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.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 90 by Peter]

Thank you, gentlemen (JohnPaul, Peter -- so deliciously ironic as to have passed beyond irony, and folded back upon itself into straighforwardness ) -- you are making this fun again!

I don't have time for a lengthy response at the moment. Suffice it to say, I find both of you gentleman's views to be hopelessly (I used that term advisedly ) 19th-century and outdated.

JohnPaul, your assessment of Jehovah God sounds like those of a malcontented Marxist in a German garret during the Hohenzollern dynasty. Or Richard Dawkins'. Which is the same thing.

Peter: if you were more aware of the methods and purpose of science, you would perhaps be able to come to the obvious conclusion that evolutionary theory has contributed NOTHING to operational science.

It is a religious understanding of the world predicated on the belief that there is no God. Nothing more, nothing less. It requires that "nothing + time + chance = everything"; that the complexity and obvious design of the information need for first life, even in the simplest form, arose by random processes (a self-contradiction; thus, fallacy); and that that initial life form increased in information within the genome in order to climb uphill into the endless variety and complexity of life forms we see today: including, in the case of man, inventing of itself the ability to think and reason and feel empathy.

It is, once liberated from the lifelong indoctrination required to accept it, easily seen for the nonsense it is. Impossible nonsense, at that.

And it has nothing to do with the actual science that has produced smart phones, satellites, MRIs, and Hi-Def TVs.

Why do some many scientists accept it?

Because they are quick to accept the findings of other scientists outside of their fields, once they have been vetted by others in those fields.

In the case of the evolutionary fraud, those findings are approved by those whose careers are dependent on the propagation of it, and are accepted with prejudice by their peers in other fields.

In short: Most scientists believe in evolution, because most scientists believe in evolution.

When confronted with the unalterable facts as they stand, honest and open-minded scientists quickly abandon the evolutionary myth. Many come to faith in God (first), and Jesus Christ as a result.

Because all truth leads inevitably to Jesus Christ, the author of it.

[Peter]

[Replying to post 91 by Volbrigade]

Incredibly, you are wrong about everything. I won't even attempt debate, I don't have the energy. Be well.

One thing though. Science doesn't presuppose the existence of anything. It simply works with what can be shown to exist. Contrary to what you believe, this is a strength not a weakness. Personally, I wish science would presuppose the existence of Leprechauns because they're my favorite imaginary beings but alas they came to the game rather late so there are many more imaginary beings in line ahead of them.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 91 by Volbrigade]

Incredibly, you are wrong about everything. I won't even attempt debate, I don't have the energy. Be well.

One thing though. Science doesn't presuppose the existence of anything. It simply works with what can be shown to exist. Contrary to what you believe, this is a strength not a weakness. Personally, I wish science would presuppose the existence of Leprechauns because they're my favorite imaginary beings but alas they came to the game rather late so there are many more imaginary beings in line ahead of them.

Your leprechauns are fine, but I suspect their pot of gold is a myth. Anyway, I prefer the Goddess. My wife and I were married by a Wiccan Priestess in Washington state, where Wicca is a legally recognized religion. She told me that if I would find an old oak tree, go to it on a night of the full moon, stand under it with the light of the moon shining on me through its branches, then kneel and wait, the Goddess would come to me. I am almost afraid to try it.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 91 by Volbrigade]

Incredibly, you are wrong about everything. I won't even attempt debate, I don't have the energy.

You are wise here.

Be well.

Thank you. And you, as well.

One thing though. Science doesn't presuppose the existence of anything.

Agreed. That's why I referred to Evolution as a "religion". It is a set of presuppositions and assumptions. It has nothing to do with operational science. Still less, with the wonders of technology.

It simply works with what can be shown to exist. Contrary to what you believe, this is a strength not a weakness. Personally, I wish science would presuppose the existence of Leprechauns because they're my favorite imaginary beings but alas they came to the game rather late so there are many more imaginary beings in line ahead of them.

