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
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 » Fri May 25, 2018 7:56 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
Goose55
Bartleby the Scrivener
Bartleby the Scrivener
Posts: 8437
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:44 pm
Location: Southern Arizona, U.S.A.

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by Goose55 » Fri May 25, 2018 8:22 am

Had no idea New Zealand Kiwis were so large. They stand about 18 inches tall and males weight about 5.3 pounds. Really weird flightless bird...

ImageImage
"At present we're on the wrong side of the door. But all the pages of the New Testament are rustling with the rumor that it will not always be so." ~ C.S. Lewis

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 » Fri May 25, 2018 10:10 am

Thunktank wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 4:27 pm
I hear you Cleon. I’ve really tried to understand young earth creationists. I was literally raised by them at home and at my school by fundamentalist Evangelicals of a certain persuasion, but despite that influence, by the time I was 12 I secretly believed evolution over young earth creation. As far as I know, I was the only person of my acquaintance who did until high school when one or two others began to question it for themselves too. The dangerous thing however, and this is something Christian parents might want to consider, was that I didn’t have an alternative Christian view of it. Even mainline Christian Protestant bodies like Presbyterians and Methodists were too worldly and not Biblical enough to learn from according to my educators. This didn’t help counter my retreat from Christianity the first time and set a stage I still often struggle with.

I know some are more theologically inclined. The love of science isn’t for everyone. For my part, the fun starts when I try and grapple with two different kinds of creation narratives. This is unusual in the history of man. Most cultures held only one. On one hand I tell the Christian story that talks of creation in one way, while evolution and science covers it very differently. I do believe everyone should have a basic scientific education today that includes a working understanding of evolution. Especially when choices are presented in the practical order of society that involves science. And today, there’s lot of different ways science is applied in society. It is a litmus test for me to be honest. Between that litmus test and others, my options are sometimes awfully limited. :D

When I was nine, I told my parents I wanted to be a scientist. They laughed. They never supported that in any way. Science most certainly wasn’t valued among our peers. I think the main reason for that is because evolution made things difficult for them and the doctrines they held. When an entire church and church culture is built on very specific fundamentals about a certain type of Scriptural inerrancy that was born in response to liberalism in European churches over a century ago, it can be downright worrisome to consider that what you believe may be so wrong that you might have to take another road. This is especially true when all other roads, like other Christian doctrines have been demonized by the church currently attended.

All this to say, that this sort of topic can come very loaded and be very formative.
Sheesh. After reading my post it seems like a lot of babble. Thanks for the measured response.

As I was on a long jog I had time think more about it. I should have just simply said I, personally, need more mystical supernatural in my life and less techno sciencey stuff. That's my frustration. The fruit of science...the tech that's all around me... is driving me nuts. I think that's a big part of what's turned me off to science.
"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
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 » Fri May 25, 2018 10:27 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
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 » Fri May 25, 2018 10:58 am

“Cleon” wrote:I should have just simply said I, personally, need more mystical supernatural in my life and less techno sciencey stuff. That's my frustration. The fruit of science...the tech that's all around me... is driving me nuts. I think that's a big part of what's turned me off to science.
I share your frustration here. Especially the forced updates and the constant change of operating features. Just when I get one figured out, some tech makes it “better.”

Science for me is more like sitting down with a good book. I should add a pipe to it more often again. There’s just something fun about reading about dinosaurs, birds and fly fishing.
“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
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 » Fri May 25, 2018 12:13 pm

Pterodactyls Probably Didn’t Fly Like We Think They Did
“The authors improve our understanding of how pterosaurs, dinosaurs, and their closest relatives moved in life,” Michael Pittman, a paleontologist at the University of Hong Kong who wasn’t involved with the new study, told Gizmodo.​ “Using direct data from the hip joints of modern birds, the authors demonstrate prevailing expectations that the fossil hip joint was more restricted in life than indicated by their bones alone. It will be exciting to see the future integration of this important development with fossil soft tissue discoveries.”
"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 29, 2018 8:25 am

UncleBob wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 2:09 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 1:53 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 1:46 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:38 am
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.
Um, this is my point. If the universe erupted into existence 6000 years ago (or whenever) this should be testable. So measure it, test it, and demonstrate it. A one-time event like the resurrection cannot be measured, tested, or demonstrated because it cannot be seen now. But YEC are anti-science if for no other reason that they cannot or will not "do" science. They tend to want to philosophize rather than use the scientific method. World-creating in the armchair is much easier and neater than measuring, testing, and describing the world that is.
The only thing I disagree with you on here is the term 'anti-science'. I've listed my reasons why I think that's the case. One can hold a belief that science cannot measure test or demonstrate, and still use the scientific method. That's why I've been using terms like "transcend science".
Which is not science. By definition, science is a method that measures, tests, and describes. No matter how much one calls a Muslim a sedan, they just don't have wheels and four doors in their back.

