The History of Air?

[Volbrigade]

Lists of fun facts can be entertaining. Those focused on natural phenomena are a good way to promote an interest in science, and what it reveals to us about Gods creation, by drawing our attention to items that awaken our wonder and awe. Clearly, God has equipped us with curiosity regarding the workings of the natural world; as well as the capacity to explore and understand how He has designed it (which is the proper function of science).

However, fun facts are not fun, if they are not facts.

But that is what uniformitarian (the present is the key to the past; slow, gradual changes over vast expanses of time), evolutionist presuppositions are consistently presented as: unarguable facts -- which they categorically are not.

Case in point: a recent online infographic presenting 50 Unbelievable Facts About the Earth.

While many of the facts are grounded in operational science, which involves direct observation and measurement " for instance, the hottest and coldest surface temperatures ever recorded; or the number of times that lightning strikes the earth each day, on average; several facts involve speculation as to events and conditions that occurred millions of years ago. For instance, this one:

Dinosaurs could only exist because the earths atmosphere once contained far more oxygen. Reptiles and amphibians can no longer grow to such large sizes. ( http://mightymega.com/2013/04/18/infogr ... out-earth/ )

A Young Earth Creationist (YEC) is tempted to embrace this claim -- although with stipulations. On the face of it, it appears to support models of a dramatically different pre-Flood global environment. Our current post-Flood environment has been altered by the cataclysmic events associated with the release of the Fountains of the Deep (Genesis 8:2); the subsequent submersion of the earths entire surface under water; and the massive climatic changes that those events triggered, including an Ice Age that lasted several centuries.

The disappearance of the giant dinosaurs and arthropods in the altered post-Flood environment suggests that their inability to thrive in its lower-oxygen atmosphere may have been a cause. It would seem that conceding the fact of higher oxygen levels in the past, makes it possible to win the argument on this point when discussing origins and history. Changing the paradigm of those higher oxygen levels to a pre-Flood environment reinterprets the existing data in terms of a Biblical lens, or worldview. This kind of paradigm change applies to such pivotal factors as the fossil record and radiometric dating, as well.

But caution is advised. The eagerness to accept a theory in order to score a point with regard to Biblical truth must be tempered with careful scientific analysis of the existing theory. This kind of testing is needed to determine the theorys validity under real world conditions.

This speaks to the non-negotiable framework that must be adhered to in terms of Scriptures magisterial role over science. It is within that framework that normal scientific operational procedures can be used to arrive at the best explanations to describe past phenomena (for which direct observation and measurement is not possible), based on the forensic evidence those phenomena have left for us to study.

Sometimes this process involves acknowledging the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact (per T. Huxley). An unyielding, uncompromising approach to analyzing evidence has produced a revision of several arguments once cherished by YECs. In this way, science " in its proper ministerial (subordinate) role to Scripture, can arrive at the best possible explanation for the evidence as presented.

In the case of higher oxygen levels in the pre-Flood atmosphere as an explanation for the large size attained by reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods in that environment (and their disappearance in the post-Flood environment), the evidence is not just inconclusive: it is questionable (some of the factors which have been reassessed include the presence of higher oxygen levels in amber air bubbles; higher air pressure being necessary for pterosaur flight; giant insects proving higher oxygen levels; et. al.).

Facts arrived at through scientific analysis that illuminate the design and order God imposed on His creation " even the fallen version of it that we inhabit " are fascinating, and theyre fun. But erroneous presuppositions (such as matter is all that exists) lead to false conclusions; and when those false conclusions are presented as facts, its not fun " but rather leads to confusion, and what The Bible refers to as false knowledge (1 Timothy 6:20).

Scientific analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the context of Scripture as propositional truth in order to arrive at the legitimate facts of nature, which is Gods creation.

[100%atheist]

2) We still didn't get your position on morality of owning other human beings. The Bible never says it is immoral. You, at one point said that it is immoral, but they started to defend the morality of owning other human beings.
Can you please once and for all answer this question:
Do you think it is moral for humans to own as property other human beings?

I don't think it's moral. But it existed: and still exists. A lot of immoral things do. You are making the mistake of thinking that because the Bible reports something, it condones it. The Bible is, among other things, a magnificent history book. It reports, warts and all. The Old Testament is a documentation of man's need for a Redeemer; the New Testament documents His appearance. Regarding slavery, I urge you to examine the book of Philemon, in the NT. It is a letter form Paul to a slaveowner, pleading on behalf of his runaway slave. Neither Paul -- nor Jesus before him -- was attempting to alter the accepted social order of the time.

Jesus -- and Paul, His Apostle -- were attempting to alter men: individually, fundamentally; to turn them from creatures of God into Sons of God. That, my friend, is TRUE "evolution".

