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 God’s 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 earth’s 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 earth’s 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 theory’s validity under “real world� conditions.

This speaks to the non-negotiable framework that must be adhered to in terms of Scripture’s 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 they’re fun. But erroneous presuppositions (such as “matter is all that exists�) lead to false conclusions; and when those false conclusions are presented as “facts�, it’s 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 God’s creation.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 8 by Star]

Allow to address your post #10 first:

The incidences you cite are of rapid burial and encasement due to sudden catastrophism, albeit it on a more localized scale than the Great Flood; with the exception of La Brea, which is an extant petroleum-based phenomenon; the presence of fossils there comparing favorably with the discovery of well-preserved Wooly Mammoths, etc., in arctic climates that have remained frozen since the (single) post-Flood Ice Age.

The gathering of large numbers of fossils in one place actually fits in perfectly with the Flood scenario, as animals which were capable would have sought to flee the threat of rapidly rising waters, volcanic eruptions, etc. Those less capable would have been captured by the encasing sediment first; which explains the global order of the fossil record -- less "complex" and/or more stationary organisms appearing in the deeper, "older" strata of rocks (with the exception of trans-strata debris; such as tree trunks that transverse several strata, and millions of years of "time").

As interesting as these differing interpretations of the same data are, depending on the assumptions of the interpreter, I am even more interested in this, from your post #8:

We might not know everything about evolution (yet), but it’s an unarguable fact that it happens.

I agree. The problem with the "standard" model is that evolution is known to occur in only one direction: downhill. What we observe is the selecting OUT of traits in a genome, through natural selection as a result of environmental pressure. There are few, if any, incidences of beneficial "uphill" increases of information in the genome -- and none that are clear cut, or which don't carry with them deleterious consequences. The mechanism for adding genetic information is mutation; and mutations are nearly 100% either neutral or harmful.

The process can be observed clearly, and rapidly, by replacing artificial selection for natural selection. A Great Dane and a Pekinese are both descendants of a common ancestor with a much more diverse genetic composition than either one of them. In each case, traits have been selected out of the genome (and/or mutations have been cultivated [e.g., shortened muzzles, floppy ears] that would have been disadvantageous in the wild). Those traits will not reemerge through natural process -- two Pekineses will produce more Pekineses; they will never produce a wolf-like offspring. To regain lost traits due to specialization, they must be re-introduced from another population that maintains them.

This principal, and process, explains the current specialization we observe in flora and fauna. They are all naturally (as opposed to artificially) selected from more genetically diverse original (and Biblical) "kinds". That includes the "races" of mankind.

In contrast, for single-celled organisms to begin to sprout nerves, muscles, bones, connective tissues, limbs; respiratory and circulatory systems; wings, fins, fingers, eyes, etc.; and a brain capable of coordinating them all, requires "uphill" changes in the genetic code for each micro-step along the way; each one a beneficial mutation; each one occurring through mindless, random, unguided processes.

In short: it requires an impossibility.

Scientists reached a consensus long ago. They’re now filling in the details. Do you have any evidence of intelligent design, by the way? There’s plenty of evidence for evolution.

Unfortunately, there is a general consensus among many scientists in acceding to the prevailing Evolutionist myth and indoctrination -- as well as among the general public. Keep in mind, the vast majority of scientists operate in fields where evolutionary theory is totally irrelevant to their work. Whether God created in 6 days, or there was quantum fluctuation 14 billion years ago, makes no difference at all in regard to the operative science of inventing a smart phone.

Besides, the "consensus" and details are only in regard to the facts as I have described them. A few honest secular scientists admit that evolution as an explanation for the complexity of the natural order is a total failure. But in order to maintain disbelief in God -- specifically, the Creator God of the Bible -- they have no alternative but to cling to it.

That's where my faith fails. I have just barely enough, sometimes, to embrace the God who IS (the "I AM" -- evidence for His design being, literally, everywhere in the exquisite, interdependent fine-tuning of the natural order: from the precise calibration of the gravitational constant; strong and weak force, etc.; to the incredible coded information system [information requiring, by definition, intelligence] of the DNA molecule);

my faith fails utterly in embracing "nothing + time + chance = everything".

Fortunately -- blessedly -- there are hundreds of scientists who have reached that same conclusion, and who courageously stand against the evolutionist hegemony, and instead seek the truth in regard to the natural order, based on Biblical revelation by the One who authored both Nature and the Bible.

