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.

[Star]

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.

Your posts are a mess. You must do some reading and learn more about science.

The so-called "supernatural" claims in the Bible (creation, miracles, messiahs, etc) are contradicted by science. We have learned that the natural world doesn't behave the same way those ancient goat herders predicted it would. We find evidence that supports an old Earth and common descent of life.

I've corrected you twice before on the falsehood that evolution and atheism say "god doesn't exist" so I know that spending time explaining things to you isn't effective. You argue against straw men, present scripture as your only evidence, and slaughter what should be a basic understanding of science. I hoped Tug would have better luck, but it doesn't seem like it.

[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?

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.

Randomness certainly plays a part, scientifically, especially in physics and by appearance in biology (reproduction and so forth). Biblically I could care less about, that's a ball in your court that you can play with however you like.

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 thing is though, this isn't what it started with, quite the opposite. Evolution began when science was very much so grounded in "God exists" and "the Bible is accurate". People, much like you(except actually scientists), became evolutionists when evolution was not as strong evidentially and theoretically as it is today. Scientific progress is separate and must always remain separate from personal beliefs if it is going to continue.

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.

I could care less, the evidence is there, it has yet to be seen, millions upon millions of fossils yet not a single cross over between periods. The reason it never will is because we now know the process, one you are denying for personal reasons, not scientific ones.

Besides, we continually find "paleozoic" organisms living and breathing in the seas and on land.

Again, cite your sources.

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.

Then I'll feel free to take it with a grain of salt, been fun but if all you have are baseless claims, there's no point continuing.

[Jax Agnesson]

So, this flood story.. Lemme see. Noah gathers two of every clean animal, and gets them abord his Ark, to save them from God's flood.
Then, once the flood is over, GENESIS 8:20; guess what? Noah sacrifices the animals to God, in thanks for er, wait a minute...

[Star]

I should also mention, there is NO competing theory to evolution.

Noah's Ark is an illogical and immature fable, not to mention, physically impossible in many respects.

[bluethread]

So, this flood story.. Lemme see. Noah gathers two of every clean animal, and gets them abord his Ark, to save them from God's flood.
Then, once the flood is over, GENESIS 8:20; guess what? Noah sacrifices the animals to God, in thanks for er, wait a minute...

He was told to take seven of the animals that were sacrificed.

[Star]

So, this flood story.. Lemme see. Noah gathers two of every clean animal, and gets them abord his Ark, to save them from God's flood.
Then, once the flood is over, GENESIS 8:20; guess what? Noah sacrifices the animals to God, in thanks for er, wait a minute...

He was told to take seven of the animals that were sacrificed.

Right, because those were enough to replenish the species.

[Volbrigade]

In response to FT, let me first say that there ARE exceptions to the fossil record, as expressed in the geologic column; and that they cause considerable consternation among scientists who have locked into that paradigm when they occur.

And nothing is more problematic than the appearance of "living fossils", of which the coelacanth is perhaps the most famous example. Fossilized forms had been dated as existing 300 mya, putting them within the Paleozoic era.

But of course, those historic designations are arbitrary, and fabricated in keeping with the assumption of deep time as a necessity to explain a world in which God does not exist (or at least is not active).

Star (in addition to some petulant-sounding complaints ) presents a graphic of a brontosaurus next to a conventional rendering of tugboat-sized ark. The graphic bears no more relation to the truth than do the ones that depict salamanders gamely crawling ashore to morph into men.

Just yesterday I was sent a link to the trailer for the upcoming movie "Noah"; and was delighted to see from the two minutes of footage that they got at least two things right: the dimensions of the Ark, which was the size of an oceanliner, and has been shown to be the most stable design possible for the sorts of heavy seas it would've been exposed to; and the eruption of the "fountains of the deep" which were the source of those seas, and of the flood. And which produced the 40 days and nights of rain; the rain did not produce the Flood, as is commonly misperceived.

I would encourage anyone who is interested enough in this topic to respond to it to at least look into the best arguments in support of a Biblical model; if for no other reason than to make more intelligent rebuttals to it. Such investigation would quickly yield the imminently logical observation that adult varieties of giant dinosaurs would not have been brought aboard the Ark; but rather their very young, or even their eggs. And it was not necessary to bring one of every "species"; merely one of every "kind" -- the Biblical "kinds" being the genetically diverse ancestors of our modern, specialized, naturally selected -- through the loss of disadvantageous traits -- species.

That natural selection, which involves a downhill loss of information, is what we speak of when we say "evolution". Newts did not change into anything other than more specialized Newts -- not birds, not mammals, not men.

