be like an archaeologist discovering a handful of relics from the past, but restricting his interpretations strictly to the evidence that he's found beneath the dirt. With the purest motives and with the greatest scientific integrity he'll come up with an extremely detailed and scientifically accurate interpretation of what he's found, what these objects were used for, what they revealed about the people who used them, etc. But say there was a book in the library under 'History' of the very place/people/period he's attempting to interpret. This book was written by an ancient historian about these people and it tells a different story than what the archaeologist interpreted by the evidence alone, maybe vastly different or just slightly different, but different nonetheless. Or more to the point, the archaeologist knows of the book, has heard that interpretation, maybe even believed it at one point, but maybe he finds some agricultural tools and agriculture was never mentioned to be something these people took part in. The book said they were hunter gatherers. So now, he rejects the story because the evidence tells him otherwise and, according to his interpretation, he believes it flatly conflicts with the written account and advocates that it ought to not be believed anymore.

I'm being generous in my analogy because an evolutionist would not consider any writings. But say that's the case. Now a person who believes the story to be true is going to interpret the agricultural tools in a different light than one who has crafted their interpretation based on the hard evidence. But what if, in reality, someone from the hunter gatherer group killed a farmer and stole his tool as a prized possession? That theory may not even be one advocated by the Storyists, but let's say it's the truth. Who is right in their knowledge and understanding of this people group? The Storyists are. Even when presented with 'hard evidence' that seems counter to their claim. Maybe they throw up their hands and say "It's a mystery to us as to why we find a farmer's tool among them".

That's kind of how I see a creationist relating to modern science. Here's the story we believe, here's the evidence the earth provides, we'll interpret that evidence in light of our story, and when a real poser comes our way we don't let it rattle us to the point of leaving the story behind.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"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 22, 2018 11:50 am

tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:36 am
I did say it. I've been saying it for years over fifty plus pages! :lol: I've just changed gears (same vehicle) from 'narrative' to 'philosophy'. I've never denied creationism is an 'ism', and I've been trying to say (forever) that this is the main reason Creation can't fit with Evolution. It's also why I'll amend your statement to say "Creationism or intelligent design are more like a philosophy that “conflicts” with science as interpreted by the evolutionist narrative. (Evolutionism is an 'ism' too). And yes, I've never advocated or pushed for modern science. It isn't quite something else entirely (since Creation deals with All Things) but it is something that transcends modern science. It goes where modern science cannot go. Insofar as it interprets evidence based on its own narrative that reaches beyond the bounds of modern science, yes, it does 'use' science, maybe not to further its goals (generally speaking) but to aid in understanding things within this worldview.
Your language is very creative. Creationism "transcends", it is "free", it is "beyond the bounds" of modern science. And the fact that you keep qualifying it as "modern" science seems suspicious too, like, "science was great before it figured out these newfangled ideas that contradict Genesis".

No, Creationism does not use science to understand anything. Creationism does not use science at all. Individual creationists might attempt to, but at the end of the day Creationists use the ancient scripture as the script and use whatever mental gymnastics they can to force anything it can to fit it. That is not science. I know you think evolutionists do the exact same thing using a different script, but you are just wrong. Creationism conflicts with science, period.

Intelligent Design is somewhere in the middle between straight up Creationism and Science. IDers use science right up to the point where something seems impossible or highly unlikely and then just stop the science and declare "Intelligence!"
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: 13588
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by tuttle » Tue May 22, 2018 11:57 am

infidel wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:40 am
wosbald wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:01 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 9:41 am
[…]

Christianity holds that the Creator (regardless of how he created) was incarnate as a human and that he actually rose up from the dead. You expect anyone to believe that unbelievers find that belief more credible or less offensive than what some Christians believe about a supernatural creation? A man rising up to live again after being three days dead is about as 'anti-science' as you can get.
Yes, 'tis tru that — and this is something that the diehard Protestant Evolutionist won't want to admit — there's always a fly in the ointment. (And we can expose said flies even without explicit reference to the Christ Event.)

But, will the diehard Protestant Creationist be willing to admit that there are, mutatis mutandis, equivalent flies in the specific ointment that he's peddlin'?

We shall see.
Of course unbelievers are not going to find the resurrection credible. As a lot they generally disbelieve ALL claims of the miraculous or supernatural. Whether the Resurrection is more, the same, or less offensive than YECism depends on the specific unbeliever's reasons for not believing.

But Creation and the Resurrection are qualitatively different things. In respect to Creation we have all the physical evidence (ie the whole universe) vs an ancient story. The story of supernatural creation in 144 hours can be compared to the evidence and found to be unusable in actually explaining anything about the physical universe. For the Resurrection we have eye-witness testimonies vs... nothing. Nothing for science to test, no evidence to examine, nothing that can be repeated - so we are left with believing the testimonies or not.

In general this is why miracles are miraculous. They are one-off violations of the laws of nature, and more often than not there are few if any independent witnesses.
They are different, but they are still miracles. They are both one-off violations of the laws of nature. God didn't create the laws of nature out of the laws of nature. And at least at the Creation there were no independent witnesses (until they were created). But your point is that we can't test the body of Jesus in labs today like we can test and measure rocks and light and the stuff of the universe today. From my end, I've taken it that even if we had Jesus' physical body to poke and prod, without someone actually seeing the event take place, I believe scientists would conclude that he had never died. Had a scientist been on hand to test the wine created from water, he'd not be able to tell the difference genetically from any other wine created naturally. Had they been on hand to look at Adam's DNA they'd find X and Y chromosomes from his 'father' and 'mother'. The creation is just as miraculous as water to wine and the resurrection. So I have no trouble believing scientists today, who have not witnessed the creation of the world, would test the stuff of the universe come up with a measurement consistent with how that 'stuff' ought to be. Just because the wine Jesus made was miraculous doesn't mean it isn't real wine. No amount of scientific testing will determine it was only a few minutes old. We had to have been told that information. If that's the case, I have no problem believing light is seen from some odd million light years away and at the same time believing the universe doesn't have to be millions or billions of years old.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

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

Post Reply