But aren't leprechauns fun, precisely because they're imaginary?

It is important to keep our eye on the ball here.

We really have two explanations for why anything exists at all. Either the creative act of a transcendent entity, or the action of some unknown, random forces.

Given the enormous complexity, order, design, and synchronicity that we are confronted with, in both living and non-living things --

The former is the ONLY acceptable possibility.

And that is the truth upon which all science, and all presuppositions, must rest.

And so should you.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 91 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

It is a religious understanding of the world predicated on the belief that there is no God. Nothing more, nothing less. It requires that "nothing + time + chance = everything"; that the complexity and obvious design of the information need for first life, even in the simplest form, arose by random processes (a self-contradiction; thus, fallacy); and that that initial life form increased in information within the genome in order to climb uphill into the endless variety and complexity of life forms we see today: including, in the case of man, inventing of itself the ability to think and reason and feel empathy.

Wow! But your rantings against science would be much more credible if you first gave us a technical explanation of the creation process your God used. I challenge you to do so. Please remember that the Bible is not accepted as authoritative in this forum. Did your God simply wave a magic wand, like Harry Potter?
Incidentally, could it be that your name is really Voldemort, and you are an expert on waving magic wands?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 91 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

It is a religious understanding of the world predicated on the belief that there is no God. Nothing more, nothing less. It requires that "nothing + time + chance = everything"; that the complexity and obvious design of the information need for first life, even in the simplest form, arose by random processes (a self-contradiction; thus, fallacy); and that that initial life form increased in information within the genome in order to climb uphill into the endless variety and complexity of life forms we see today: including, in the case of man, inventing of itself the ability to think and reason and feel empathy.

Wow! But your rantings against science would be much more credible if you first gave us a technical explanation of the creation process your God used. I challenge you to do so. Please remember that the Bible is not accepted as authoritative in this forum. Did your God simply wave a magic wand, like Harry Potter?
Incidentally, could it be that your name is really Voldemort, and you are an expert on waving magic wands?

I find your flippancy of tone to be deeply offensive, distracting, fattening, and acne-producing. And racist.

I am reporting you to the moderators forthwith, with a recommendation that you be banished to cyber Siberia.

Silly man (I would say, "silly boy", but a peek at your profile precludes such nomenclature. Do you like alliteration?).

"Magic Wands" are yesterday's fabrications by way of explanation of the puzzle of existence. And Harry Potter is entertainment for troubled teens.

All scientists now accept that once there was nothing. But even nothing is subject to the needs of flatulence, which is the only universally agreed to phenomenon; it's mental form being the most abundant substance on the internet. Whateverists (those who believe in "something", "anything" (e.g., "the goddess"), "whatever" -- anything but the truth) are the primary source of that abundance.

And so, our primal Nothing yielded to necessity; and out of the confines of its non-existent lower digestive tract sprang light, color, and hydrogen atoms.

These, over time, coalesced like a good casserole into the illusion of order and design exhibited in our present amazing space-time continuum.

All hail Nothing! (otherwise known as "Snippy") Raise your glasses!

Only... where is Nothing now...?

Have you seen it?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 91 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

It is a religious understanding of the world predicated on the belief that there is no God. Nothing more, nothing less. It requires that "nothing + time + chance = everything"; that the complexity and obvious design of the information need for first life, even in the simplest form, arose by random processes (a self-contradiction; thus, fallacy); and that that initial life form increased in information within the genome in order to climb uphill into the endless variety and complexity of life forms we see today: including, in the case of man, inventing of itself the ability to think and reason and feel empathy.

Wow! But your rantings against science would be much more credible if you first gave us a technical explanation of the creation process your God used. I challenge you to do so. Please remember that the Bible is not accepted as authoritative in this forum. Did your God simply wave a magic wand, like Harry Potter?
Incidentally, could it be that your name is really Voldemort, and you are an expert on waving magic wands?

I find your flippancy of tone to be deeply offensive, distracting, fattening, and acne-producing. And racist.

