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 looked into some of these claims by "creation scientists".

They're hilarious! Great imaginations, guys.

Get this, volcanoes erupted, and sent all the animals flying around the globe to the Ark, and amazingly, they all survived! Then, another volcano eruption sent them flying back, safe and sound.

Oh, thank you volcanoes!

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 71 by Star]

Sounds a little far-fetched. More likely, the same aliens who seeded the planet with life in the first place swooped back and delivered them (they knew from their time machines that The Flood was about to occur, and wanted to preserve their experiment).

I now return you to your regularly scheduled ignorance.

[no evidence no belief]

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.

Scientific analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the context of the Koran as “propositional truth� in order to arrive at the legitimate facts of nature, which is Allah's creation

Scientific analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the context of the Olympic Gods as “propositional truth� in order to arrive at the legitimate facts of nature, which is Zeus's creation

What possible justification can you present to look at the facts of nature through the prism of one set on nonsense superstitions about an invisible man in the sky, rather than a different set of nonsense superstitions about an invisible man in the sky?

[JohnPaul]

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.

Scientific analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the context of the Koran as “propositional truth� in order to arrive at the legitimate facts of nature, which is Allah's creation

Scientific analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the context of the Olympic Gods as “propositional truth� in order to arrive at the legitimate facts of nature, which is Zeus's creation

What possible justification can you present to look at the facts of nature through the prism of one set on nonsense superstitions about an invisible man in the sky, rather than a different set of nonsense superstitions about an invisible man in the sky?

What do you mean, "Man in the sky"??? Any Wiccan Witch will tell you that the Goddess did it, but I have used Aquinas' famous "First Cause" logic to prove beyond any possible doubt that my pet cat Snippy created the universe.

[Volbrigade]

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.

Scientific analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the context of the Koran as “propositional truth� in order to arrive at the legitimate facts of nature, which is Allah's creation

Scientific analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the context of the Olympic Gods as “propositional truth� in order to arrive at the legitimate facts of nature, which is Zeus's creation

What possible justification can you present to look at the facts of nature through the prism of one set on nonsense superstitions about an invisible man in the sky, rather than a different set of nonsense superstitions about an invisible man in the sky?

It is marginal as to whether your post merits a response of any kind. However, as I got an email notification in regard to it, and I'm here already --

What the heck.

You ask for "what possible justification...?" I respond "on the basis of truth".

Now, regarding the three propositions cited: the Bible, the Koran, Greek Mythology -- they are contradictory to one another. Ergo, while they may all be false, they cannot all be true.

Do any of them satisfy the definitional requirements of truth?

Yes. The Bible does.

In what way(s)? That is a matter for discussion, obviously; and has been for 2,000 years. That discussion has yielded an amazing body of knowledge and argument, which you may easily (in our information age) avail yourself of, if you become interested in anything other than expressing your own rather rank, derived, and puerile opinion.

We can start (once again, endlessly ) here:

At bottom, there are two general explanations as to how the reality that we inhabit (cosmos, universe, nature, space-time continuum -- any term you choose is acceptable to me) came into existence:

either it is the random product of unguided, undesigned, mindless forces (that have not yet been identified, and may never be):

or it is the act of an agent that transcends our reality, who exists in a dimensionality outside of, and transcendent to, space and time.

Operating on the knowledge that our universe had a beginning (do you need an explanation?), and the unavoidable axiom that "everything that has a beginning must have a cause..."

The latter option is clearly the only plausible one.

From there -- the acceptance of that premise, that truth --

we can proceed to investigate and discuss the attributes of this Creator, and whether the claims made that The Bible is His written revealed truth to us have any validity.

It is an exciting investigation. The most important thing in the world.

Personally, I hope you're NOT interested in such discussion. I have found them to be extremely time-consuming; and that time to be largely wasted, except for any collateral enlightenment and edification to those who have already accepted His truth, that might be lurking in observance of them.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 75 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

Operating on the knowledge that our universe had a beginning (do you need an explanation?), and the unavoidable axiom that "everything that has a beginning must have a cause..."

