Posts by TonusOH

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.... .

TonusOH

Sea Breeze: Keep in mind that materialism is an ideology that competes with God

This is what Lewontin was referring to. The theist presupposes god, then demands that science put this presupposition on the same level as the things that science is able to observe and test. You have it backwards: God is an invention designed to compete with scientific discovery and advancement.

YECs are constantly making claims about science that they clearly don't know enough about (or are deliberately lying about, for the small handful who understand the science). The researchers you quote are willing to admit that their theories may need to be changed. They still need to study these images and make sure they understand what they are seeing, precisely because they do not have presuppositions to defend.

And, again, this would affect their theories on galaxy formation, not on the age of the universe.

Sea Breeze: For everyone else with a free and clear mind, these images look JUST LIKE human footprints.

No, really. They look like cartoon footprints. Compare them to actual human footprints and the difference is so stark you'll wonder how anyone could fall for it. YECs fall for it because they want for it to be true. If they treated these finds the way scientists do, they'd recognize them as either fake or misidentified. I guess you can describe them as "chained to an ideology."

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.... .

TonusOH

Sea Breeze: They don't have a theory.

Has the Big Bang theory been rejected by cosmologists? That would be news.

Sea Breeze: The fact of the matter is that they were expecting to find a young still-forming universe at the dawn of time and they found one identical to the one we have now - fully formed, from the beginning - like the bible says.

Wow, no. That's not what they are saying. They are saying that galaxies may have formed earlier (and therefore, faster) than they thought. They have not changed their estimates of the age of the universe, and they definitely haven't found evidence that there was no expansion or that the universe popped into existence as it is today.

As for the Lewontin quote, what is the issue? No one needs to be convinced that the material world exists and can be studied, but there is no reliable guide to the supernatural. We cannot reliably test the supernatural; we cannot even demonstrate that it exists. One of the ways we advance in our understanding of the universe is to accept that some things that seem impossible are, indeed, possible. But they must be grounded in what we can actually test. This shouldn't even be controversial.

Sea Breeze: I'm not ready to accept bondage of another form so quickly after leaving cult with similar rules for thinking!

You are getting your information from sites and individuals who literally take a pledge to reject anything that doesn't fit with their dogma and who criticize people who are actually willing to acknowledge and correct their mistakes.

Sea Breeze: It is fascinating to me to watch you try and maneuver within your assigned constraints and claim that it's not about the evidence, but only about how people you agree with interpret that evidence.

You misunderstand. Whether I agree with them or not is immaterial. What matters is what people who know what they are talking about are saying about the science in question. It is the YEC supporters who have set themselves a specific restriction that gets in the way of accepting settled science. YEC websites eagerly accept scientific consensus when it doesn't contradict their mythology, but want to disparage it when it's convenient to them. They cannot have it both ways.

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.... .

TonusOH

Folding Ideas did a video on a site where human and dinosaur footprints were said to be found:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UDXdqqJQPE

One thing that stands out about all of the fossilized footprints that have been found, is how unlike human footprints they seem. I mean, how difficult would it be to make your own footprint in mud to see what they are supposed to look like? But, no, they are these funny rounded rectangles with equally-spaced toes, where only the big toe is sized/shaped differently.

I still would ask what the experts in the relevant fields are saying, but the human footprints have always been good for a chuckle. Not only do they not look like real human footprints, they don't appear to belong to any sort of primate or other animal we have discovered. Maybe Bigfoot was real?

Edit to Add: Your other link seems to confirm my previous post-- scientists think they will have to revise some of their theories on galaxy formation, but they don't say a word about the age of the universe. These discoveries are great for science, but they are not leading us to a young universe.

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.... .

TonusOH

So, they are claiming that the universe is young? What are the new estimates for the age of the universe?

It sounds like they are admitting that they need to update or change their theories about galaxy formation, specifically in the early stages of the universe after the big bang. I don't see where they are saying that this indicates a shorter timescale. There could well be whole new avenues of discovery and learning as a result of this new information. But I'm not seeing where it leads us to a young universe.

19

What was really going on with Abel? Does anyone find the story of Cain and Abel screwed up.

by liam in

ever wonder about the story of cain and abel?

why did jehovah like abel's sacrifice more than cain's?

maybe there's a subtle reason why jehovah likes animal sacrifices.