[Star]

The incidences you cite are of rapid burial and encasement due to sudden catastrophism, albeit it on a more localized scale than the Great Flood; with the exception of La Brea, which is an extant petroleum-based phenomenon; the presence of fossils there comparing favorably with the discovery of well-preserved Wooly Mammoths, etc., in arctic climates that have remained frozen since the (single) post-Flood Ice Age.

No, not even sudden catastrophism on a local scale is necessary for fossilization. Tar pits at La Brea are not an exception. There are many processes which result in fossilization. Fossils can be frozen, dried, buried, or encased, such as in tar or resin. This can happen in seabeds, swamps, bogs, sink holes, rivers, and caves. They can come about from tsunamis, geysers, local floods, volcanoes, avalanches, landslides, earthquakes, and glacier activity.

Fossils can also be created from carbon imprints left by plants on hard mineral surfaces, as well as a couple of other chemical processes, including “impressions�, which are the result of a chemical reduction of organic molecules

This principal, and process, explains the current specialization we observe in flora and fauna.
The process can be observed clearly, and rapidly, by replacing artificial selection for natural selection. A Great Dane and a Pekinese are both descendants of a common ancestor with a much more diverse genetic composition than either one of them. In each case, traits have been selected out of the genome (and/or mutations have been cultivated [e.g., shortened muzzles, floppy ears] that would have been disadvantageous in the wild). Those traits will not reemerge through natural process -- two Pekineses will produce more Pekineses; they will never produce a wolf-like offspring. To regain lost traits due to specialization, they must be re-introduced from another population that maintains them.

I don’t follow. Why would evolution say a Pekineses should give birth to wolf-like offspring? Evolution says that, in the wild, the Pekinese (and any other fancy oddball dog) would probably die, while more fit dogs that could hunt would tend to live long enough to pass on their genes. That’s natural selection. And why are ancestors more “genetically diverse�?

In contrast, for single-celled organisms to begin to sprout nerves, muscles, bones, connective tissues, limbs; respiratory and circulatory systems; wings, fins, fingers, eyes, etc.; and a brain capable of coordinating them all, requires "uphill" changes in the genetic code for each micro-step along the way; each one a beneficial mutation; each one occurring through mindless, random, unguided processes.

Another feckless strawman! Nobody says that single-cell organisms sprouted nerves, muscles, and bones. That didn’t occur until organisms were significantly more complex. The first simple animals appeared about 600 mya, a whopping three billion years after first life. A lot happened in that time. A global flood wasn't one of them.

By the way, how did Noah fit all those plants and animals on the ark?

What did they all eat, and how were they kept alive?

How did they come from around the world, and then get back?

How did all the aquatic life survive?

How do you account for the huge diversity of life in only several thousand years?

How do you get past the incest between Noah's children, with them being our great great great grandparents, and all?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 12 by Star]

Volbrigade wrote:
The incidences you cite are of rapid burial and encasement due to sudden catastrophism, albeit it on a more localized scale than the Great Flood; with the exception of La Brea, which is an extant petroleum-based phenomenon; the presence of fossils there comparing favorably with the discovery of well-preserved Wooly Mammoths, etc., in arctic climates that have remained frozen since the (single) post-Flood Ice Age.

No, not even sudden catastrophism on a local scale is necessary for fossilization. Tar pits at La Brea are not an exception. There are many processes which result in fossilization. Fossils can be frozen, dried, buried, or encased, such as in tar or resin. This can happen in seabeds, swamps, bogs, sink holes, rivers, and caves. They can come about from tsunamis, geysers, local floods, volcanoes, avalanches, landslides, earthquakes, and glacier activity

.

Very good. The list in that last sentence -- absent "local floods" and "glacier activity" would've been all been at play, in unimaginable abundance, during a catastrophic global Flood resulting from, say, runaway continental plate subduction.

Fossils can also be created from carbon imprints left by plants on hard mineral surfaces, as well as a couple of other chemical processes, including “impressions�, which are the result of a chemical reduction of organic molecules

You're right again, of course. I have seen a fossilized derby (hat) that was covered in volcanic ash in the 19th century. A woman in England (I believe) fossilizes Teddy Bears in a cave by submitting them to the drip of mineral rich water. Fossilization doesn't require much time, under the proper circumstances. And that's the point. The fossil record wasn't created over millions of years. Octopi haven't sank to the bottom of the sea and been slowly mineralized over eons. The fossil record -- for the most part -- was generated in a few days or weeks of violent upheaval -- the result of God's judgement upon mankind.

