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

Post by Bigwill » Tue May 17, 2011 10:52 am

infidel wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
tuttle wrote:Evolutionists want dinosaurs to have feathers because it fits into their theory that 'Dinosaurs evolved into birds'.
Yes it's all part of the Vast Darwinian Conspiracy.
True or false: a scientist who interprets the data for himself and determines that there is a Creator who intelligently designed the world will most likely be denied tenure at the non-Christian university where he works, on the basis of said conclusion.

So what you're saying is Christian universities employ "scientists" who make up their own conclusions which are not scientifically valid? Interesting.
No. What I'm saying is that SOME Christian universities won't deny tenure to a scientist who disagrees with the scientific community (you know, like Einstein, Newton, and Galileo did...).

But way to answer the question. :wink:
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6472
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Tue May 17, 2011 10:53 am

Thunktank wrote:Good grief! There is right wing nuts and left wing nuts with motivation to take over the world. Unfortunately, there's little room for balanced common sense. If people can believe that Eve was created using a rib from Adam, why the heck can't they believe that God gave a dinosaur feathers?
Because they'd have to admit that something they previously believed was wrong*, and we wouldn't want to start down that slippery slope.

* for some definition of "wrong"
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
Bigwill
Near! Far!
Near! Far!
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Woodstock, IL
Contact:

Post by Bigwill » Tue May 17, 2011 10:54 am

infidel wrote:
Thunktank wrote:Good grief! There is right wing nuts and left wing nuts with motivation to take over the world. Unfortunately, there's little room for balanced common sense. If people can believe that Eve was created using a rib from Adam, why the heck can't they believe that God gave a dinosaur feathers?
Because they'd have to admit that something they previously believed was wrong*, and we wouldn't want to start down that slippery slope.

* for some definition of "wrong"
I'm curious whether you're referencing the fundamentalist Christians or the fundamentalist scientistic scientists? (Or just fundamentalists?)
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6472
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Tue May 17, 2011 10:57 am

Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
tuttle wrote:Evolutionists want dinosaurs to have feathers because it fits into their theory that 'Dinosaurs evolved into birds'.
Yes it's all part of the Vast Darwinian Conspiracy.
True or false: a scientist who interprets the data for himself and determines that there is a Creator who intelligently designed the world will most likely be denied tenure at the non-Christian university where he works, on the basis of said conclusion.

So what you're saying is Christian universities employ "scientists" who make up their own conclusions which are not scientifically valid? Interesting.
No. What I'm saying is that SOME Christian universities won't deny tenure to a scientist who disagrees with the scientific community (you know, like Einstein, Newton, and Galileo did...).

But way to answer the question. :wink:
That's not what you said, you specifically referred to those holding non-scientific conclusions. Disagreement is part of science. "Intelligent design" is not testable, falsifiable, verifiable, repeatable, it isn't derivable from mathematics, it's literally nothing more than saying "we can't imagine this happening biologically so some intelligence* did it".

* for some definition of "intelligence" that doesn't officially mean GOD even though we all know it does
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
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6472
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Tue May 17, 2011 10:58 am

Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
Thunktank wrote:Good grief! There is right wing nuts and left wing nuts with motivation to take over the world. Unfortunately, there's little room for balanced common sense. If people can believe that Eve was created using a rib from Adam, why the heck can't they believe that God gave a dinosaur feathers?
Because they'd have to admit that something they previously believed was wrong*, and we wouldn't want to start down that slippery slope.

* for some definition of "wrong"
I'm curious whether you're referencing the fundamentalist Christians or the fundamentalist scientistic scientists? (Or just fundamentalists?)
LOL
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
Hovannes
one lone Wollensak
one lone Wollensak
Posts: 22958
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Post by Hovannes » Tue May 17, 2011 10:58 am

They got 'em at a Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco. Which is also why they are also extinct.

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

Post by Bigwill » Tue May 17, 2011 10:59 am

infidel wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
tuttle wrote:Evolutionists want dinosaurs to have feathers because it fits into their theory that 'Dinosaurs evolved into birds'.
Yes it's all part of the Vast Darwinian Conspiracy.
True or false: a scientist who interprets the data for himself and determines that there is a Creator who intelligently designed the world will most likely be denied tenure at the non-Christian university where he works, on the basis of said conclusion.

So what you're saying is Christian universities employ "scientists" who make up their own conclusions which are not scientifically valid? Interesting.
No. What I'm saying is that SOME Christian universities won't deny tenure to a scientist who disagrees with the scientific community (you know, like Einstein, Newton, and Galileo did...).

But way to answer the question. :wink:
That's not what you said, you specifically referred to those holding non-scientific conclusions. Disagreement is part of science. "Intelligent design" is not testable, falsifiable, verifiable, repeatable, it isn't derivable from mathematics, it's literally nothing more than saying "we can't imagine this happening biologically so some intelligence* did it".