TonusOH

The story of Cain and Abel is also very brief and lacking in details. From their birth to Abels' death is only eight verses in Genesis.

The story does not give any clue as to why God rejected Cain's offering. It seems as if the story is more about Cain's reaction to the result. It sounds more like a cautionary tale about jealousy. I'm not sure if there is any meaning to the way the story assumes that the world was already well-populated with at least one established city. It would indicate that Cain and Abel had lived quite a long time before they offered up these sacrifices and before Abel was murdered. Cain only took a wife after this happened. It has all the hallmarks of a fable.

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.... .

TonusOH

Have those papers upended science? Changed any paradigms? What are experts in the relevant fields saying?

What I think about them is meaningless. I'm not a biologist, or an astrophysicist, or a geologist, and so forth. This is why the process of peer-review is so important. It allows people who know the subject to test new claims and either discard them or open up new avenues of discovery. It gives the people making these claims the opportunity to find out if they have any merit.

The discoveries of dinosaur soft tissue-- what changes has this led to in the relevant sciences? Has it caused those fields to embrace a young Earth, or shorter geological time scales, or anything like that? Or is this only what YEC sites are claiming? Who are the experts in the relevant fields, and what do they say about this? These are legitimate questions, because this is a crucial step in making the case for a young Earth. Are YEC sites answering --or even asking-- these questions?

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.... .

TonusOH

Sea Breeze: What difference does it make if a journal is characterized by some as Old earth or young earth?

One journal is based knowledge gained via the scientific method, the other deliberately limits itself by rejecting knowledge if it is at odds with the Bible. The latter is not science.

Sea Breeze: I believe you are experiencing disorientation due to the paradigm shift that is taking place in our scientific community.

There is no paradigm shift. This is what YEC sites claim, but cannot demonstrate.

Also, a spreadsheet with a long list of peer-reviewed papers is great! So, which are the ones that have upended the scientific community? Which specific ones are creating a new paradigm that has secular scientists all in a tizzy?

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.... .

TonusOH

Sea Breeze: Almost everything on this thread has been peer-reviewed.

No, it hasn't. Having claims published in YEC journals is not peer-review. Only a very few YEC scientists have an education in the relevant field, and their peer-reviewed work does not challenge theories about the age of the universe or related fields of physics. The few peer-reviewed papers they do publish follow conventional science, and only the crap they "publish" in YEC journals makes claims contrary to what has been discovered and researched by their peers.

This is the bait-and-switch that YEC sites perform all the time. Point at one of their own who has a relevant education, point out that he has been published in the relevant journals... and then have them present unscientific nonsense that they wouldn't dream of submitting for peer review. I challenge you to find actual, legitimate peer-reviewed articles from any of them which challenge established science about the origins and age of the universe.

12

The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 : The Fulfillment of Prophecy - Part Two

by EisMe in

a united witness to the divine plan.

as my son wrote in his letter:.

*"with regards to our spiritual journey, there is not enough paper or ink to give it justice.

TonusOH

Okay, I get it. This clown (or someone using the name Estephan Leuese), has been predicting the end on these forums for a very long time.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/114944/from-one-that-loves-us-estephan-leuese

That's a topic from 19 years ago, and back then it appears our resident prophet was regularly annoying the regulars with warnings of an end that never seems to come. At least he has learned to format text in the intervening decades, though perhaps generative AI is lending a hand.

Edit to Add: This fellow is also Muhammad:

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/88653/faithful-discreet-slave-am-also-muhammad

The chosen of god created a website that didn't last long enough to see the end of the world.

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.... .

TonusOH

Again, I will point out that the people who actually research and learn about this stuff are not coming around to a view that contradicts decades (centuries, even) of learning and discovery. It is not surprising that the only people who are claiming that there is any support for a young cosmos are the same people who always did so regardless of what is found, and the same people whose own charters require them to reject actual science for what their ancient texts might say.

There is a reason that these claims are not put to the test through the process of peer review. There is a reason most of these claims are made by people who are not experts in the sciences in question. Or why the handful of people who are experts also avoid peer review when they go off course. Their claims are so wrong that the relevant sciences largely ignore them anymore, which they take advantage of by pretending it's evidence that they're on the right track. It's conspiracy-theory quackery at it's most deranged.