Volbrigade wrote:
This principal, and process, explains the current specialization we observe in flora and fauna.

The process can be observed clearly, and rapidly, by replacing artificial selection for natural selection. A Great Dane and a Pekinese are both descendants of a common ancestor with a much more diverse genetic composition than either one of them. In each case, traits have been selected out of the genome (and/or mutations have been cultivated [e.g., shortened muzzles, floppy ears] that would have been disadvantageous in the wild). Those traits will not reemerge through natural process -- two Pekineses will produce more Pekineses; they will never produce a wolf-like offspring. To regain lost traits due to specialization, they must be re-introduced from another population that maintains them.

I don’t follow. Why would evolution say a Pekineses should give birth to wolf-like offspring? Evolution says that, in the wild, the Pekinese (and any other fancy oddball dog) would probably die, while more fit dogs that could hunt would tend to live long enough to pass on their genes. That’s natural selection. And why are ancestors more “genetically diverse�?

I was using "artificial selection" in an attempt to make clear the mechanism involved. Sorry it wasn't clear. The reason why ancestors are more genetically diverse is because God created them that way. More on that in a moment.

Volbrigade wrote:
In contrast, for single-celled organisms to begin to sprout nerves, muscles, bones, connective tissues, limbs; respiratory and circulatory systems; wings, fins, fingers, eyes, etc.; and a brain capable of coordinating them all, requires "uphill" changes in the genetic code for each micro-step along the way; each one a beneficial mutation; each one occurring through mindless, random, unguided processes.

Another feckless strawman! Nobody says that single-cell organisms sprouted nerves, muscles, and bones. That didn’t occur until organisms were significantly more complex. The first simple animals appeared about 600 mya, a whopping three billion years after first life. A lot happened in that time. A global flood wasn't one of them.

And neither was the kinds of increases in genetic information necessary to code for the specialization of organisms. Those first strings of amino acids that made those first assemblages of proteins that made those first cells that made those first unsegmented worms... that wound up making peacock feathers and howler monkeys; well, they had to do that somehow. The Evolution Fairy?

By the way, how did Noah fit all those plants and animals on the ark?

The Ark was the size of an ocean liner. The average animal on board was the size of a sheep. And one pair of ovine "kind" was all that was needed -- they contained all the genetic information for future specializaiton (speciation).

What did they all eat, and how were they kept alive?

There was ample room for provisions for a year-long voyage. Some speculate that God may have induced a hibernation-like state on the animals, that would have greatly reduced their dietary needs.

How did they come from around the world, and then get back?

God led them to Noah. They likely traversed a single pan-continental land mass.

How did all the aquatic life survive?

Most undoubtedly didn't. However, there are models that account for persistent layering of water of varying salinity, as well as less turbulent areas of water at high latitudes, that would account for the survival of a sufficient portion of marine life (including mammalian) to replenish a post-Flood earth.

How do you account for the huge diversity of life in only several thousand years?

Several thousand years is a looooonng time. It is not much compared to millions of years, granted -- but those millions of years are a fabrication. The thousands of years are real.

How do you get past the incest between Noah's children, with them being our great great great grandparents, and all?

Incest was not expressly forbidden until the Sinaitic covenant. That was necessary due to the number of copying errors -- mutations -- that had accumulated by that time.

Before that, there was minimal danger in the union of Ham's daughter with Shem's son.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 12 by Star]

Volbrigade wrote:
The incidences you cite are of rapid burial and encasement due to sudden catastrophism, albeit it on a more localized scale than the Great Flood; with the exception of La Brea, which is an extant petroleum-based phenomenon; the presence of fossils there comparing favorably with the discovery of well-preserved Wooly Mammoths, etc., in arctic climates that have remained frozen since the (single) post-Flood Ice Age.

No, not even sudden catastrophism on a local scale is necessary for fossilization. Tar pits at La Brea are not an exception. There are many processes which result in fossilization. Fossils can be frozen, dried, buried, or encased, such as in tar or resin. This can happen in seabeds, swamps, bogs, sink holes, rivers, and caves. They can come about from tsunamis, geysers, local floods, volcanoes, avalanches, landslides, earthquakes, and glacier activity

.

Very good. The list in that last sentence -- absent "local floods" and "glacier activity" would've been all been at play, in unimaginable abundance, during a catastrophic global Flood resulting from, say, runaway continental plate subduction.

