Posts by Sea Breeze

67

Dinosaur Soft Tissue

by Sea Breeze in

back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.

the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.

this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .

Sea Breeze

One journal is based knowledge gained via the scientific method,

@TonusOH

So, what do you think about all the peer reviewed journals that you would accept that published data confirming Dinosaur soft tissue? Are those all false too?

67

Dinosaur Soft Tissue

by Sea Breeze in

back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.

the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.

this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .

Sea Breeze

DD,

Which peer reviewed articles are you referring to that Covid vaccines are safe?

67

Dinosaur Soft Tissue

by Sea Breeze in

back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.

the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.

this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .

Sea Breeze

Putting them together isn’t that complex, some bacteria require just 180-ish protein coding genes with 160,000 base pairs

Number of base pairs in the human genome	3 billion
Number of base pairs in a gene	300 to over 1 million
Number of base pairs in a codon	3
Number of codons in a gene	64 possible
Number of amino acids	20

And just getting 8 out of those 160,000 base pairs you mention in the correct order through natural selection would take longer than the supposed age of the universe to achieve.

No, it hasn't. Having claims published in YEC journals is not peer-review.

TonusOH,

Peer review is made up of "peers"... people who have the same level of education from reputable universities. What difference does it make if a journal is characterized by some as Old earth or young earth?

Regardless.... it doesn't matter. Below is a link to a long list of peer reviewed papers, the majority are just secular journals - like Nature, National Academy of Sciences, Paleontology etc.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit?pli=1&gid=0#gid=0

I believe you are experiencing disorientation due to the paradigm shift that is taking place in our scientific community. Claiming things are untrue may make you feel better, but it doesn't address the astounding findings that have been brought to the fore on this thread.

Deal with it.

67

Dinosaur Soft Tissue

by Sea Breeze in

back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.

the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.

this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .

Sea Breeze

experts also avoid peer review

TonusOH,

Wow! You make one false claim after another in your last post. Almost everything on this thread has been peer-reviewed.

For example, Dr. John Sanford retired as a long-time Professor at Cornell University ? This guy's work is SOLID. Dr. Sanford is a former atheist. Since the mid-1980s, Sanford has looked into theistic evolution (1985–late 1990s), Old Earth creationism (late 1990s), and Young Earth creationism (2000–present). According to him, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000. Dr. Sanford and his wife Helen have three children.

On behalf of intelligent design, Dr. Sanford was involved in the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings. He denied the principle of common descent and testified ..."that we were created by a special creation, by God."

As an inventor, Dr. Sanford holds more than 25 patents including the biolistic process known as the "gene gun" featured at the Smithsonian Museum. It doesn't get more reputable than this guy. Yet here he is addressing the prestigious National Institutes of Health explaining his peer-reviewed paper on how (time mark 19 minutes or so through 23:17) it would take longer than the supposed existence of the universe to produce just one 8 letter genetic word from natural selection ( and that is with very liberal and favorable parameters)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38XSkLqZ2gs&ab_channel=EvidenceandReasons

So, we can add the field of genetics to the list of "problem science" for the "deep timers" to the other fields already discussed: dinosaur soft tissue, human footprints in Carboniferous Sandstone, early galaxy formation in the beginning of time that is identical to galaxies like ours now.

The fact of the matter is that "deep time" has been destroyed by multiple sciences from top scientists who did not start off as creationists, but ended up one because that is where the evidence led.

Secularists seem to just hide their heads in the sand, engage in hand-waving and say ignorant things like you said above to improve the optics of their credulity. This is to be expected during a paradigm shift, which is what we are experiencing.

The evidence for creation is overwhelming.

67

Dinosaur Soft Tissue

by Sea Breeze in

back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.

the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.

this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .

Sea Breeze

Granted, it's based on the same literalist thinking that gives us a 6,000 year old planet

No, it is not based on literalist thinking. The 7000 years creative "day" is just as symbolic as a "time period of an undetermined length".

Regardless, deep age is falling apart for secularists from a number of different points of view across many different scientific disciplines. Deep time is contradicted by the new James Webb Space Telescope.

They were supposed to find an early universe with lots of Generation III star formation along with little to no galaxy formation.

They found the opposite - fully formed spiral galaxy formation as big as the Milky Way from the dawn of time :

"This was astounding — we're finding galaxy candidates as massive as our own galaxy when the universe was 3% of its current age."...

"It turns out we found something so unexpected it actually creates problems for science. It calls the whole picture of early galaxy formation into question."

It calls a lot more than early galaxy formation into question. If the sun, moon and stars were all created in one day, this evidence is predictable and exactly what a creationist would expect to find.

For secularists, the list of things that don't fit keeps growing:

Neither Dinosaur Soft Tissue, human footprints in Carboniferous sandstone, nor star/galaxy formation seem to be affected by the passage of deep time and directly contradict a secularist world-view.

Exactly how much evidence does it take to convince a secularist that his worldview doesn't fit the facts? Is there any amount? Is it all bananas?

“It’s bananas,” said Erica Nelson, an assistant professor of astrophysics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and a co-author of the paper, in a statement that accompanied its release. “You just don’t expect the early universe to be able to organize itself that quickly. These galaxies should not have had time to form.”

67

Dinosaur Soft Tissue

by Sea Breeze in

back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.

the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.

this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .

Sea Breeze

it was changed to each day being a undisclosed period of time.

Yes, that is how I remember it when I left in '95. Everyone I knew interpreted that to mean MOY's.

67

Dinosaur Soft Tissue

by Sea Breeze in

back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.

the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.

this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .

Sea Breeze

You are allowing yourself to be controlled by your belief system as you were when you were a jw .