Your testimony raises several serious questions:
1) How do YOU decide that it is immoral to own another human being as property?
2) If you do the moral reasoning by some still undefined "transcendent standard", then this "standard" must have been changed considerably. Do you mean the morals are evolving?
3) If morals evolve, does it mean that you disregard moral laws of the Bible? Do you mean that now it is immoral to enslave your fellow human being as explicitly instructed by God in the Bible?
4) If God changes moral laws and they are now different from what is in the Bible, how do people know that the "transcendent standard" they use is the one true version of the standard that is currently approved by God?

[100%atheist]

By the way, regarding oxygen...
If (A) God created land basically as it is now and
(B) The Flood covered the Earth up to the highest mountaintops then

Where did Noah and his zoo get oxygen at the height of the mountain Everest? Oxygen masks on the Ark? Anyone?

[keithprosser3]

Easy Peasy. Obviously with the water level that high worldwide it wouldn't have been a problem - the water pushed the atmosphere up so the Ark was effectively (and I suppose literally) at sea level.

[100%atheist]

[Replying to keithprosser3]

Yes, you're probably right.
However, pushing the atmosphere up, which involves increasing temperature and pressure at [former] higher altitudes, will involve huge mechanical work that would likely create a global superstorm which would imminently destroy the Ark-Zoo.

[keithprosser3]

Oh, I dunno. It rose over a period of 40 days so there may have been time for the pressures etc. to adjust gradually. But if that much water disappeared by evaporation into the atmosphere conditions may have been a tad humid afterwards. You would probably drown breathing the air!

[Goat]

Oh, I dunno. It rose over a period of 40 days so there may have been time for the pressures etc. to adjust gradually. But if that much water disappeared by evaporation into the atmosphere conditions may have been a tad humid afterwards. You would probably drown breathing the air!

Not to mention that compression that fast within a 40 day period would cause enough heat to boil the water. Hot steam is not very friendly to mammal life forms.

[keithprosser3]

When you're a God you have ways and means of getting round problems like that. They don't call Him Mr. Omnipotent for nothing. I don't think an atmosphere of 99% superheated steam would be any trouble at all to YHWH. Horus or Zeus might have had a problem, but not YHWH.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 61 by 100%atheist]

I said I would entertain a follow-up from 100% -- so, true to my word...

Your testimony raises several serious questions:
1) How do YOU decide that it is immoral to own another human being as property?

My conscience (a gift from God). And the fact that God's Word explicitly states that men are created in the image of God; and all that goes along with that. Also, there is an injunction against kidnapping -- which is essentially what the American form of slavery, which is what most Americans are (of course) familiar with, was. Slavery as was prevalent in the ancient world was often of a different character; many willingly sold themselves into slavery. It wasn't like they had the option of a Pell grant, foodstamps, or a job at Wal-Mart. Slavery still exists, of course, in forms that are often not acknowledged as such. Such as the unbridled statism that has ruled much of the world for almost 100 years, where the state has absolute control over the individual. My last word on slavery; which is not the topic of this thread. I'm sure there are conversations relative to that important issue elsewhere on this site.

2) If you do the moral reasoning by some still undefined "transcendent standard", then this "standard" must have been changed considerably. Do you mean the morals are evolving?

The transcendent standard is defined. It is the Word of God. It is unchanging, as is Jesus Christ -- "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." Also unchanging is our inability to meet that moral standard, which is perfect. That is the work that Jesus did for us; we can share in His perfection through faith in Him. That perfection is not "acting" or "behaving" a certain way, or according to a standard (yours, mine, or His) -- but "being". We are to be -- we will be -- "like Him". A dimensionally different mode of existence than this limited, and fallen, nature. That is a Divine promise. And God always keeps His promises. He has to -- He IS the moral standard.

There are two things that God cannot do: He cannot lie. And He cannot learn (He already knows everything). Just a little bonus info, fyi.

3) If morals evolve, does it mean that you disregard moral laws of the Bible? Do you mean that now it is immoral to enslave your fellow human being as explicitly instructed by God in the Bible?

Morals don't evolve. YOU "evolve", upon acceptance of the gift of grace. From a creature of God, to a son of God -- eternally secure in His salvation. It is the next step in evolution, and the purpose for which you were created. I pray you take it.

4) If God changes moral laws and they are now different from what is in the Bible, how do people know that the "transcendent standard" they use is the one true version of the standard that is currently approved by God?

God doesn't change moral laws. He liberates us from them, if we will allow Him to. The Law (which is written on our hearts) convicts us of sin. Jesus wants to rescue us from sin. From its consequences (and penalty), through the acceptance of His saving grace; from its influence, through the daily working out of our faith in sanctification; and ultimately from its presence, in our glorified state in His eteranal realm.

Re the Flood chatter -- you lads have it wrong on all counts.

Mt. Everest was produced by The Flood, by the cataclysmic forces unleashed. There are a number of intriguing models designed to explain this -- I am attracted to Baumgardner's "catastrophic plate tectonics", which feature rapid rifiting and subduction of the continental plates. Seabeds were pushed rapidly into mountain ranges by plate collision, which explains the presence of marine fossils at their summit (the super heated steam unleashed rocketing into the stratosphere, cooling, and falling as rain for 40 days and nights. The water did not "evaporate"; it rapidly subsided to conform to the altered topography -- evidence of which is worldwide [e.g., the Grand Canyon, Ayers Rock, etc., etc. etc.]. Of course conditions were lethal -- only 8 humans, and the land animals aboard the ark, survived [along with a percentage of marine life, and insects that clung to massive amounts of rafted material] ).

