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.

[Volbrigade]

Star -- there are plausible explanations for every objection you bring up. The proper role of science is to determine which best explain the evidence.

What there is no plausible explanation for is how matter could have been generated from an explosion caused by nothing, and then proceed to organize itself into a form by which it can can contemplate itself, through limitless random processes.

100% -- surely you understand that every person who has ever lived (with the exception of Enoch and Elijah) has experienced death? Even Our Lord? What you don't understand is how wicked men had become before the Flood. God took away their time; their earthly lives were of a finite character, as all earthly lives are (as a consequence of Adam's sin, and our inherited predisposition to it). That was His judgment against sinful man. There will be another; a final one. You can present your case to the Creator as to why you don't deserve judgment at that time, if you like. I hope you have a good lawyer. Me, I've taken the offer of pardon, and have settled out of court.

I must point out the irony of claiming moral high ground, however. I wonder where it comes from? Can a man be more moral than an ape? An ape, more than a cow? A cow than an amoeba? Where does "morality" reside in a world composed of indifferent atoms?

And isn't it interesting that you claim arbitration regarding moral superiority in a case where 6 million of the descendants of those who believed, and preserved, "the story of the great flood", were systematically executed by those who were "the most sincere Hitler supporters"? That's some morality you've got there.

You sure you don't want to rethink that one?

10cc -- ....nothing.

[Goat]

Star -- there are plausible explanations for every objection you bring up. The proper role of science is to determine which best explain the evidence.

What there is no plausible explanation for is how matter could have been generated from an explosion caused by nothing, and then proceed to organize itself into a form by which it can can contemplate itself, through limitless random processes.

And how did you determine that 'there is no plausible explanation'?? SHow you work, and show that is the case?

Oh, and let's take that statement at face value. That also means declaring there is a deity who did it is also not plausible.

[Star]

Star -- there are plausible explanations for every objection you bring up.

Its funny how you cant explain a single one of them.

What there is no plausible explanation for is how matter could have been generated from an explosion caused by nothing, and then proceed to organize itself into a form by which it can can contemplate itself, through limitless random processes.

The Big Bang was an explosion? The universe contemplates itself? It literally comes from nothing? I didnt know these "fun facts". You teach us so much.

And isn't it interesting that you claim arbitration regarding moral superiority in a case where 6 million of the descendants of those who believed, and preserved, "the story of the great flood", were systematically executed by those who were "the most sincere Hitler supporters"? That's some morality you've got there.

Are you accusing us of being Nazis because we're atheists?

We were talking about Noah's Ark, but this seems to have just come out of the blue.

I hope you're feeling OK. Nothing you're saying is making any sense.

[Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

Star -- there are plausible explanations for every objection you bring up. The proper role of science is to determine which best explain the evidence.

What there is no plausible explanation for is how matter could have been generated from an explosion caused by nothing, and then proceed to organize itself into a form by which it can can contemplate itself, through limitless random processes.

And how did you determine that 'there is no plausible explanation'?? SHow you work, and show that is the case?

Not sure what you're saying here. "SHow you work"? Show my work? How about looking around at the cosmos you inhabit. It shows God's work. And design. And declares His glory.

Oh, and let's take that statement at face value. That also means declaring there is a deity who did it is also not plausible.

On that contrary. That is the ONLY plausibility.

Volbrigade wrote:
Star -- there are plausible explanations for every objection you bring up.

Its funny how you cant explain a single one of them.

There are websites that do that. I alluded to three of them. I'm not here to promote them; but I will mention that (at least) one of them has an excellent search engine -- you can type in the subjects of your objections to your heart's content.

Volbrigade wrote:
What there is no plausible explanation for is how matter could have been generated from an explosion caused by nothing, and then proceed to organize itself into a form by which it can can contemplate itself, through limitless random processes.

The Big Bang was an explosion? The universe contemplates itself? It literally comes from nothing? I didnt know these "fun facts". You teach us so much.

You're welcome. Aren't you part of the universe? Don't you contemplate it? And your own self?

Volbrigade wrote:
And isn't it interesting that you claim arbitration regarding moral superiority in a case where 6 million of the descendants of those who believed, and preserved, "the story of the great flood", were systematically executed by those who were "the most sincere Hitler supporters"? That's some morality you've got there.

Are you accusing us of being Nazis because we're atheists?

We were talking about Noah's Ark, but this seems to have just come out of the blue.

Did you not notice that I addressed 100% Atheist here?

Nothing you're saying is making any sense.

That doesn't surprise me in the least...

[Star]

There are websites that do that. I alluded to three of them. I'm not here to promote them; but I will mention that (at least) one of them has an excellent search engine -- you can type in the subjects of your objections to your heart's content.

Its not my job to go searching for silly creationist excuses for why nothing about the global flood makes sense. This is a debate. You are arguing that its the best explanation. I gave you a number of reasons why its not. If you cant explain my objections away, then you should concede.

Aren't you part of the universe? Don't you contemplate it?

Im a part of the universe. Im not, however, the universe.

You said the universe contemplates itself. There's no evidence that it does.

