- May 19, 2015
- 125,550
- 28,531
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
interesting response. Are you basing that on what is written in God's Word, or basing it on something else?
And it's been demonstrated that at least one early Cretaceous Theropod had red feathers, as my link shows.
Usually there is none. Documentaries aren't made to spread scientific knowledge, they're made to garner viewership. My advisor, his other grad students, and I sometimes get together with the paleontologists at Brown, watch paleo documentaries with them, and laugh at the inaccuracies and lies they spread. Not all documentaries are bad, but very few are any good.
There are useful reconstructions that can be helpful for the sake of comparative anatomy, but they're found in journal articles and books written by actual scientists. That's where real science can be found.
You can't "interpret" fossils like you can "interpret" Shakespeare or even the Bible.
Of course you can. That's what science does: interpret evidence.
You can't "interpret" fossils like you can "interpret" Shakespeare or even the Bible. Each "interpretation" is really a hypothesis about the fossil, and those hypotheses are then tested against the fossil to see if the interpretation is false or supported.
So you can't get a dozen equally valid "interpretations" of a fossil. For a while you can have scientists arguing over hypotheses about the fossil, but eventually the fossil (data) will eliminate all the hypotheses but one.
Putting muscle on the bones gives some idea of the physiology and lifestyle of the organism.
Alright, I'll play it safe. They demonstrated that one species of early Cretaceous Theropod and one species of early Cretaceous bird had colorful feathers. They inferred, based on the shape of the melanosomes, that some of the Theropod's feathers were reddish. Based on the fact that birds these days can have very colorful feathers, it seems a safe inferrence that at least some of the other feathered theropods (there are many more than just Sinosauropteryx) were also colorful.First, I did not dispute that one early Cretaceous Theropod may have had some red feathers. There are animals flying around my backyard with red feathers, so there's nothing (scientifically) remarkable about that. But, based on your link, I would still say that that is an interpretation based on suppositions, not a "demonstration"
But how does that life come from God. Does God have to "poof" it into existence? IOW, does God have to invoke miracle to get life from non-life?Is it a miracle that a living cell takes raw materials and builds a copy of itself? If we see a miracle every single day would we recognize it as a miracle or will we as we do now tries to explain everything mechanical?I never heard any mention of God in aboigenesis. In fact ID is hammered just by suggest life is intelligent design. (even by TE)Shapiro is an atheistic evolutionist. You need to separate his atheism from the science. Shapiro, as an atheist, has the creed that "natural" = without God.
a living cell taking raw resources to produce another living cell is not abiogenesis. If a small cell can take raw materials can produce life then I have no problem with God doing the exact same thing. I surely believe God can do better than a living cell and build a whole body from scratch. God is Life so producing whole living creatures shouldn't be that hard for Him just like man producing whole cars, computers, planes, etc. If man can be engineers in the natural world then why would I have any doubts God can engineer too.The irony here, Smidlee, is that you seem to have the same belief! But let's ask ourselves something: according to Christian theology, is "natural" = without God? Of course not! Everything in the universe depends on the will of God. This includes all the "natural" processes.[ /quote] It also warns strongly with the idea nature=God. They don't happen unless God wills it. If you take hydrogen and oxygen and add a spark, the hydrogen and oxygen burns to form water. This depends on the will of God. Christians believe God always wills this to happen. So Christians believe that abiogenesis cannot happen without God. God sustains the chemical reactions that make life from non-living chemicals. But God does not directly make life from non-living chemicals.He is a scientist in OOL research which is why I point toward him and not because I agreed with him.Shapiro has mistaken this "not directly" for God not being involved at all. But you should not make the same mistake. ....
Now, here's the funny thing though. Back in the 80s artists (like Gregory Paul) were drawing dinosaurs as being feathered based solely on evolutionary relationships - we had yet to find any feathered dinosaurs. Quite curious that evolutionary theory was able to predict the discovery of feathered dinosaurs, eh?
The purpose isn't so much scientific as popular. They help people to appreciate what these extinct animals might have looked like.Serious question: what is the scientific purpose of such historical reconstructions?
The purpose isn't so much scientific as popular.
They help people to appreciate what these extinct animals might have looked like.
Do you find images of Christ misleading, too, Chesterton? After all, we don't even have a single bone from him to go by.
That must really grind your gears.
Why not? If it's accuracy you want, why wouldn't you involve scientists?Well then scientists shouldn't be participating in it.
No. People should use their brains and realize that there's no way that we can possibly know exactly how an extinct animal once looked, and that all life restorations of fossil animals are educated guesses.On the offhand chance that the animals didn't look like that, science is doing quite a disservice, isn't it?
Clearly you do care, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a mountain out of a molehill!Me, I couldn't care less what extinct animals looked like. I really don't care much what extant animals look like.
But we don't know what Jesus looked like. He certainly wasn't white, like most Americans assume. Why aren't you pulling your hair out about that?We all know what humans look like.
It's called an automobile, folks!You know what really grinds my gears? This Lindsay Lohan. And people in the 19th century.
He's saying that not even the Bible claims that it is all "God's Word".Are you saying God's Word, the Bible, was not God-breathed?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?