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]

[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?

Oh no, Snippy is also self-existent, eternal, and outside our space-time continuum, which he created, because we say so. You have to take our word for it without any evidence.

Do you listen to yourself?

[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?

Oh no, Snippy is also self-existent, eternal, and outside our space-time continuum, which he created, because we say so. You have to take our word for it without any evidence.

Fascinating.

Do you listen to yourself?

Sure. Like when I want to hear someone who makes sense, for a change.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 80 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

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.

Why? Because you don't believe in Snippy? Oh, you of little faith! Snippy himself has told me that he is self-existent, eternal and outside of our space-time continuum. Well...he didn't actually tell me. He revealed it unto me. That is good enough for me, but I can prove it with logic.

1. The creator must be self-existent, eternal and outside of space-time.
2. Snippy is the creator of the universe.
3. Therefore Snippy is self-existent, eternal and outside of space-time.

See how easy that was? I didn't make up this kind of logic. Christian theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas made it up. Here is another one for you, an egregious example of circular reasoning which even clergymen often fall into.

SKEPTIC: How do you know God exists?
BELIEVER: The Bible tells us so.
SKEPTIC: But how do you know the Bible is true?
BELIEVER: The Bible is the word of God.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Using the desired conclusion of an argument as one of the arguments to support it is an absolute logical no-no. Clergymen are so used to blathering this kind of logical nonsense to brain-washed congregations that they themselves forget how absurd it is, and how off-putting it is to anyone not already brain-washed.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 83 by JohnPaul]

Sorry -- silly, boring, and not worth my time.

Do carry on, though.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 83 by JohnPaul]

Sorry -- silly, boring, and not worth my time.

Do carry on, though.

Moderator Warning


The above is not only uncivil and a personal attack, it also violates the forum rules regarding one-line responses. If a post is 'not worth [your] time,' then spending your time to respond, especially in this fashion, is not only inappropriate, but inflammatory.

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.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 83 by JohnPaul]

Sorry -- silly, boring, and not worth my time.

Do carry on, though.

Moderator Warning


The above is not only uncivil and a personal attack, it also violates the forum rules regarding one-line responses. If a post is 'not worth [your] time,' then spending your time to respond, especially in this fashion, is not only inappropriate, but inflammatory.

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.

My apologies.

My intent was to be pointed; not inflammatory, disrespectful, or abusive.

We all have different ideas about what is appropriate, and what is offensive and indelicate. I, for instance, find flippancy in response to serious postings to be rather offensive. I'm not sure that is covered under the board rules, however; and I hereby resolve to endeavor to comply with those more faithfully.

I must point out, in my own defense, that my objectionable response was two-lines, not one.

And now, I would like to provide the response to JohnPaul's post that I should have made:

If your argument against the existence of God is based on whether or not your pet cat is God --

That is a tacit and de facto admission that you have no argument.

I await your concession.

God awaits your reconciliation.

[micatala]

My purpose is only to defend the claims of Christianity, in whatever small way that I have been given the provision to do so. Argument may lead some towards the reality of faith in Christ -- which is the ultimate reality: but faith itself, like salvation, and our very biological lives, is a gift from God.

I would point out that you are not defending the claims of Christianity, you are defending your own opinion or understanding of your own beliefs as a Christian.

I am a Christian and do not see many of your claims as necessary for Christianity. Some of them are inconsistent with my understanding of Christianity.


For example, there is no need to believe in a literal global flood as a Christian. Given that the overwhelming evidence shows such a flood never happened, that is a good thing in my view.

I will point out that your claim regarding more primitive forms being in the lower layers because they were less capable of fleeing the flood simply does not hold water. Trilobites, for example, would have no need to flee the flood, being water creatures. Thus, trilobites should only appear above all creatures and plants that died in the flood. They should only appear above dinosaurs, for example. They should also appear above plants that were buried in the flood sediments.

However, to give but one example, trilobites are never found above flowering plants.

Would you assert that flowering plants did not exist before the flood, or were they among the life forms that were agile enough to escape the lower levels of the flood?

[Volbrigade]

My purpose is only to defend the claims of Christianity, in whatever small way that I have been given the provision to do so. Argument may lead some towards the reality of faith in Christ -- which is the ultimate reality: but faith itself, like salvation, and our very biological lives, is a gift from God.

I would point out that you are not defending the claims of Christianity, you are defending your own opinion or understanding of your own beliefs as a Christian.

I am a Christian and do not see many of your claims as necessary for Christianity. Some of them are inconsistent with my understanding of Christianity.


For example, there is no need to believe in a literal global flood as a Christian. Given that the overwhelming evidence shows such a flood never happened, that is a good thing in my view.

Actually, the overwhelming evidence is in favor of a global flood.

I am very happy that you are a fellow believer. I endeavor to ask you a question: what is your belief in Jesus Christ as your savior, and the redeemer of mankind, based on?

Do you accept the Bible's claims on his behalf? Do you believe that He is God incarnate? That He submitted to death in order to pay our debt of sin? That He was raised on the third day, in declaration of His status as the Son of God?

Assuming that you do; why do you believe those things, but you disbelieve the Bible in other areas? When does the Bible start telling the truth?