Fossils can also be created from carbon imprints left by plants on hard mineral surfaces, as well as a couple of other chemical processes, including “impressions�, which are the result of a chemical reduction of organic molecules

You're right again, of course. I have seen a fossilized derby (hat) that was covered in volcanic ash in the 19th century. A woman in England (I believe) fossilizes Teddy Bears in a cave by submitting them to the drip of mineral rich water. Fossilization doesn't require much time, under the proper circumstances. And that's the point. The fossil record wasn't created over millions of years. Octopi haven't sank to the bottom of the sea and been slowly mineralized over eons. The fossil record -- for the most part -- was generated in a few days or weeks of violent upheaval -- the result of God's judgement upon mankind.

Volbrigade wrote:
This principal, and process, explains the current specialization we observe in flora and fauna.

The process can be observed clearly, and rapidly, by replacing artificial selection for natural selection. A Great Dane and a Pekinese are both descendants of a common ancestor with a much more diverse genetic composition than either one of them. In each case, traits have been selected out of the genome (and/or mutations have been cultivated [e.g., shortened muzzles, floppy ears] that would have been disadvantageous in the wild). Those traits will not reemerge through natural process -- two Pekineses will produce more Pekineses; they will never produce a wolf-like offspring. To regain lost traits due to specialization, they must be re-introduced from another population that maintains them.

I don’t follow. Why would evolution say a Pekineses should give birth to wolf-like offspring? Evolution says that, in the wild, the Pekinese (and any other fancy oddball dog) would probably die, while more fit dogs that could hunt would tend to live long enough to pass on their genes. That’s natural selection. And why are ancestors more “genetically diverse�?

I was using "artificial selection" in an attempt to make clear the mechanism involved. Sorry it wasn't clear. The reason why ancestors are more genetically diverse is because God created them that way. More on that in a moment.

Volbrigade wrote:
In contrast, for single-celled organisms to begin to sprout nerves, muscles, bones, connective tissues, limbs; respiratory and circulatory systems; wings, fins, fingers, eyes, etc.; and a brain capable of coordinating them all, requires "uphill" changes in the genetic code for each micro-step along the way; each one a beneficial mutation; each one occurring through mindless, random, unguided processes.

Another feckless strawman! Nobody says that single-cell organisms sprouted nerves, muscles, and bones. That didn’t occur until organisms were significantly more complex. The first simple animals appeared about 600 mya, a whopping three billion years after first life. A lot happened in that time. A global flood wasn't one of them.

And neither was the kinds of increases in genetic information necessary to code for the specialization of organisms. Those first strings of amino acids that made those first assemblages of proteins that made those first cells that made those first unsegmented worms... that wound up making peacock feathers and howler monkeys; well, they had to do that somehow. The Evolution Fairy?

By the way, how did Noah fit all those plants and animals on the ark?

The Ark was the size of an ocean liner. The average animal on board was the size of a sheep. And one pair of ovine "kind" was all that was needed -- they contained all the genetic information for future specializaiton (speciation).

What did they all eat, and how were they kept alive?

There was ample room for provisions for a year-long voyage. Some speculate that God may have induced a hibernation-like state on the animals, that would have greatly reduced their dietary needs.

How did they come from around the world, and then get back?

God led them to Noah. They likely traversed a single pan-continental land mass.

How did all the aquatic life survive?

Most undoubtedly didn't. However, there are models that account for persistent layering of water of varying salinity, as well as less turbulent areas of water at high latitudes, that would account for the survival of a sufficient portion of marine life (including mammalian) to replenish a post-Flood earth.

How do you account for the huge diversity of life in only several thousand years?

Several thousand years is a looooonng time. It is not much compared to millions of years, granted -- but those millions of years are a fabrication. The thousands of years are real.

How do you get past the incest between Noah's children, with them being our great great great grandparents, and all?

Incest was not expressly forbidden until the Sinaitic covenant. That was necessary due to the number of copying errors -- mutations -- that had accumulated by that time.

Before that, there was minimal danger in the union of Ham's daughter with Shem's son.

You do understand, I hope, that the fairytales you are creating to defend and explain the original fairytale are even less believable than the original? I just thought I let you know.

Because now you need to come up with even more outlandish fairytales to defend and explain the explanatory fairytales you've told to defend the original fairytale.

Lets try the single continental mass split apart 4000yrs ago (what?) and while this was happening there were areas of a worldwide ocean that remained undisturbed and therefore allowed layers of fresh and layers of sea water to not be mixed.
That's just a start, imagine what you'll need to come up with to defend whatever you proffer for this?