Yes, I agree. St. Thomas Aquinas used that logic to prove the existence of his God. Now I have used his exact same First Cause logic to prove beyond any possible doubt that my pet cat Snippy created the universe. Pay attention now! This requires some deep thought.

1. Everything has a cause.
2. An infinite regression of causes is impossible.
3. Therefore there must have been a First Cause.
4. And this we call Snippy.

All hail Snippy!!!

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 75 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

Operating on the knowledge that our universe had a beginning (do you need an explanation?), and the unavoidable axiom that "everything that has a beginning must have a cause..."

Yes, I agree. St. Thomas Aquinas used that logic to prove the existence of his God. Now I have used his exact same First Cause logic to prove beyond any possible doubt that my pet cat Snippy created the universe. Pay attention now! This requires some deep thought.

1. Everything has a cause.
2. An infinite regression of causes is impossible.
3. Therefore there must have been a First Cause.
4. And this we call Snippy.

All hail Snippy!!!

Awww. That's really cute.

Have you ever attempted to have an adult conversation? You might want to try it some time.

Why don't you practice having a few -- I would encourage you to start with really simple topics -- try "chirality" -- with some willing partners, get a little experience; and then check back with me some time in the future?

No hurry...

[dianaiad]

Awww. That's really cute.

Have you ever attempted to have an adult conversation? You might want to try it some time.

Why don't you practice having a few -- I would encourage you to start with really simple topics -- try "chirality" -- with some willing partners, get a little experience; and then check back with me some time in the future?

No hurry...

Moderator Warning


Snide ,insulting personal comments are not acceptable. Please address the content of the post, not the author of it.


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.

[Star]

[Replying to post 75 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

Operating on the knowledge that our universe had a beginning (do you need an explanation?), and the unavoidable axiom that "everything that has a beginning must have a cause..."

Yes, I agree. St. Thomas Aquinas used that logic to prove the existence of his God. Now I have used his exact same First Cause logic to prove beyond any possible doubt that my pet cat Snippy created the universe. Pay attention now! This requires some deep thought.

1. Everything has a cause.
2. An infinite regression of causes is impossible.
3. Therefore there must have been a First Cause.
4. And this we call Snippy.

All hail Snippy!!!

Awww. That's really cute.

Have you ever attempted to have an adult conversation? You might want to try it some time.

Why don't you practice having a few -- I would encourage you to start with really simple topics -- try "chirality" -- with some willing partners, get a little experience; and then check back with me some time in the future?

No hurry...

JohnPaul isn't try to show that his cat Snippy created the universe, which would obviously be quite silly. He's demonstrating that we can apply your logic to "deduce" that the creator/s of the universe is anything we say, which helps illustrate the flaw in your logic.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 75 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

Operating on the knowledge that our universe had a beginning (do you need an explanation?), and the unavoidable axiom that "everything that has a beginning must have a cause..."

Yes, I agree. St. Thomas Aquinas used that logic to prove the existence of his God. Now I have used his exact same First Cause logic to prove beyond any possible doubt that my pet cat Snippy created the universe. Pay attention now! This requires some deep thought.

1. Everything has a cause.
2. An infinite regression of causes is impossible.
3. Therefore there must have been a First Cause.
4. And this we call Snippy.

All hail Snippy!!!

Awww. That's really cute.

Have you ever attempted to have an adult conversation? You might want to try it some time.

Why don't you practice having a few -- I would encourage you to start with really simple topics -- try "chirality" -- with some willing partners, get a little experience; and then check back with me some time in the future?

No hurry...

JohnPaul isn't try to show that his cat Snippy created the universe, which would obviously be quite silly. He's demonstrating that we can apply your logic to "deduce" that the creator/s of the universe is anything we say, which helps illustrate the flaw in your logic.

Well, except that, you know...

Snippy would have to be capable of creating a universe; designing and ordering it, etc., in order for the analogy to work. So, he would have to be self-existent, eternal, and outside of our space-time continuum, which he created.

I mean -- there's that.

Well, who knows -- maybe he is, and has just been keeping it from his owner. Cats are like that, y'know...

Do guys even listen to yourselves?