Now, phenomena may exist that cannot be generalizable. That's cool. Science may not be able to measure faith events like the resurrection. That's also cool. That's why they are faith events. Saying something akin to "I don't believe in evolution" isn't anti-science. Saying something akin to "science can't 'prove' (not science definition but general use) evolution" and then reject all the physical evidence for it because Bible, is anti-science. Also, trying to keep people away from learning science because Bible is anti-science [1].

[1]Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings
(Sorry to just now be responding. I was out of town at the end of last week and then Memorial day...)

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that supernatural creation fits under our categorical understanding of the word science. But I see what you are concerned about. I personally don't share that concern (though I do share a presumed aversion to the kitsch and hostility found within creationism) because I don't believe creationists are rejecting any physical evidence. They are interpreting the evidence in a way science, innately, cannot. And as hard as it is to hear it, that's not purely anti-science. (It surely is an anti- 'ism' for whatever 'ism' has determined that anything interpreted outside of the natural bounds of the scientific method must and always be anti-science). But that's why an idea like "transcending science" is a better (and more honest) term/way of thinking about it. If you want to stick with the idea that such a category is not science and stay there, then I can agree with that. But saying it is anti/against/opposed to science is to disfigure it in order to disfavor it. An eyewitness testimony at a murder trial is not anti-crime scene evidence. It is simply added information that could not be derived solely from the physical crime scene evidence itself. Of course the testimony is not physical evidence, but it would be ludicrous to consider eyewitness testimony to be anti-investigation.

If a belief in a supernatural creation leads one to believe the theory of evolution is, at best, flawed, and flawed (or wrong) because it cannot see outside of itself to interpret data any other way, then it would be more accurate to say that a creationist is anti-evolution rather than anti-science. It would be a good thing on all sides for everyone (not just us, but like, everyone) to step back and remember that science and evolution are not the same thing.
"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 29, 2018 9:15 am

tuttle wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 8:25 am
UncleBob wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 2:09 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 1:53 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 1:46 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:38 am
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.
Um, this is my point. If the universe erupted into existence 6000 years ago (or whenever) this should be testable. So measure it, test it, and demonstrate it. A one-time event like the resurrection cannot be measured, tested, or demonstrated because it cannot be seen now. But YEC are anti-science if for no other reason that they cannot or will not "do" science. They tend to want to philosophize rather than use the scientific method. World-creating in the armchair is much easier and neater than measuring, testing, and describing the world that is.
The only thing I disagree with you on here is the term 'anti-science'. I've listed my reasons why I think that's the case. One can hold a belief that science cannot measure test or demonstrate, and still use the scientific method. That's why I've been using terms like "transcend science".
Which is not science. By definition, science is a method that measures, tests, and describes. No matter how much one calls a Muslim a sedan, they just don't have wheels and four doors in their back.

Now, phenomena may exist that cannot be generalizable. That's cool. Science may not be able to measure faith events like the resurrection. That's also cool. That's why they are faith events. Saying something akin to "I don't believe in evolution" isn't anti-science. Saying something akin to "science can't 'prove' (not science definition but general use) evolution" and then reject all the physical evidence for it because Bible, is anti-science. Also, trying to keep people away from learning science because Bible is anti-science [1].

[1]Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings
(Sorry to just now be responding. I was out of town at the end of last week and then Memorial day...)

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that supernatural creation fits under our categorical understanding of the word science. But I see what you are concerned about. I personally don't share that concern (though I do share a presumed aversion to the kitsch and hostility found within creationism) because I don't believe creationists are rejecting any physical evidence. They are interpreting the evidence in a way science, innately, cannot. And as hard as it is to hear it, that's not purely anti-science. (It surely is an anti- 'ism' for whatever 'ism' has determined that anything interpreted outside of the natural bounds of the scientific method must and always be anti-science). But that's why an idea like "transcending science" is a better (and more honest) term/way of thinking about it. If you want to stick with the idea that such a category is not science and stay there, then I can agree with that. But saying it is anti/against/opposed to science is to disfigure it in order to disfavor it. An eyewitness testimony at a murder trial is not anti-crime scene evidence. It is simply added information that could not be derived solely from the physical crime scene evidence itself. Of course the testimony is not physical evidence, but it would be ludicrous to consider eyewitness testimony to be anti-investigation.