[Star]

[Replying to post 13 by Volbrigade]

I’m familiar with the quick octopus fossil myth. Any number of natural events could have quickly buried animals under sediment. Liquefaction from earthquake, collapsed cave or rock structure, landslide, tsunami, meteorite impact, storm, or even a piece of a mountain falling into the sea. It need not happen slowly, although it can. There are many types of fossils. I thought we went over this already.

I’m not sure how a global flood is the best explanation. You can’t argue that the ocean floor was peaceful enough for life to survive, while at the same time arguing it was the only thing catastrophic enough to cause animals to suddenly become buried alive. Animals are suddenly buried alive all the time. People in Japan were recently buried in mudslides causes by a typhoon. It’s absurd to argue only global floods can do this.

Give it up. Noah’s Ark is a fable that’s nowhere close to being plausible. There wasn’t enough food. The ark wasn’t large enough. The animals couldn’t have walked/swam there and back, and there wasn’t nearly enough time for biodiversity to recover.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/world/1160 ... s-in-japan

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 15 by Star]

Give it up. Noah’s Ark is a fable that’s nowhere close to being plausible. There wasn’t enough food. The ark wasn’t large enough. The animals couldn’t have walked/swam there and back, and there wasn’t nearly enough time for biodiversity to recover.

I accept everything you state here. As long as it is prefaced by the tacit and unspoken (or unwritten) "in my opinion...". Or "in the opinion of the authorities that I ascribe to...".

The question at stake; a question of primary importance -- and one that is at the heart of any discussion on a "debating Christianity" forum -- is, "is the Bible true?" As well as "can it be trusted in regard to history?"

"If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" -- John 3:12

If the Bible is nothing but a book of fables -- including exaggerated claims about a Jewish agitator -- then it is of value only to people who are interested in such things; of no more real value than the mythology of Egypt or Hinduism.

But if it is what it claims to be -- the Word of God, the "true History of the Universe", written (authored, inspired) by the only witness to the events of creation; the One who knows "the end from the beginning..." --

Then to miss that is to miss everything.

Key to understanding the world we inhabit, in terms of scientific truth, is understanding whether it was created by the God of the Bible, approximately 4,000 years before the first appearance of Jesus Christ. And key to understanding that claim is determining whether the account of a catastrophic global Flood, occurring approximately 1,500 years after creation, is factual.

And the amazing thing is, we are discovering that the scientific facts point to the veracity of those claims in both cases.

You can deny that, if you like. You HAVE to deny that, if your intent is retain the belief that God doesn't exist.

But that is, literally and technically, an absurd belief. Creation demands a Creator. Order demands design. Design demands a designer. A designer demands intelligence.

And it is that intelligence that is sovereign over the created universe, and the affairs of men. And it has imparted to us a record of His plan and purpose; an integrated message system delivered over a course of 1,700 years to 40 or more authors; yet which exhibits not just thematic unity, or idiomatic consistency (though it effortlessly contains those qualities, in abundance), but deliberate and skill design (including macro- and micro- codes) with the text itself.

And here's an amazing thing. Even within the context of this topic, the choice associated with faith stands out. There is evidence for a global flood; but there is also evidence for localized catastrophic geologic events. Similar mechanisms and dynamics are at work in each, producing similar phenomenon. We need look no farther than the Mt. St. Helens eruption, or the recent Japan earthquake, to see in miniature the sorts of forces that would've been globalized in the case of the Flood.

On the other hand, to disbelieve that God ordered creation, and exercised judgment on the Earth (he will do so again, by the way -- another topic) in the form of a Flood, one must either accept, or compromise with, the belief and opinion that everything came from nothing; and organized itself into intelligence by random, unguided processes.

It is not a question of which choice is the easiest to believe. It is a question of which one is true.

[Filthy Tugboat]

The first thing I like to point out when discussing anything with a YEC is that according to their own beliefs, God is capable of anything. If God so chose to create a universe that evolves and has processes that allow for intelligence to evolve then, he bloody well could. If God so chose to create a universe that modern science is telling us exists with all the processes we know and I'm sure many we don't, then he very well could go ahead and do that. So before a YEC runs about saying "it's impossible" they should really think about what they mean by the word, unless they truly think their God incapable of doing these things.

The gathering of large numbers of fossils in one place actually fits in perfectly with the Flood scenario, as animals which were capable would have sought to flee the threat of rapidly rising waters, volcanic eruptions, etc. Those less capable would have been captured by the encasing sediment first; which explains the global order of the fossil record -- less "complex" and/or more stationary organisms appearing in the deeper, "older" strata of rocks (with the exception of trans-strata debris; such as tree trunks that transverse several strata, and millions of years of "time").