I invite you to consider reading my essay on this site titled "Grace and Truth"? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... hp?t=24044

I will point out that your claim regarding more primitive forms being in the lower layers because they were less capable of fleeing the flood simply does not hold water. Trilobites, for example, would have no need to flee the flood, being water creatures. Thus, trilobites should only appear above all creatures and plants that died in the flood. They should only appear above dinosaurs, for example. They should also appear above plants that were buried in the flood sediments.

However, to give but one example, trilobites are never found above flowering plants.

Would you assert that flowering plants did not exist before the flood, or were they among the life forms that were agile enough to escape the lower levels of the flood?

Of course more mobile (less primitive) creatures would've sought to escape the rising flood waters, when possible. The mystery with trilobites is not their position in the fossil record; but, like all sea creatures, that they were fossilized at all. Slow and gradual burial and mineralization of whole specimens does not work for them, any more than for land creatures. Like octopi and squid, the only explanation is rapid burial and encasement, produced by massive sedimentation due to a cataclysmic event.

The fossil record is far better explained by a global flood catastrophe than by "millions of years" of death and disease before the advent of Eden. Whatever inconsistencies there may be are subject to explanation; unlike the problems with the evolutionary paradigm (lack of erosion between sedimentary strata; undulating layers deposited over millions of years; transverse fossils (e.g., tree trunks that intersect several "geologic layers"); soft tissue discovered in dinosaur bones; etc., etc., etc.

Not to mention the biological impossibility of "uphill" evolution to explain how microbes turned into men.

If you care to study the issue in depth, you will find that as a Christian, The Bible can be trusted to be the infallible word of God; expressing truth in regard to all things, both "earthly" and "heavenly".

There is no reason to compromise its authority in regard to either science, theology, or faith.

Such compromise always leads away from truth, and into error.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 83 by JohnPaul]

Sorry -- silly, boring, and not worth my time.

Do carry on, though.

Moderator Warning


The above is not only uncivil and a personal attack, it also violates the forum rules regarding one-line responses. If a post is 'not worth [your] time,' then spending your time to respond, especially in this fashion, is not only inappropriate, but inflammatory.

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.

My apologies.

My intent was to be pointed; not inflammatory, disrespectful, or abusive.

We all have different ideas about what is appropriate, and what is offensive and indelicate. I, for instance, find flippancy in response to serious postings to be rather offensive. I'm not sure that is covered under the board rules, however; and I hereby resolve to endeavor to comply with those more faithfully.

I must point out, in my own defense, that my objectionable response was two-lines, not one.

And now, I would like to provide the response to JohnPaul's post that I should have made:

If your argument against the existence of God is based on whether or not your pet cat is God --

That is a tacit and de facto admission that you have no argument.

I await your concession.

God awaits your reconciliation.

I accept your apology for your "pointed" response, and I apologize in advance for replying that it sounds more like the squealing of a stuck pig to me. I understand that in a mixed society, we are required to be respectful of religion, but that doesn't mean we must passively accept any nonsense it wants to peddle to us. I am no more required to accept your vindictive tribal wargod than you are required to accept my Snippy.

I understand that you believe yourself to be ordained to enlighten and "save" the rest of us, but that belief sounds a little like blasphemy to me. Does your God really need you to "interpret" his words for him?.

I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I accept the possibility of some unseen force in the universe, but I am very sure it is not the primitive tribal god of the Bible, invented by priests to secure their power and justify the atrocities commited by the tribe. Your Jesus was a good man, but Christianity is an advertising stunt designed to frighten people into joining their church to be "saved" from their invention of Original Sin. The Virgin Birth and Empty Tomb stories were tacked on because no "god" could be without such miraculous attributes.

[Peter]

Of course more mobile (less primitive) creatures would've sought to escape the rising flood waters, when possible. The mystery with trilobites is not their position in the fossil record; but, like all sea creatures, that they were fossilized at all. Slow and gradual burial and mineralization of whole specimens does not work for them, any more than for land creatures. Like octopi and squid, the only explanation is rapid burial and encasement, produced by massive sedimentation due to a cataclysmic event.

You're an animal behavior, flood and fossilization expert. It doesn't seem odd to you that mobile trilobites were unable to climb above flowering plants as the flood rose? As an expert, what is your theory for this fact?

The fossil record is far better explained by a global flood catastrophe than by "millions of years" of death and disease before the advent of Eden. Whatever inconsistencies there may be are subject to explanation; unlike the problems with the evolutionary paradigm (lack of erosion between sedimentary strata; undulating layers deposited over millions of years; transverse fossils (e.g., tree trunks that intersect several "geologic layers"); soft tissue discovered in dinosaur bones; etc., etc., etc.

Not to mention the biological impossibility of "uphill" evolution to explain how microbes turned into men.

You're also an expert in geology and evolution. Impressive.

If you care to study the issue in depth, you will find that as a Christian, The Bible can be trusted to be the infallible word of God; expressing truth in regard to all things, both "earthly" and "heavenly".

There is no reason to compromise its authority in regard to either science, theology, or faith.

Such compromise always leads away from truth, and into error.

Your faith in spite of the near totality of modern science is staggering. How do you do it? Do you consider modern science the work of the devil? If so, how is it you're using a computer?

Why do you think science gets almost everything wrong?