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.

[100%atheist]

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?

C'mon, not everyone is as thoughtful as you are. Let him to dig a logic hole as deep as he can. Maybe then he will eventually realize that something is wrong.

[Goat]

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?

I will also point out that the species of Coelacanth we have in the fossil record , while of the same order, is different than the species that are caught today. The ones we have in the fossil record were shallow water fish. The ones that are being caught today are deep water fish.

They are the same order, but not the same species. Just like the fossils of shark we find from 80 million years ago are related in shape, but different than the species of shark we find from back then.

[Volbrigade]

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?

It took about 2-3 responses by you to determine that your posts have nothing to offer in the way of content, 10cc.

Now the question becomes: does this one fall within this site's parameters regarding "civil, respectful" debate or discourse? As I have reported it to the mods, we'll have to let them make that determination.

[Volbrigade]

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?

C'mon, not everyone is as thoughtful as you are. Let him to dig a logic hole as deep as he can. Maybe then he will eventually realize that something is wrong.

Obviously, my thought exercise has pushed 10cc beyond his ability to reason, and into pure emotionalism. Sad to see that you have apparently followed suit.

I now turn to your previous post, to see what it offers in terms of amusement.

[Goat]

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.

Really?? That sounds like the logical fallacy of appeal to personal belief. Before you can show me that 'it's all God's glory', you have to demonstrate that there is a God. How does it 'show God's work', and 'Design', and 'Declares his glory'??

Describe the mechanism for that.

Until you can do that, your 'it's the only thing plausible' is a null statement.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 40 by 100%atheist]

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.

Standard rules of discourse. You are answering my questions with questions. I reserve the right to answer or not answer your subsequent queries at my discretion, based on my inclinations. The official rule is "I asked you first."

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".

Here's an example. You complain that I haven't answered your questions. I respond that you haven't answered mine first. I am appealing to a standard that is transcendent of our own individual, subjective opinions, and hoping that you will recognize that standard.

Morality is not something that "comes from the brain". Then it would be subjective, and relativist. Morality is an order imposed by a transcendent entity. Our views toward it -- that order, that standard -- are thus either in right or wrong relation to it.

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?

This is a legitimate point. And bears discussion.

God does not "change his 'transcendental standard' ". His standard is, and has always been, that we are to be perfect. Perfect in love; perfect in obedience; perfect in communion with His eternal power and glory. That perfection is based on our choice. Adam was made perfect, and became sinful -- sin and death entered into the world -- through his willful disobedience. That ushered in the whole sad saga of human history. Slavery, along with every other evil, is part of that history. The Bible provides rules for slavery -- including of their periodic offer of liberation (frequently declined; the ancient world was a tough place; there were worse things than being the lifelong servant of a Godly master) -- along with rules for most other forms of social discourse.

Regarding the Jews during WWII -- it should be remembered that God singled out the Jews -- the descendants of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob -- to impart The Law to; and for unconditional promises and/or covenants -- some of which have yet to be fulfilled. but they will be. One of those promises is that he will "curse those that curse (them)". You may apply that to the Third Reich as you see fit.

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'm going to have to ask you to clarify here a bit. You are unsure about animal ownership for yourself -- what about for other people? It is immoral for people to own -- and by extension, to eat -- animals? Should vegetarianism be imposed on humans?

I would ask you to think about this, because there is an important principle here. What is it about humans that make ownership of them immoral? What is the distinctive characteristic? What is the difference between, say, a man and an ape? Or an ape and a dog? Or a dog and fish? Etc.

You mention "higher intelligence" aliens. Is intelligence the defining criteria for determining the rights, and rules regarding, other creatures? Do you understand the implications if that is the case? Do you realize who the Nazis began their racial purification projects with?

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

Ditto.

[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.

Really?? That sounds like the logical fallacy of appeal to personal belief. Before you can show me that 'it's all God's glory', you have to demonstrate that there is a God. How does it 'show God's work', and 'Design', and 'Declares his glory'??

Describe the mechanism for that.

Until you can do that, your 'it's the only thing plausible' is a null statement.

If the intricate, detailed, delicate calibrations and balances between forces only recently discovered to exist (e.g., the atomic strong and weak force; gravity; electromagnetism -- literally, hundreds of others; I can provide a list if you like) do not point you in the direction of a Designer that set, and upholds, those calibrations and balances, and who exists outside of the physical universe that they govern, by His sovereignty -- then I'm afraid I can't help you further.

To deny His existence is to deny the fundamental principle: "everything that has a beginning must have a cause."

Those who deny God accept this axiom in all things, with one exception: the universe itself.

That is not only fallacy; it is denial.

In fact, it may properly be called "delusion".

[otseng]

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?

Moderator Warning


Do not make any comments of a personal nature.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

C'mon, not everyone is as thoughtful as you are. Let him to dig a logic hole as deep as he can. Maybe then he will eventually realize that something is wrong.

Obviously, my thought exercise has pushed 10cc beyond his ability to reason, and into pure emotionalism. Sad to see that you have apparently followed suit.

I now turn to your previous post, to see what it offers in terms of amusement.

Moderator Comment

If you see a rule violation, report it and do NOT comment on it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[keithprosser3]

To deny His existence is to deny the fundamental principle: "everything that has a beginning must have a cause."
Those who deny God accept this axiom in all things, with one exception: the universe itself.
That is not only fallacy; it is denial.
In fact, it may properly be called "delusion".

I reject God, but I also reject that I am delusional for doing so. (I also note the crafty insertion of 'that has a beginning' as an attempt to exclude God from the rule or the same reasoning would apply to theism.)

I freely confess the origin of the universe is something I do not understand or comprehend. However that does not mean I feel the slightest inclination to call what ever did bring the universe into being 'God', although what brought the universe into being is certainly at least part-qualified to be called a god.

But that is not really the issue, because the concept of God goes beyond 'that which brought the universe into being'. The God concept I am asked to believe also answers prayers, provides a home for my departed soul, rewards people for performing certain ritual acts and so on and so forth.

The universe was brought into being by X. Now I don't know what X is. But I don't think I am being delusional in questioning whether that X - which was probably something like a quantum fluctuation - also answers prayers and worries whether people abstain from shellfish or not.

I think it more likely to be a delusion that the 'unknown X' that brought the universe into being has anything in common with what the word 'God' implies at all.