This "explanation" does not fit the data. The strata are not limited to "less mobile organisms" there are plenty of smaller more agile organisms fossilized right there in the same strata as the big burly bastards. But an even better indicator for why your explanation is false is the plants, there are absolutely no fossilized flowering plants in the paleozoic strata, how can your explanation make sense of that? Millions of fossilized plants but not a single flowering one. How could the flood be so selective? The obvious scientific explanation is that plants had not evolved to the point that they would produce flowers (the first example of fossilized flowers is around 250 million years ago).

[Volbrigade]

The first thing I like to point out when discussing anything with a YEC is that according to their own beliefs, God is capable of anything. If God so chose to create a universe that evolves and has processes that allow for intelligence to evolve then, he bloody well could. If God so chose to create a universe that modern science is telling us exists with all the processes we know and I'm sure many we don't, then he very well could go ahead and do that. So before a YEC runs about saying "it's impossible" they should really think about what they mean by the word, unless they truly think their God incapable of doing these things.

That's why I try to be careful to emphasize "by random processes" when I address the impossibility of the simultaneous factors (such as the hundreds of physical constants that need to be in place, each calibrated to within ppm, in order for the universe to exist in its present state at all; or the precise sequencing of amino acids, enzymes, peptides, etc. in order to generate the building blocks of protein and the encyclopedic information system of DNA) that are essential for existence (in the first place) and life (in the second) occurring by mindless, random, unguided processes.

THAT is what is impossible.

Of course God could have used gradual "uphill" evolution to arrive at the creature man. The Bible says it occurred differently. I believe the Bible; and science supports that belief.

The gathering of large numbers of fossils in one place actually fits in perfectly with the Flood scenario, as animals which were capable would have sought to flee the threat of rapidly rising waters, volcanic eruptions, etc. Those less capable would have been captured by the encasing sediment first; which explains the global order of the fossil record -- less "complex" and/or more stationary organisms appearing in the deeper, "older" strata of rocks (with the exception of trans-strata debris; such as tree trunks that transverse several strata, and millions of years of "time").

This "explanation" does not fit the data. The strata are not limited to "less mobile organisms" there are plenty of smaller more agile organisms fossilized right there in the same strata as the big burly bastards. But an even better indicator for why your explanation is false is the plants, there are absolutely no fossilized flowering plants in the paleozoic strata, how can your explanation make sense of that? Millions of fossilized plants but not a single flowering one. How could the flood be so selective? The obvious scientific explanation is that plants had not evolved to the point that they would produce flowers (the first example of fossilized flowers is around 250 million years ago).

It is a gross oversimplification to claim that the geologic/fossil record represents a cut-and-dried, uniform example of any theory of development or history. There are general trends, with great latitude and exceptional incidences within them. Obviously, in an event of the magnitude of the global Flood, there would have been a lot of mixing up of organisms, which is what we find in the record. The trend among evolutionists is to increase the stratigraphic ranges of assigned "eras" (e.g., paleozoic) -- which are, after all, assignments made according to their own long-age assumptions -- in order to accommodate this phenomenon . Those long-age assumptions, incidentally, are allowed leeway when the evidence does not correspond with them -- such as the absence of pre-Devonian mosses, where it is assumed they existed, but did not fossilize. The angiosperm question is an intriguing one, and will undoubtedly yield further insights into how the Flood produced the geologic record we encounter. Too bad that resources that could go into that research will be wasted on the prevailing myth that bryophyta and pteridophyta magically transformed into angiosperms by the magic of evolutionary magical pixie dust -- the same dust that urged paramecium to transform into physicists -- and the fabrication of processes by which that magic could have occurred.

[Filthy Tugboat]

The first thing I like to point out when discussing anything with a YEC is that according to their own beliefs, God is capable of anything. If God so chose to create a universe that evolves and has processes that allow for intelligence to evolve then, he bloody well could. If God so chose to create a universe that modern science is telling us exists with all the processes we know and I'm sure many we don't, then he very well could go ahead and do that. So before a YEC runs about saying "it's impossible" they should really think about what they mean by the word, unless they truly think their God incapable of doing these things.