There are several outstanding organizations that can provide a more in-depth look at the truth for anyone interested, e.g.: CMI (Creation Ministries International), AIG (Answers in Genesis); ICR (Institute for Creation Research).

[10CC]

In response to FT, let me first say that there ARE exceptions to the fossil record, as expressed in the geologic column; and that they cause considerable consternation among scientists who have locked into that paradigm when they occur.

And nothing is more problematic than the appearance of "living fossils", of which the coelacanth is perhaps the most famous example. Fossilized forms had been dated as existing 300 mya, putting them within the Paleozoic era.

But of course, those historic designations are arbitrary, and fabricated in keeping with the assumption of deep time as a necessity to explain a world in which God does not exist (or at least is not active).

Star (in addition to some petulant-sounding complaints ) presents a graphic of a brontosaurus next to a conventional rendering of tugboat-sized ark. The graphic bears no more relation to the truth than do the ones that depict salamanders gamely crawling ashore to morph into men.

Just yesterday I was sent a link to the trailer for the upcoming movie "Noah"; and was delighted to see from the two minutes of footage that they got at least two things right: the dimensions of the Ark, which was the size of an oceanliner, and has been shown to be the most stable design possible for the sorts of heavy seas it would've been exposed to; and the eruption of the "fountains of the deep" which were the source of those seas, and of the flood. And which produced the 40 days and nights of rain; the rain did not produce the Flood, as is commonly misperceived.

I would encourage anyone who is interested enough in this topic to respond to it to at least look into the best arguments in support of a Biblical model; if for no other reason than to make more intelligent rebuttals to it. Such investigation would quickly yield the imminently logical observation that adult varieties of giant dinosaurs would not have been brought aboard the Ark; but rather their very young, or even their eggs. And it was not necessary to bring one of every "species"; merely one of every "kind" -- the Biblical "kinds" being the genetically diverse ancestors of our modern, specialized, naturally selected -- through the loss of disadvantageous traits -- species.

That natural selection, which involves a downhill loss of information, is what we speak of when we say "evolution". Newts did not change into anything other than more specialized Newts -- not birds, not mammals, not men.

There are several outstanding organizations that can provide a more in-depth look at the truth for anyone interested, e.g.: CMI (Creation Ministries International), AIG (Answers in Genesis); ICR (Institute for Creation Research).

Outstanding? Outstanding?:dribble:
The comedy channel does it much better I think.

[Star]

Star (in addition to some petulant-sounding complaints Cool ) presents a graphic of a brontosaurus next to a conventional rendering of tugboat-sized ark. The graphic bears no more relation to the truth than do the ones that depict salamanders gamely crawling ashore to morph into men.

The Ark is in the background and the dinosaur is in the foreground, but sure, it’s a little exaggerated, like many good comics are. So what? It's not even real. The Ark was said to be either 158.7 or 137.2 meters long, depending on which cubit is used. The longest dinosaur known, Amphicoelias fragillimus, grew to an incredible 58 meters long, more than 1/3 the length of the fictitious Ark, maybe nearly half. (Oh I know, they were eggs or babies, even though the fable makes no mention of this. They all walked from across the “four corners� of our round planet, from Australia to the Arctic to the Amazon, but they were just eggs or babies, sure.)

Even with an Ark of this size, it’s nowhere near large enough to fit two of every “kind� of baby animal. Also, two does not a breeding colony make. When there’s only two of a species left, even if it’s a male and female, they’re effectively genetically extinct.

They couldn't have carried enough food and fresh water. There was no sanitation, veterinary care, medicine, and only seven people to look after hundreds of thousands of animals. Do you know how much two baby elephants eat in a year? What would the carnivores have eaten if there's only two of everything?

And what about whales, plankton, corals, crabs, fish, snails, and every other aquatic creature, both fresh and saltwater? What about insects, plants, and fungi? They all would have been killed by unprecedented mudslides, water currents, and waves, all physical trauma which would probably kill everything first. If that didn’t kill them, multiple other things would, such as drowning, turbidity, salinity change, pressure increase, oxygen deprivation, and starvation. Everything on the sea floor would be crushed. Salinity drop would kill most marine life. Salinity increase would kill many freshwater organisms. Whales and other marine mammals would drown. Trees and plants would perish. I could go on.

[100%atheist]

[Replying to post 27 by Volbrigade]

So, you insist that the story of the greatest genocide and incest in the Earth history is true. Hitler at least didn't encourage incest (or did he?). I think that believers in the story of the great flood are morally inferior to the most sincere Hitler supporters if they keep saying prayers to THAT god.