If a belief in a supernatural creation leads one to believe the theory of evolution is, at best, flawed, and flawed (or wrong) because it cannot see outside of itself to interpret data any other way, then it would be more accurate to say that a creationist is anti-evolution rather than anti-science. It would be a good thing on all sides for everyone (not just us, but like, everyone) to step back and remember that science and evolution are not the same thing.
1. If someone wants to go into the science classroom and reject or stop what it teaches because Bible, how is this not anti-science? If scientists wanted to go into the Sunday School classroom and stop the teaching of religion because science, is that not anti-religion? Now, no one (quick Google search...nope!) in the scientific community is advocating that. Many YEC are advocating just this intrusion into the science classroom.

2. If YECs want to "interpret" the evidence differently, that's cool. However, if they want to use different rules/standards/etc they can't expect it to be recognized as science. If they want to be science, then bring your evidence for testing. It really is that simple.

These points have been hashed out again and again. Essentially it comes down to this: if people don't want to be seen as anti-science then they should stop trying to keep science from being taught in a science classroom. Also, they shouldn't try to get religion taught in a science classroom. It is pretty simple. As I stated earlier, to not believe in evolution is not anti-science.
"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 29, 2018 10:40 am

UncleBob wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 9:15 am
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 8:25 am
UncleBob wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 2:09 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 1:53 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 1:46 pm
tuttle wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 10:38 am
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.
Um, this is my point. If the universe erupted into existence 6000 years ago (or whenever) this should be testable. So measure it, test it, and demonstrate it. A one-time event like the resurrection cannot be measured, tested, or demonstrated because it cannot be seen now. But YEC are anti-science if for no other reason that they cannot or will not "do" science. They tend to want to philosophize rather than use the scientific method. World-creating in the armchair is much easier and neater than measuring, testing, and describing the world that is.
The only thing I disagree with you on here is the term 'anti-science'. I've listed my reasons why I think that's the case. One can hold a belief that science cannot measure test or demonstrate, and still use the scientific method. That's why I've been using terms like "transcend science".
Which is not science. By definition, science is a method that measures, tests, and describes. No matter how much one calls a Muslim a sedan, they just don't have wheels and four doors in their back.

Now, phenomena may exist that cannot be generalizable. That's cool. Science may not be able to measure faith events like the resurrection. That's also cool. That's why they are faith events. Saying something akin to "I don't believe in evolution" isn't anti-science. Saying something akin to "science can't 'prove' (not science definition but general use) evolution" and then reject all the physical evidence for it because Bible, is anti-science. Also, trying to keep people away from learning science because Bible is anti-science [1].

[1]Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings
(Sorry to just now be responding. I was out of town at the end of last week and then Memorial day...)

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that supernatural creation fits under our categorical understanding of the word science. But I see what you are concerned about. I personally don't share that concern (though I do share a presumed aversion to the kitsch and hostility found within creationism) because I don't believe creationists are rejecting any physical evidence. They are interpreting the evidence in a way science, innately, cannot. And as hard as it is to hear it, that's not purely anti-science. (It surely is an anti- 'ism' for whatever 'ism' has determined that anything interpreted outside of the natural bounds of the scientific method must and always be anti-science). But that's why an idea like "transcending science" is a better (and more honest) term/way of thinking about it. If you want to stick with the idea that such a category is not science and stay there, then I can agree with that. But saying it is anti/against/opposed to science is to disfigure it in order to disfavor it. An eyewitness testimony at a murder trial is not anti-crime scene evidence. It is simply added information that could not be derived solely from the physical crime scene evidence itself. Of course the testimony is not physical evidence, but it would be ludicrous to consider eyewitness testimony to be anti-investigation.

If a belief in a supernatural creation leads one to believe the theory of evolution is, at best, flawed, and flawed (or wrong) because it cannot see outside of itself to interpret data any other way, then it would be more accurate to say that a creationist is anti-evolution rather than anti-science. It would be a good thing on all sides for everyone (not just us, but like, everyone) to step back and remember that science and evolution are not the same thing.
1. If someone wants to go into the science classroom and reject or stop what it teaches because Bible, how is this not anti-science? If scientists wanted to go into the Sunday School classroom and stop the teaching of religion because science, is that not anti-religion? Now, no one (quick Google search...nope!) in the scientific community is advocating that. Many YEC are advocating just this intrusion into the science classroom.

2. If YECs want to "interpret" the evidence differently, that's cool. However, if they want to use different rules/standards/etc they can't expect it to be recognized as science. If they want to be science, then bring your evidence for testing. It really is that simple.