[100%atheist]

100% -- surely you understand that every person who has ever lived (with the exception of Enoch and Elijah) has experienced death? Even Our Lord? What you don't understand is how wicked men had become before the Flood. God took away their time; their earthly lives were of a finite character, as all earthly lives are (as a consequence of Adam's sin, and our inherited predisposition to it). That was His judgment against sinful man. There will be another; a final one. You can present your case to the Creator as to why you don't deserve judgment at that time, if you like. I hope you have a good lawyer. Me, I've taken the offer of pardon, and have settled out of court.

Look, I tried and could not find any justification for mass murdering nearly everyone (children included) just because they were somehow "corrupt" by some god's standard. The only way god could be so much troubled by people's actions is if he considered people as own property (aka slaves).

My question to you: Do YOU consider it is moral to kill children if their parents did something horrible? If your answer is yes, then I do not see real difference between Stalin's/Hitler's morals and yours. If your answer is no, then you are morally superior to the Christian God. The choice is yours. (we may also argue if this is a false dichotomy argument, but I would do it in a different thread).

I must point out the irony of claiming moral high ground, however. I wonder where it comes from? Can a man be more moral than an ape? An ape, more than a cow? A cow than an amoeba? Where does "morality" reside in a world composed of indifferent atoms?

Where do you get your morals from? I mean, how do you decide what is moral and what it not? Do you seriously need a book for this?

And isn't it interesting that you claim arbitration regarding moral superiority in a case where 6 million of the descendants of those who believed, and preserved, "the story of the great flood", were systematically executed by those who were "the most sincere Hitler supporters"? That's some morality you've got there.

You sure you don't want to rethink that one?

I am not sure what exactly you mean here (6 million followers etc.)...
However, I am sure my morality is superior to the bible's god morality... at least I don't think it is moral to own other human beings as property. How about you?

[Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

There are websites that do that. I alluded to three of them. I'm not here to promote them; but I will mention that (at least) one of them has an excellent search engine -- you can type in the subjects of your objections to your heart's content.

Its not my job to go searching for silly creationist excuses for why nothing about the global flood makes sense. This is a debate. You are arguing that its the best explanation. I gave you a number of reasons why its not. If you cant explain my objections away, then you should concede.

Nor is it my job to provide an explanation for everything that runs counter to your indoctrination. I have pointed you in a direction where PhD scientists in the fields of biology, genetics, geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, et.al., can provide those explanations -- if you're not interested in exploring them, then I happily concede that you're not.

Volbrigade wrote:
Aren't you part of the universe? Don't you contemplate it?

Im a part of the universe. Im not, however, the universe.

You said the universe contemplates itself. There's no evidence that it does.

Try reading more carefully:

"What there is no plausible explanation for is how matter could have been generated from an explosion caused by nothing, and then proceed to organize itself into a form by which it can can contemplate itself, through limitless random processes."

You are composed of matter, are you not? At least, your physical body is...

Volbrigade wrote:

100% -- surely you understand that every person who has ever lived (with the exception of Enoch and Elijah) has experienced death? Even Our Lord? What you don't understand is how wicked men had become before the Flood. God took away their time; their earthly lives were of a finite character, as all earthly lives are (as a consequence of Adam's sin, and our inherited predisposition to it). That was His judgment against sinful man. There will be another; a final one. You can present your case to the Creator as to why you don't deserve judgment at that time, if you like. I hope you have a good lawyer. Me, I've taken the offer of pardon, and have settled out of court.

Look, I tried and could not find any justification for mass murdering nearly everyone (children included) just because they were somehow "corrupt" by some god's standard. The only way god could be so much troubled by people's actions is if he considered people as own property (aka slaves).

Well, everything is His property, to do with as He sees fit. And it should be our desire to be His "slaves" in one sense -- to be slaves to righteousness. Even better is to be an heir -- a joint heir with His Son, Jesus Christ. But we're getting into the meat of Christian doctrine here. Which I am glad to do; but it might be a bit of a departure from the topic. Still, I'm game -- shall we continue along this course?

My question to you: Do YOU consider it is moral to kill children if their parents did something horrible? If your answer is yes, then I do not see real difference between Stalin's/Hitler's morals and yours. If your answer is no, then you are morally superior to the Christian God. The choice is yours. (we may also argue if this is a false dichotomy argument, but I would do it in a different thread).

I'll be more than happy to answer your question, as soon as you answer any one of mine, below.

Quote:

I must point out the irony of claiming moral high ground, however. I wonder where it comes from? Can a man be more moral than an ape? An ape, more than a cow? A cow than an amoeba? Where does "morality" reside in a world composed of indifferent atoms?

Where do you get your morals from? I mean, how do you decide what is moral and what it not? Do you seriously need a book for this?

I'll answer the ones you ask here. Until you show any inclination to provide answers to mine, I'll pick and choose which of yours to respond to, based on what amuses me.

I get my morals from the only possible source of morals: the transcendent standard provided by God. And I don't need a book for it; but I am eternally grateful that He has provided one.