I am reporting you to the moderators forthwith, with a recommendation that you be banished to cyber Siberia.

Silly man (I would say, "silly boy", but a peek at your profile precludes such nomenclature. Do you like alliteration?).

"Magic Wands" are yesterday's fabrications by way of explanation of the puzzle of existence. And Harry Potter is entertainment for troubled teens.

All scientists now accept that once there was nothing. But even nothing is subject to the needs of flatulence, which is the only universally agreed to phenomenon; it's mental form being the most abundant substance on the internet. Whateverists (those who believe in "something", "anything" (e.g., "the goddess"), "whatever" -- anything but the truth) are the primary source of that abundance.

And so, our primal Nothing yielded to necessity; and out of the confines of its non-existent lower digestive tract sprang light, color, and hydrogen atoms.

These, over time, coalesced like a good casserole into the illusion of order and design exhibited in our present amazing space-time continuum.

All hail Nothing! (otherwise known as "Snippy") Raise your glasses!

Only... where is Nothing now...?

Have you seen it?

Snippy finds your impudence amusing, but has promised to conjure up the demon Belial to haunt your dark bedroom. If you hear scratching claws or deep breathing in the hallway tonight, I advise you not to get up to investigate. Incidentally, Belial is a Christian demon, so you two should get along. It is said that Christians are determined to prove the existence of Satan by behaving like him.

EDIT - Racist? I looked over my posts and didn't find anything racist in them. Did I overlook something?

[Wootah]

[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.

Hi JP,

It seems like you have an awful straw man in your arsenal.

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.

Is a circular argument but is also a straw man.

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

Which is both how we work out what is true in the secular world and how the bible suggests we work out what is true.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

It's up to you whether you wish to keep your straw man but this is probably why Volbrigade initially dismissed your post rather dismantle it.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 98 by Wootah]

Wootah wrote:

t's up to you whether you wish to keep your straw man but this is probably why Volbrigade initially dismissed your post rather dismantle it.

Straw man? How is the falsity of Christian doctrine a straw man in this thread?
Dismantle it? I was simply throwing Christian logic at him. Is he going to dismantle that?

EDIT - Incidentally, I noticed that Volbrigade used the word "magisterial" in his OP to refer to Christian scripture. I find that word defined as "having great authority." May I respectfully point out that it may have authority within the confines of your church, but it has absolutely zero, nada, zilch authority outside of it, or in this subforum either. I find his use of that word here to be intolerably offensive, and even inflammatory under forum rules.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 98 by Wootah]

Wootah wrote:

t's up to you whether you wish to keep your straw man but this is probably why Volbrigade initially dismissed your post rather dismantle it.

Straw man? How is the falsity of Christian doctrine a straw man in this thread?
Dismantle it? I was simply throwing Christian logic at him. Is he going to dismantle that?

EDIT - Incidentally, I noticed that Volbrigade used the word "magisterial" in his OP to refer to Christian scripture. I find that word defined as "having great authority." May I respectfully point out that it may have authority within the confines of your church, but it has absolutely zero, nada, zilch authority outside of it, or in this subforum either. I find his use of that word here to be intolerably offensive, and even inflammatory under forum rules.

Please accept my apology. I truly beg your pardon. Did I use "magisterial" in the sense of "having great authority"? If so, I misspoke.

I meant it in the sense of having "ruling authority." As in, "the Bible has ruling authority over science." Not the other way 'round.

That, of course, is merely the statement of an axiomatic and unalterable FACT.

Which, I believe, while statements to the contrary are tolerated (obviously, as your posts attest), they are not (I think) required. And factual statements, surely, are not yet subject to punishment (though increasingly to persecution).

Now -- as you have made the ad hoc assertion that Snippy is Lord and Creator of the cosmos; I likewise assert that I am henceforth racially Christian.

Any denigrations of my racial identity by you, or anyone else, are thus now a violation not only of board rules, but constitute incidents of hate speech.

I suggest you watch it.