There is, obviously, much research to be done. Blessedly, many bright young minds will turn to it, as a result of the stalwart and yeoman-like efforts of honest, courageous scientists (e.g., at the aforementioned ICR; AIG, CMI) who serve the Lord and are not afraid of the truth; and who are working steadily to overcome the deceit of evolutionist indoctrination.

Of course, honesty and truth will remain in the minority. But not forever...

This is all the time I will devote to this thread. Best of luck...

[100%atheist]

Your testimony raises several serious questions:
1) How do YOU decide that it is immoral to own another human being as property?

My conscience (a gift from God). And the fact that God's Word explicitly states that men are created in the image of God; and all that goes along with that.

So, your "God's Word" is nothing more but you Bible. Fine.
So you use your book to decide what is right and what is wrong. Fine.

2) If you do the moral reasoning by some still undefined "transcendent standard", then this "standard" must have been changed considerably. Do you mean the morals are evolving?

The transcendent standard is defined. It is the Word of God. It is unchanging, as is Jesus Christ -- "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow."

Yes, I've got it. It is your Bible.
It is pretty good that you find guts to admit that your Bible was designed to be an unchanging law provided by God.

3) If morals evolve, does it mean that you disregard moral laws of the Bible? Do you mean that now it is immoral to enslave your fellow human being as explicitly instructed by God in the Bible?

Morals don't evolve.

Very good.

4) If God changes moral laws and they are now different from what is in the Bible, how do people know that the "transcendent standard" they use is the one true version of the standard that is currently approved by God?

God doesn't change moral laws.

Very good.

The Law (which is written on our hearts) convicts us of sin.

This makes no sense. The law is written in your Holy Book. If you open human chest you will not likely find anything written on human's heart.

Summarizing,
You believe in unchanging morals which you know as the Word of God that are written in the Bible. This Book of [UNCHANGING] moral Law instructs you how you can enslave another human being and stay totally moral.
However, when you claimed a couple times that you think that it is immoral to own another human being as property, you managed to make a moral judgement that is not in the Bible and, even more, that contradicts the moral Law, the Unchanging Word of God.
Congratulations! Your morals are superior to your God's morals ... or you just don't understand your Bible.

[100%atheist]

Re the Flood chatter -- you lads have it wrong on all counts.

Mt. Everest was produced by The Flood, by the cataclysmic forces unleashed. There are a number of intriguing models designed to explain this -- I am attracted to Baumgardner's "catastrophic plate tectonics", which feature rapid rifiting and subduction of the continental plates. Seabeds were pushed rapidly into mountain ranges by plate collision, which explains the presence of marine fossils at their summit (the super heated steam unleashed rocketing into the stratosphere, cooling,

STOP RIGHT HERE.
... cooling.... hear the sound of this word ... coooooling....

There are very limited number of ways by which an object can be cooled:
Conduction
Convection
Radiation

that's about it.

Radiation is relatively slow and half of heat will be radiated back to Earth.
Convection and Conduction imply heat is redistributed between a hot and a cold object or parts of the volume occupied by a hot object and other objects. So the released heat will not magically disappear (assuming you want a real world explanation), but instead will be distributed near the fluid/gas interface, that is where the Ark must be. I'd rather believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster than in a story that well-boiled humans are able to procreate.

and falling as rain for 40 days and nights. The water did not "evaporate"; it rapidly subsided to conform to the altered topography -- evidence of which is worldwide [e.g., the Grand Canyon, Ayers Rock, etc., etc. etc.].

If your "model" is correct you should be able to calculate the volume of VOIDS under the sea floor and compare them with the ENTIRE volume of all land about the sea level. Then, if you find a good fraction of such "voids", your hypothesis may have some merits.

Of course conditions were lethal -- only 8 humans, and the land animals aboard the ark, survived [along with a percentage of marine life, and insects that clung to massive amounts of rafted material] ).

So, were the conditions lethal or not????
If you can survive in lethal conditions for 40 days (!!!), then either the conditions are not lethal or you are likely belong to a different species.

There is, obviously, much research to be done. Blessedly,

...
it is not, after all, who should do research.

many bright young minds will turn to it, as a result of the stalwart and yeoman-like efforts of honest, courageous scientists (e.g., at the aforementioned ICR; AIG, CMI) who serve the Lord and are not afraid of the truth; and who are working steadily to overcome the deceit of evolutionist indoctrination.

Of course, honesty and truth will remain in the minority. But not forever...

This is all the time I will devote to this thread. Best of luck...

This is disgusting ... what you implicitly state about everyone who disagrees with you.