These points have been hashed out again and again. Essentially it comes down to this: if people don't want to be seen as anti-science then they should stop trying to keep science from being taught in a science classroom. Also, they shouldn't try to get religion taught in a science classroom. It is pretty simple. As I stated earlier, to not believe in evolution is not anti-science.
1. I sort of avoided classroom portion of the conversation, not because I didn't want to address it (I have, to a walk-the-edge degree, with Thunk and infi), but mainly because I didn't know if it'd branch out into the forbidden political realm. Another unfortunate casualty of the blanket ban.

I'll try to walk the line again though. My main argument was that creationism or the belief in a supernatural creation is not innately against/opposing science. That's how it's handled in the media and in the political arena. "Candidate X Takes an Anti-Science Position!!!" Well, I guess if Candidate X actually wants to storm the classroom and squelch the teaching of science and deprive children of learning about photosynthesis and dissecting frogs, then yeah, it's an anti-science position. And I'll even side with you that if they want to duct tape every evolutionist teacher's mouth by way of eliminating the science class to put up a bible study, then yes, I'll agree with you there too. Call that anti-science all day long. But for the most part, the things that I've seen via legislation, etc, is not the eradication of the science class, or even the silencing of teaching evolution, but allowing alternative theories of the origins of the earth/humanity to be included and taught alongside evolution. Even if an alternate theory transcends science, it's still dealing with the same questions that science is trying to answer. Providing alternate theories for the same questions that go beyond where science innately cannot go, ought not to be labeled anti-science, even in a school setting. To be sure, I see what you are saying, but I think it's awfully more nuanced than it is always presented. In almost every case (and I say almost just to be fair on the off chance someone actually used the term correctly) anti-science is used as a synonym for Creationism, or any other belief that bucks against the mainstream belief (ie, climate change, vaccinations, etc), and it's used as a pejorative rather than a genuine term to label things that are actually against or opposing science.

2. I'm with you and not with you here. The supernatural cannot be measured and therefore doesn't fall under the category of 'science'. So I'm with you there. Where I can't get fully on board is that a supernaturalist (or anyone really, but especially a supernaturalist) can do 'science' with the utmost integrity, completely by the book, but if his scientific research in anyway leads him to believe that something contradicts the evolutionist narrative, by saying, this evidence can be interpreted this way if we don't conform to the popular theory, he cannot bring his evidence forward for testing (with any serious expectation of being taken seriously) because his narrative is viewed, not as un-provable, but as wrong because it isn't the evolutionist narrative. So it's not really that simple. That's why I've always said that the creationist will never win any argument/debate playing in the evolutionist's arena. The cards are stacked against him. If he's forced to interpret evidence within the evolutionist narrative (in order to be seen as 'credible'), he'll still lose because at the end of the day he believes in a supernatural creator which informs his narrative and his research and position will all be brushed as 'anti-science'.

I don't know how much farther I'll go with this conversation here though. It's probably better fit for the anti-science thread. Plus I'm basically saying the exact same thing I've said for a handful of pages.
"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 » Thu May 31, 2018 8:04 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

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17674
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by TNLawPiper » Thu May 31, 2018 11:11 pm

The idea that Earth was created 6000 years ago and, consequently, nothing on earth could be older than 6000 years old is a testable hypothesis, though. You'll have to establish that dating techniques are inaccurate before you can teach otherwise in science class.

Science cannot debunk that God created Earth. Science can, however, quite easily debunk the idea that everything on Earth is less than 6000 years old, unless God created matter in such a way that the understanding He gave us regarding dating techniques is completely false. Why would God want to trick us or leave such a stumbling block in place?

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 » Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:27 am

TNLawPiper wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 11:11 pm
The idea that Earth was created 6000 years ago and, consequently, nothing on earth could be older than 6000 years old is a testable hypothesis, though. You'll have to establish that dating techniques are inaccurate before you can teach otherwise in science class.

Science cannot debunk that God created Earth. Science can, however, quite easily debunk the idea that everything on Earth is less than 6000 years old, unless God created matter in such a way that the understanding He gave us regarding dating techniques is completely false. Why would God want to trick us or leave such a stumbling block in place?
Leaving the classroom issue out of this (not to ignore you, but personally I don't really care what they teach in public schools), I think it's not as easy as we think to say that our dating techniques are fully accurate as they are now. They often change depending on who is interpreting the evidence. The discovery of radioactivity changed the date, etc. You often hear of timelines being pushed back upon a discovery of a certain animal thought to be X years old found in a layer believed to be Y years old. Sometimes though, the narrative informs why things are dated the way they are. If you disagree with the narrative, you'll disagree with the some dating techniques. Or you'll agree with the techniques themselves, but disagree on how far they can go or what information they can fully tell us. On that basis, it's hard to prove they are inaccurate because we're talking about evidence being interpreted by narratives, and you can't prove the narrative.