That's why I try to be careful to emphasize "by random processes" when I address the impossibility of the simultaneous factors (such as the hundreds of physical constants that need to be in place, each calibrated to within ppm, in order for the universe to exist in its present state at all; or the precise sequencing of amino acids, enzymes, peptides, etc. in order to generate the building blocks of protein and the encyclopedic information system of DNA) that are essential for existence (in the first place) and life (in the second) occurring by mindless, random, unguided processes.

Even this is limiting yourself unnecessarily though, do you think God could not create random processes? That he is incapable of allowing some chance in the universe?

Of course God could have used gradual "uphill" evolution to arrive at the creature man. The Bible says it occurred differently. I believe the Bible; and science supports that belief.

Of course it does, if you ignore a vast majority of science.

The gathering of large numbers of fossils in one place actually fits in perfectly with the Flood scenario, as animals which were capable would have sought to flee the threat of rapidly rising waters, volcanic eruptions, etc. Those less capable would have been captured by the encasing sediment first; which explains the global order of the fossil record -- less "complex" and/or more stationary organisms appearing in the deeper, "older" strata of rocks (with the exception of trans-strata debris; such as tree trunks that transverse several strata, and millions of years of "time").

This "explanation" does not fit the data. The strata are not limited to "less mobile organisms" there are plenty of smaller more agile organisms fossilized right there in the same strata as the big burly bastards. But an even better indicator for why your explanation is false is the plants, there are absolutely no fossilized flowering plants in the paleozoic strata, how can your explanation make sense of that? Millions of fossilized plants but not a single flowering one. How could the flood be so selective? The obvious scientific explanation is that plants had not evolved to the point that they would produce flowers (the first example of fossilized flowers is around 250 million years ago).

It is a gross oversimplification to claim that the geologic/fossil record represents a cut-and-dried, uniform example of any theory of development or history. There are general trends, with great latitude and exceptional incidences within them. Obviously, in an event of the magnitude of the global Flood, there would have been a lot of mixing up of organisms, which is what we find in the record.

This is blatantly false, you will never find a modern organism in the paleozoic strata. One has never been found. You will also never find a fossil from mesozoic strata in the paleozoic.

The trend among evolutionists is to increase the stratigraphic ranges of assigned "eras" (e.g., paleozoic) -- which are, after all, assignments made according to their own long-age assumptions -- in order to accommodate this phenomenon . Those long-age assumptions, incidentally, are allowed leeway when the evidence does not correspond with them -- such as the absence of pre-Devonian mosses, where it is assumed they existed, but did not fossilize. The angiosperm question is an intriguing one, and will undoubtedly yield further insights into how the Flood produced the geologic record we encounter. Too bad that resources that could go into that research will be wasted on the prevailing myth that bryophyta and pteridophyta magically transformed into angiosperms by the magic of evolutionary magical pixie dust -- the same dust that urged paramecium to transform into physicists -- and the fabrication of processes by which that magic could have occurred.

You're going to have to further explain and perhaps cite some sources for what you've written above, I haven't debated a YEC for quite some time so I'm not really familiar with this probably irrelevant detail you're focusing on.

[Volbrigade]

The first thing I like to point out when discussing anything with a YEC is that according to their own beliefs, God is capable of anything. If God so chose to create a universe that evolves and has processes that allow for intelligence to evolve then, he bloody well could. If God so chose to create a universe that modern science is telling us exists with all the processes we know and I'm sure many we don't, then he very well could go ahead and do that. So before a YEC runs about saying "it's impossible" they should really think about what they mean by the word, unless they truly think their God incapable of doing these things.

That's why I try to be careful to emphasize "by random processes" when I address the impossibility of the simultaneous factors (such as the hundreds of physical constants that need to be in place, each calibrated to within ppm, in order for the universe to exist in its present state at all; or the precise sequencing of amino acids, enzymes, peptides, etc. in order to generate the building blocks of protein and the encyclopedic information system of DNA) that are essential for existence (in the first place) and life (in the second) occurring by mindless, random, unguided processes.

Even this is limiting yourself unnecessarily though, do you think God could not create random processes? That he is incapable of allowing some chance in the universe?

First off -- I'm a little limited in my manipulation of the "quote" function at present. I.e., I'm not sure how to make those nice assignations of each quote to the quoted poster. So I hope this makes sense -- at least from a formatting standpoint.

Did God create random processes? Sounds like an oxymoron, at first blush. An argument can be made that nothing is truly random in this world (cosmos): the Rand Corporation's "1,000,000 Random Numbers" notwithstanding (numbers heavily sanitized of any apparent pattern or order), which was generated, of course, through non-random processes.