* for some definition of "intelligence" that doesn't officially mean GOD even though we all know it does
Way to answer the question. :wink:
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21246
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Texas Bound

Post by Thunktank » Tue May 17, 2011 11:29 am

infidel wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
Thunktank wrote:Good grief! There is right wing nuts and left wing nuts with motivation to take over the world. Unfortunately, there's little room for balanced common sense. If people can believe that Eve was created using a rib from Adam, why the heck can't they believe that God gave a dinosaur feathers?
Because they'd have to admit that something they previously believed was wrong*, and we wouldn't want to start down that slippery slope.

* for some definition of "wrong"
I'm curious whether you're referencing the fundamentalist Christians or the fundamentalist scientistic scientists? (Or just fundamentalists?)
LOL
Yes

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21246
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Texas Bound

Post by Thunktank » Tue May 17, 2011 11:31 am

Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
infidel wrote:
tuttle wrote:Evolutionists want dinosaurs to have feathers because it fits into their theory that 'Dinosaurs evolved into birds'.
Yes it's all part of the Vast Darwinian Conspiracy.
True or false: a scientist who interprets the data for himself and determines that there is a Creator who intelligently designed the world will most likely be denied tenure at the non-Christian university where he works, on the basis of said conclusion.

So what you're saying is Christian universities employ "scientists" who make up their own conclusions which are not scientifically valid? Interesting.
No. What I'm saying is that SOME Christian universities won't deny tenure to a scientist who disagrees with the scientific community (you know, like Einstein, Newton, and Galileo did...).

But way to answer the question. :wink:
That's not what you said, you specifically referred to those holding non-scientific conclusions. Disagreement is part of science. "Intelligent design" is not testable, falsifiable, verifiable, repeatable, it isn't derivable from mathematics, it's literally nothing more than saying "we can't imagine this happening biologically so some intelligence* did it".

* for some definition of "intelligence" that doesn't officially mean GOD even though we all know it does
Way to answer the question. :wink:
You're both right. And answering a question with a question is often more profound than simply answering a question. Unless of course one gets hung up on the meaning of pirates. :wink:

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17086
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Tue May 17, 2011 11:45 am

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

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

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

Post by Bigwill » Tue May 17, 2011 11:47 am

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

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

It was indoctrination. Plain and simple.
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17086
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Tue May 17, 2011 12:04 pm

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

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

It was indoctrination. Plain and simple.
Of course. I agree with you. Maybe I should have +1d it.

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21246
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Texas Bound

Post by Thunktank » Tue May 17, 2011 12:32 pm

Toys and vacations/children/dinosaurs with feathers

+1d

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6472
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Tue May 17, 2011 1:20 pm

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

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

It was indoctrination. Plain and simple.
Arthur already has a baby sister :huh:
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: 33565
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: When did Dinosaurs get feathers?

Post by UncleBob » Tue May 17, 2011 1:31 pm

darthsaturn wrote:
Really? When did this happen? Have scientist found fosilized feathers? Have they found dinosaur feathers perfectly preserved, showing their colors? I have never seen such proof, not saying it doesn't exist.
They have found pigmentation in some dinosaur feather fossils: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rs-nature/
"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

"You guys are weird." - Mrs. FredS

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

Post by Bigwill » Tue May 17, 2011 1:53 pm

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

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

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

The mother was rejecting Arthur's idea of a third child. Three's too many, remember? ZPG.
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 17086
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by TNLawPiper » Tue May 17, 2011 1:55 pm

Thunktank wrote:Toys and vacations/children/dinosaurs with feathers

+1d
+1

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6472
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Tue May 17, 2011 2:23 pm

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

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

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

The mother was rejecting Arthur's idea of a third child. Three's too many, remember? ZPG.
Not DW, Baby Kate. You must have seen an older episode I guess. Or you live in some alternate PBS universe
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: 12439
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Tue May 17, 2011 2:28 pm

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

Somehow I think you'll continue to rail against it no matter what.
it's like you know me or something :wink:

even honest evolutionists can't seriously call these actual 'feathers'. If pressed they'll use the term 'proto feathers' as if this is simply the first step into becoming 'real' feathers. Again, feather-like is simply feather-like.
Image

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

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

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6472
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Tue May 17, 2011 2:47 pm

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

Somehow I think you'll continue to rail against it no matter what.
it's like you know me or something :wink:

even honest evolutionists can't seriously call these actual 'feathers'. If pressed they'll use the term 'proto feathers' as if this is simply the first step into becoming 'real' feathers. Again, feather-like is simply feather-like.
Heh... but are they feather-like hairs or hair-like feathers?

Were these bird-like dinosaurs or dinosaur-like birds?

Does it matter?
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

Post Reply