There are "young earth creationists" who don't think the earth is 6000 years or less. There are a lot that do and typically they're the ones that get the attention. But you bring up a good question about whether or not God tricked us if that's the case. Personally I don't subscribe to an actual age per se, but I don't think the creation happened billions of years ago. I think everything was created in a mature state (ie. Adam was an adult with X and Y chromosomes and no father or mother, starlight already reaching the earth, etc), which seems to give more credence to the criticism that God tricked us.

First I'd say that if God created like that, a mature creation, not via millions of years, but in 6 days, he isn't tricking anyone if he shows us his hand. That is, if Adam knows he was created from the beginning then he's not going to call God a deceiver because he has no parents.

But Adam isn't around to tell us about it (well...that is if you don't believe the Genesis account) and so all we're left with is the observable universe. Now if God created the universe in a mature state, not the appearance of age, mind you, but really actually aged, I think it's hard for us to say outright that God did so in order to deceive us or trick us, because he has the right to create however he desires for whatever purposes he desires. His purposes for creation may not line up with what we think the age of the earth should be. Tricking implies purpose. Was Jesus tricking the wedding guests when he made the wine from water? No. But could someone come to that conclusion if they were trying to scientifically unravel the creation of wine? If they disbelieved Jesus or the eyewitnesses, sure. But they'd be wrong about his intent of why he created in the first place.

That said, is it a stumbling block? Yes. But that shouldn't be surprising. God's in the stumbling block business. If Jesus himself, God incarnate, is a stumbling block, then of course his creation can also be a stumbling block. As to why God would allow this aspect of his Creation to be a stumbling block, I think again we have to look at intention. It's a bit different from tricking because that intention involves deceit and I think Christians can agree that such deceit is against God's character as intentions go. But God's pretty open about enjoying making the self proclaimed wise look foolish. God uses foolish things to shame the wise. I don't know for sure, but maybe that's part of it. Maybe God in his infinite wisdom knew the creation of the world would be a stumbling block to shame those who are wise in their own eyes? Again, I don't know, and I doubt we can know for sure. But from what's been revealed in Scripture, I think it's at least a theologically reasonable answer.
"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 » Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:17 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
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 » Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:23 am

Dinosaurs? nope

Feathers? nope

Sounds like a link for the paleontology thread
"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 » Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:29 am

tuttle wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:23 am
Dinosaurs? nope

Feathers? nope

Sounds like a link for the paleontology thread
nope
"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 » Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:46 am

UncleBob wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:29 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:23 am
Dinosaurs? nope

Feathers? nope

Sounds like a link for the paleontology thread
nope
Image
"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 » Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:12 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:46 am
UncleBob wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:29 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:23 am
Dinosaurs? nope

Feathers? nope

Sounds like a link for the paleontology thread
nope
Image
You could always use your super Mod-powers and move it yerself. We could have a Mod-Battledrome.

Image

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
John-Boy
I'm a lover and I'm a sinner
I'm a lover and I'm a sinner
Posts: 33275
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by John-Boy » Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:15 am

wosbald wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:12 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:46 am
UncleBob wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:29 am
tuttle wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:23 am
Dinosaurs? nope

Feathers? nope

Sounds like a link for the paleontology thread
nope
Image
You could always use your super Mod-powers and move it yerself. We could have a Mod-Battledrome.

Image
Tuttle is a mod in the theology room. If you guys make this a theology discussion, then I'll move it... and he can moderate it. :chili:
Praying - coco
Sometimes memes can be helpful as well as humorous - Jocose
Yer mom is kindhearted and well respected in her community - JMG
And when I am sitting on my new saddle, I will know that my weight is resting upon the collective minds of CPS - GaryinVa

User avatar
gaining_age
What's-his-name - President: Devo Fan Club Intl
What's-his-name - President: Devo Fan Club Intl
Posts: 16278
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: sun soaked Arizona

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by gaining_age » Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:32 pm

Then came out this nugget:
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-surv ... ution.html
"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.

And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.

"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."

The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
Out of control odd rare old man (or possibly an hobbyist). -- Label by The Big R.
The 6s of 1st John:
2:6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus walked
3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning

User avatar
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 » Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:40 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

Post Reply