When viewing things from a worldview perspective (as we all do, or should do, or ought to recognize that we do even without realizing it) we note certain things.
For example, some say that pop-culture is pop-culture after all and is essentially irrelevant as it consists of nothing but entertainment, fashion, etc. Thus, many claim that movies are fictional after all, song lyrics are meaningless, comic books are cartoonish, etc.
Yet, all of these things represent modern day myth tellers. Myths, whether based on reality or not, were meant to convey certain principles, certain virtues, etc. Someone even referred to comedians as philosophers and well, listening to Stephen Wright one would be hard pressed to disagree.
It is therefore, very important for Judeo-Christians to “test all things” (1st Thessalonians 5:21) and see what is behind even the most fictional of tales.
Enter the new science fiction TV show Terra Nova.
The show is, initially, set in the year 2149 AD when we run across our first insertion of a pop-cultural issue (political issue as well) de jour: environmental impact / global warming / climate change (poor air quality, overpopulation, etc.).
One thing we learn about 2149 AD is another pop-cultural issue: seeking to paint Barack Obama in heroic terms. He appears on their cash money. Actually, it is amazing to note that in 2149 AD they still have cash!
Humanity thus, chooses certain personages to travel back in time to 85 million years ago. Now, you may think that they travel to the past in order to change the future but this is not, exactly, the case. You see, the writers of the show were clearly attempting to do away with “the grandmother paradox.”
This is a paradox within the concept of time travel whereby it is noted that if you travel back in time and kill your grandmother then, you were never born. Now, whilst many leave it at that this is, in reality, a paradox wrapped in a Twinky. You see, if you travel back in time and kill your grandmother then, you were never born. But, since you were never born you never traveled back in time and did not kill your grandmother. But since you did not travel back in time and kill your grandmother, you were born. And, since you were born then you did travel back in time and kill your grandmother. But since you did kill your grandmother then you were never born. So, you did not kill her, etc., etc., etc. It is an infinite loop.
By the way: what did your poor little ol' grandma do anyway?
I'll never forget what my grandmother said right before she passed away.
She said to me right before she passed away, she said to me, she said:
"What are you doing?"
—Zach Galifianakis
Well, in order to escape the loop the show has people going back in time, yes, but to another timeline / time-stream. Thus, this is not, exactly, humanity’s past but an alternate past. This brings us into the realm, by any other name of multiverse theory (find video of this Examiner’s lecture on the issue here).
The next thing to note is that which the show does with dinosaurs. What they are doing—again, if you keep your discernment hat on and pay attention to details—is that they play off of an aspect of Darwinian evolutionary theory de jour which is the claim that birds evolved from reptiles. Thus, you see dinosaurs now and then that have feathers sticking out of their elbows, etc.
This is part, a very big part, of the power of Darwinian theory of evolution: the ability to tell Darwinian stories and hire artists to invent evidence.
Here is a whole serried of article wherein this point is made, from the horse’s mouth:
Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 1 of 9
Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 2 of 9
Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 3 of 9
Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 4 of 9
Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 5 of 9
Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 6 of 9
Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 7 of 9
Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 8 of 9
Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 9 of 9
In particular, part 8 of 9provides various illustrations of this including a the great example of the reconstruction of Gigantoraptor. Nature News reported:
Gigantoraptor had long arms, bird-like legs, a toothless jaw, and probably a beak. There are no clear signs as to whether it was feathered. However, judging from its close affinity to other dinosaurs known to have been feathered, Xing Xu of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing speculates that it was.
[Emphasis added: from David Cyranoski, "Giant bird-like dinosaur found - Chinese researchers unearth a surprising find," Nature News, June 13, 2007 republished by BioEd Online - Biology Teacher Resources from Baylor College of Medicine]
You see, lack of evidence is irrelevant because you can always simply correlate a featherless dinosaur with an alleged feathered one (consider the issue “dino-fuzz”). But why? Because the “theory” calls of it to be so.
Lastly, let us actually consider the issue “dino-fuzz” via a perfect example of the issues involved, and how the issue is handled, from Bob Strauss’ article, Dino-Fuzz:
Now that researchers have proven conclusively that theropod dinosaurs (colloquially known as "dino-birds") were covered with feathers--and were directly ancestral to modern birds--you might think there's no new ground to be plumbed. The fact remains, though, that the very first dino-bird couldn't have sported a dazzling plumage of fully developed feathers, an adaptation that must have gradually evolved, like everything else in nature. So what preceded feathers?
Chinese paleontologist Xing Xu thinks he has the answer. According to this report in Science News, Xing has identified primitive, unbranched, hair-like appendages on a fossilized specimen of Bepiaosaurus, a feathered dino-bird that lived about 120 million year ago. These tiny hairs (which grew on this dinosaur's head, neck and tail) would have been useless for flight, and likely evolved for display purposes. The tentative conclusion: the ancestors of dino-birds were covered in ornamental hair, which later evolved into more aerodynamic (and birdlike) feathers.
So, it has been have proven conclusively that theropods were covered with feathers and ancestral to modern birds. Now, an example of a theropod is archaeopteryx which is just a bird.
Note the connection: first Xing Xu identified hair-like appendages and then Xing Xu speculates that an unfeathered dinosaur was feathered. But why? Because the “theory” calls of it to be so.
Therefore, we know that birds evolved from dinosaurs because, in part at least, because some fossils have hair-like appendages and others have feathers—or, have no feathers but are referred to and illustrated as feathered because a “theory” calls of it to be so—and so the missing links, the gaps, are filled with claims, with Darwinian stories, with artist’s representations, etc.
This is how and why we can know that two unrelated things are, in reality (or within the virtual reality of the theory) related—because the “theory” calls for it to be so—“tentative conclusion” indeed.
Comments