We can say that God does the same -- i.e., that He allows the appearance of randomness; perhaps that was part of the Free Will paradigm; and of the consequences of its misuse, and subsequent fallenness and curse on creation?

An interesting topic.

But randomness as a method of the origin and development of species is neither Biblical nor scientific (in fact, if it is not the first, it is not the second -- which the point made by the OP). "Guided randomness" is not randomness at all.

Of course God could have used gradual "uphill" evolution to arrive at the creature man. The Bible says it occurred differently. I believe the Bible; and science supports that belief.

Of course it does, if you ignore a vast majority of science.

I, of course, maintain the opposite. The vast majority of (operational) science is wholly indifferent to subject of origins and development. Forensic science, which is concerned with those two elements, comes to differing conclusions, based on its starting assumptions (naturally). The standard evolutionary patchwork neither adheres nor coheres, because it starts with two fundamental untruths: God doesn't existence (and/or His existence is irrelevant); and the Bible is not accurate.

The gathering of large numbers of fossils in one place actually fits in perfectly with the Flood scenario, as animals which were capable would have sought to flee the threat of rapidly rising waters, volcanic eruptions, etc. Those less capable would have been captured by the encasing sediment first; which explains the global order of the fossil record -- less "complex" and/or more stationary organisms appearing in the deeper, "older" strata of rocks (with the exception of trans-strata debris; such as tree trunks that transverse several strata, and millions of years of "time").

This "explanation" does not fit the data. The strata are not limited to "less mobile organisms" there are plenty of smaller more agile organisms fossilized right there in the same strata as the big burly bastards. But an even better indicator for why your explanation is false is the plants, there are absolutely no fossilized flowering plants in the paleozoic strata, how can your explanation make sense of that? Millions of fossilized plants but not a single flowering one. How could the flood be so selective? The obvious scientific explanation is that plants had not evolved to the point that they would produce flowers (the first example of fossilized flowers is around 250 million years ago).

It is a gross oversimplification to claim that the geologic/fossil record represents a cut-and-dried, uniform example of any theory of development or history. There are general trends, with great latitude and exceptional incidences within them. Obviously, in an event of the magnitude of the global Flood, there would have been a lot of mixing up of organisms, which is what we find in the record.

This is blatantly false, you will never find a modern organism in the paleozoic strata. One has never been found. You will also never find a fossil from mesozoic strata in the paleozoic.

Never? I am extremely dubious of that claim. Besides, we continually find "paleozoic" organisms living and breathing in the seas and on land. Evolutionists are locked into a paradigm that asserts that the fossil record and geologic column are a record of vast expanses of time and gradual processes. YECs are not: and are not troubled by the numerous exceptions to that record; nor by the lack of erosion between sedimentary strata; nor by unbroken undulations of those strata over large expanses. If fact, we embrace them.

The trend among evolutionists is to increase the stratigraphic ranges of assigned "eras" (e.g., paleozoic) -- which are, after all, assignments made according to their own long-age assumptions -- in order to accommodate this phenomenon . Those long-age assumptions, incidentally, are allowed leeway when the evidence does not correspond with them -- such as the absence of pre-Devonian mosses, where it is assumed they existed, but did not fossilize. The angiosperm question is an intriguing one, and will undoubtedly yield further insights into how the Flood produced the geologic record we encounter. Too bad that resources that could go into that research will be wasted on the prevailing myth that bryophyta and pteridophyta magically transformed into angiosperms by the magic of evolutionary magical pixie dust -- the same dust that urged paramecium to transform into physicists -- and the fabrication of processes by which that magic could have occurred.

You're going to have to further explain and perhaps cite some sources for what you've written above, I haven't debated a YEC for quite some time so I'm not really familiar with this probably irrelevant detail you're focusing on.

Frankly, I'm not sure I have the time or the interest in getting that deep into the technicalities in a message board conversation. Especially for the wages offered.

I have no illusions about persuading you, or anyone else indoctrinated into the pervasive evolutionist propaganda, to become a YEC. And I submit that relatively few people have come to faith in Christ as a result of encountering the truth in regard to Biblical origins.

It is, in fact, the other way 'round. There are many people who have come to faith, but are troubled by the apparent conflict between the preachings of modern scientism, and the immutable Word of God.

When the truth is revealed to them, and they see that there is in fact no conflict between science (as opposed to "scientism") and faith, it can be -- and usually is -- extremely edifying and galvanizing.

"There are places where science and the Bible appear to disagree -- but just give science time. It will catch up."