@ TouchofGrey

The evidence led me far from a Watchtower view. I guess I should remind you that we all believed in millions of years as JW's. We certainly didn't believe in a literal 6 earth-day creation.

67

Dinosaur Soft Tissue

by Sea Breeze in

back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.

the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.

this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .

Sea Breeze

Young earth creationists uses pseudoscience to promote its beliefs

The evidence doesn't support this statement. There is much support that Evolutionists are affected by their confirmation bias such as this Harvard Professor and Nobel Prize winner was embarrassed to admit and forced to make a retraction::

“In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings] … we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been (and as Tivoli was) in interpreting these experiments,” Szostak explained, before adding that the errors in the paper were “definitely embarrassing.”

The statement, “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” is a short statement that reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The statement, released by the Discovery Institute in 2001 by those who question Neo-Darwinism, has been signed by over 1000 Phd. level scientists including those from “the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.”

Dr. Jonathan Safarti didn't have any religious upbringing and yet despite this, has become a leading scientist identifying scientific errors of evolutionists and citing evidence supporting a Young Earth. He was an evolutionist who became a creationist.

Here he is playing chess against 12 opponents, blindfolded and was unable to be beaten. (He won 10 of the games with 2 being an adjudicated draw) He was the national chess champion in New Zealand.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati playing blindfold chess

In 2006, he co-authored 15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History with Don Batten, as a concise reference guide for Christians, including pastors and theologians, why Genesis can be trusted as real history of Creation about 6000 years ago and a global Flood.

In 2008, he finished By Design: Evidence for nature’s Intelligent Designer—the God of the Bible. This demonstrates many examples of design in many areas, shows why chemical evolution can’t explain the origin of first life, and answers many objections to the Intelligent Design movement by invoking the biblical Creation-Fall model.

In 2010, Dr Sarfati wrote The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution, a response to leading atheopath Richard Dawkins’ latest book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (see website).

That year, Dr Sarfati emigrated to the USA with his wife Sherry to work in the CMI–USA office as author, speaker, apologist, and Head Scientist.

In 2012, he considerably expanded and updated a classic general apologetics book, Christianity for Skeptics, by Dr Steve Kumar of New Zealand. This presents a positive case for the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible, and the divinity and resurrection of Christ, and answers challenges from suffering, atheism, Eastern philosophy, and Islam. The update now also contains cutting edge material on design in nature, the Christian roots of science, and answering the ‘new atheists’.

In 2015, Dr Sarfati wrote probably his most important and comprehensive book yet: The Genesis Account: A theological, historical, and scientific commentary on Genesis 1–11, almost 800 pages long.

In 2022, Dr Sarfati co-authored (with Joel Tay) Titans of the Earth, Sea, and Air, possibly the most comprehensive dinosaur book ever written from a biblical creationist perspective.

67

Dinosaur Soft Tissue

by Sea Breeze in

back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.

the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.

this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .

Sea Breeze

To the ones who refuse to comment but simply mark the scientific data on this thread with a negative:

People often react to a paradigm shift with a range of emotions and resistance, often struggling to adapt to the new way of thinking and understanding. The initial stages of a paradigm shift can be marked by confusion, disorientation, and fear, as individuals try to reconcile the old with the new. There's also a tendency to resist the new paradigm, as it challenges existing beliefs and practices.

Here's a more detailed look at the typical reactions:

Resistance:

Individuals may cling to the old paradigm, viewing the new one with skepticism or outright rejection. This resistance can stem from a fear of the unknown, a desire for stability, or a reluctance to abandon well-established ways of thinking.

Confusion and Disorientation:

The transition period can be disorienting, as individuals grapple with the new information and concepts while still holding onto the old ways. This can lead to feelings of confusion and uncertainty as they try to make sense of the shift.

Fear:

A paradigm shift can be unsettling, as it challenges deeply held beliefs and assumptions. This can lead to feelings of fear, particularly if the new paradigm appears to threaten one's status, position, or way of life.

Excitement and Anticipation:

On the other hand, some individuals may be excited by the possibilities that the new paradigm presents, seeing it as an opportunity for growth, innovation, and a better future.

Release of the Old Paradigm:

Ultimately, individuals must release their previous way of thinking before they can fully embrace the new one. This can be a difficult but necessary step in the transition process.

Embracing the "Messy Middle":

The transition period, often referred to as the "messy middle," is a space of tension and transition where new habits are formed, new perspectives are adopted, and new possibilities are explored. It's a time of growth and learning, but also one of potential discomfort.

16

2025 Convention. How to deal with PIMOs in the Congregation. Copy Jesus in the way he dealt with Satan on the MT.

by liam in

the video on apostates in the congregation and how to deal with them at the 18 minute mark.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/1kssfr9/2025_convention_apostate_video/.

so by now, a lot of us have seen a clip from the "apostate" video from the 2025 convention.

Sea Breeze

And here’s what’s wild: the PIMI character had no actual arguments.
He just shut the conversation down and threatened to report the guy.

When you find out that:

1. Jesus is not your Mediator

2. Jehovah is not your father (only potential father)

3. The bible wasn't written for you, it was written for the 144K

4. You are not Justified

5. The new covenant is "for the forgiveness of sins", not heavenly governmen5 positions (Mt. 26: 27-28)

What is left to believe in?

Looks like many of the Jews didn't want to get their sins forgiven either:

Then Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and declared, “It was necessary that we first preach the word of God to you Jews. But since you have rejected it and judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we will offer it to the Gentiles. - Act 13: 46

It is just plain weird that JW's don't want to talk about it. But, hey.... at least you are not "worldly" right?