Quote:

And isn't it interesting that you claim arbitration regarding moral superiority in a case where 6 million of the descendants of those who believed, and preserved, "the story of the great flood", were systematically executed by those who were "the most sincere Hitler supporters"? That's some morality you've got there.

You sure you don't want to rethink that one?

I am not sure what exactly you mean here (6 million followers etc.)...
However, I am sure my morality is superior to the bible's god morality... at least I don't think it is moral to own other human beings as property. How about you?

What I mean is the Jews. Hitler's regime eliminated -- that's too antiseptic a word; they committed genocide against -- 6 million descendants of the very people who believed, and preserved, the story of Noah's Flood as part of their unique legacy. I suppose next I'll have to explain "unique legacy"?

I don't think it's moral to own humans. But I'm not God. I don't have title -- He does.

A question for you: do you think it's moral to own animals? If so, please explain to me, you being an atheist, and as if I were an alien from another world, why that is permissible, but owning other humans is not.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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.

If you'd checked your sources, the most recent fossil for this line of fish (note the specimen's found are not the same species that we have fossils of) is 80 million years old.(ref)

How is this an exception to the fossil record? We have fossils of multiple species of fish from this evolutionary line and this type of fish was assumed to be extinct as we hadn't seen one alive before. Except multiple groups of people had, Indonesia were accustomed to this fish, naming it "king of the sea". Western society had not been in contact with areas that this fish lives and so had no record of it's existence but history of locals in South East Asia and Southern Africa have references to this fish. You might have to demonstrate how this is supposed to be "an exception to the fossil record" as the fossils are all dated correctly and are in the correct strata according to heir dates. I don't understand what point you're trying to make?

[10CC]

I don't think it's moral to own humans. But I'm not God. I don't have title -- He does.

A question for you: do you think it's moral to own animals? If so, please explain to me, you being an atheist, and as if I were an alien from another world, why that is permissible, but owning other humans is not.

Did you read this before posting it?

I feel terribly sorry for you considering the upbringing you have endured.

It's no wonder you are so desperate for a god and another life after this (the only one) one.

Your life would seem to be hell. Have you ever considered ending it and going to the place that you are so eager for?

[100%atheist]

Volbrigade wrote:

Look, I tried and could not find any justification for mass murdering nearly everyone (children included) just because they were somehow "corrupt" by some god's standard. The only way god could be so much troubled by people's actions is if he considered people as own property (aka slaves).

Well, everything is His property, to do with as He sees fit. And it should be our desire to be His "slaves" in one sense -- to be slaves to righteousness. Even better is to be an heir -- a joint heir with His Son, Jesus Christ. But we're getting into the meat of Christian doctrine here. Which I am glad to do; but it might be a bit of a departure from the topic. Still, I'm game -- shall we continue along this course?

This makes me feel sorry for Christians.

My question to you: Do YOU consider it is moral to kill children if their parents did something horrible? If your answer is yes, then I do not see real difference between Stalin's/Hitler's morals and yours. If your answer is no, then you are morally superior to the Christian God. The choice is yours. (we may also argue if this is a false dichotomy argument, but I would do it in a different thread).

I'll be more than happy to answer your question, as soon as you answer any one of mine, below.

I agree.

Quote:

I must point out the irony of claiming moral high ground, however. I wonder where it comes from?

It comes from our brains.

Can a man be more moral than an ape? An ape, more than a cow? A cow than an amoeba? Where does "morality" reside in a world composed of indifferent atoms?

Again, in the brain. And, yes, morality can be better developed in humans more than in other apes. Morality depends largely on social interactions.

Where do you get your morals from? I mean, how do you decide what is moral and what it not? Do you seriously need a book for this?

I'll answer the ones you ask here. Until you show any inclination to provide answers to mine, I'll pick and choose which of yours to respond to, based on what amuses me.

It feels unfair that you want me to answer all your questions, but then you say you will pick and chose which questions of mine to answer. But I can't do much about it.

I get my morals from the only possible source of morals: the transcendent standard provided by God. And I don't need a book for it; but I am eternally grateful that He has provided one.

Could you clarify please. I don't know what is that "the transcendent standard provided by God".

I don't think it's moral to own humans. But I'm not God. I don't have title -- He does.

Hold on. Above you said that you receive your morals from some transcendental source provided by God. That source should obviously be very different from morals, both God's morals and morals commanded by God, which are in the Bible and which tell you nothing about immorality owing other human beings. It also obvious that your "transcendental standard provided by God" had to change not so long time ago, when it was not considered immoral to own humans.
... and I have a big problem with this... for example...
If God changes his "transcendental standard", how do we know that during the WWII that standard did not include the extermination of Jews?

A question for you: do you think it's moral to own animals? If so, please explain to me, you being an atheist, and as if I were an alien from another world, why that is permissible, but owning other humans is not.

I am actually not sure about the morality of owning animals. I own 3 fish and sometimes I feel not so good about it. Considering extraterrestrial life, I extend my moral statement that owning other human beings is immoral to include higher intelligence aliens.

I believe I answered all your questions. Now it is your turn.