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.

[Goat]

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.

Please support this claim..What do you think are it's 'presuppositions and assumptions'?? What is your definition of 'operational science''??

Your statement does not make sense to me.

[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.

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.

I see that your sense of humor is greater and certainly more subtle than my own. That is unusual among Christians. Perhaps we have something in common after all.

[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.

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

There is not much to say about this quickly other than it is completely false. The overwhelming physical evidence is against a global flood.

You might consider the work of Hugh Ross, another evangelical Christian and an astronomer. He does a pretty good job of debunking a global flood from both a scientific and a theological perspective.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-waters-of-the-flood

http://www.reasons.org/articles/noah%E2 ... s-eye-view

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?

I accept these tenets, but I allow for possible non-literal interpretations of some of these.

I will point out their is ample precedence in the Bible for that. Consider John Ch. 6 where Jesus talks about feeding his flesh and blood to the crowd. They take him literally. Jesus later instructs his disciples that the literal interpretation is wrong.

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?

Inerrancy is not theologically or textually defensible in my view. Consider the inconsistencies in the post-resurrection narratives between the gospels. In Luke, Jesus commands the disciples to stay in Jerusalem, and based on that text and Acts (also by Luke) that is what they did.

Matthew and Mark have Jesus commanding them through the women to go to Galilee, which they do.

It is hard to see how both can literally be true.

There are also inconsistencies in who met Jesus after the resurrection.

I don't think most books of the Bible were ever meant to be taken strictly literally.




I will try to address the rest of your post later.

[Volbrigade]

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.

Please support this claim..What do you think are it's 'presuppositions and assumptions'?? What is your definition of 'operational science''??

Your statement does not make sense to me.

The primary presupposition is that God does not exist. The secondary presupposition is uniformitarianism -- "the present is the key to the past". I.e., 'we do not observe creatures evolving from one form, or kind, into another; we do not observe deposits of sediment forming layers of rock; we do not observe complete animal specimens mineralizing into fossils: ergo, these things must have happened very slowly and gradually, over vast amounts of deep time.'

It is a fallacious argument, that is contradiction to the true Biblical account.

Operational science is science that is measurable and repeatable through direct observation. It is what yields technology; it results are directly verifiable. E.g., a laser either works, or it doesn't.

Evolution is entirely dependent on forensic science; its conclusions determined by its starting assumptions.

Hope that helps.

[Goat]

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.

Please support this claim..What do you think are it's 'presuppositions and assumptions'?? What is your definition of 'operational science''??

Your statement does not make sense to me.

The primary presupposition is that God does not exist. The secondary presupposition is uniformitarianism -- "the present is the key to the past". I.e., 'we do not observe creatures evolving from one form, or kind, into another; we do not observe deposits of sediment forming layers of rock; we do not observe complete animal specimens mineralizing into fossils: ergo, these things must have happened very slowly and gradually, over vast amounts of deep time.'

It is a fallacious argument, that is contradiction to the true Biblical account.

Operational science is science that is measurable and repeatable through direct observation. It is what yields technology; it results are directly verifiable. E.g., a laser either works, or it doesn't.

Evolution is entirely dependent on forensic science; its conclusions determined by its starting assumptions.

Hope that helps.

Well, where does it do that?? It does not make an assumption about God, one way or another. Does a plumber make an assumption about the origin of water? Does an electriction worry about the origin of electrons??

It does use what is know as 'Methodological naturalism', but it makes no assumption about the existence or non-existence of God what so ever.

So, you entire thesis is flawed and a straw man.

Hope that helps..

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 103 by micatala]

There is not much to say about this quickly other than it is completely false. The overwhelming physical evidence is against a global flood.

You might consider the work of Hugh Ross, another evangelical Christian and an astronomer. He does a pretty good job of debunking a global flood from both a scientific and a theological perspective.

I am familiar with Dr. Ross, a good scientist and a good Christian; albeit one who is laboring under inaccurate premises. I recommend that you NOT read Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's tour de force dismantling of Dr. Ross' position, "Refuting Compromise". Unless, that is, you wish to be disabused of Ross' erroneous positions.

I accept these tenets, but I allow for possible non-literal interpretations of some of these.

I will point out their is ample precedence in the Bible for that. Consider John Ch. 6 where Jesus talks about feeding his flesh and blood to the crowd. They take him literally. Jesus later instructs his disciples that the literal interpretation is wrong.

There have been upwards of 200 discrete and distinct forms of speech and expression that have been catalogued from Scripture; from the well-known ones (e.g., symbol, metaphor, simile, hyperbole) to some that are rather exotic, the names of which I can't recall as I type this.

A proper understanding of these forms, and their usages, is essential for the deepest and truest possible understanding of the text. As C. S. Lewis famously put it: "when He told us to be 'gentle as doves', He didn't mean for us to grow wings."

Inerrancy is not theologically or textually defensible in my view. Consider the inconsistencies in the post-resurrection narratives between the gospels. In Luke, Jesus commands the disciples to stay in Jerusalem, and based on that text and Acts (also by Luke) that is what they did.

Matthew and Mark have Jesus commanding them through the women to go to Galilee, which they do.

It is hard to see how both can literally be true.

There are also inconsistencies in who met Jesus after the resurrection.

I don't think most books of the Bible were ever meant to be taken strictly literally.

I agree. That is, I think only the passages that were intended to be literal should be taken literally.

The inconsistencies in (e.g.) the Resurrection accounts actually serve to underscore the veracity of the texts. If they agreed on every detail, that would indicate collusion. When one account describes one angel at the tomb, that does not exclude the presence of two.

Actually, in the Resurrection account, you have a narrative that best yields the entire picture when you put them all together, as has been done by diligent scholars.

The dominical directive you referred to in Luke is a good call! It's amazing how you can study the text for years, and continually turn up new wrinkles such as that, which had escaped me. It might well be a 'remez"; which the rabbis referred to as a 'hint of deeper meaning'; 'dig here, there is treasure'. They are sprinkled all through Scripture; the first "easter eggs"?

I'll have to look into that one more. At first blush, I'll offer this, by way of explanation.

We know that the disciples did not always do what they were told -- especially Peter. In fact, it appears that it was only toward the end of Jesus' resurrected manifestation that Peter was 'redeemed', or reaffirmed as an Apostle. That occurred in Galilee, and is recorded in John 21. And it involved only a partial group of the 12 (now 11) -- seven, to be precise.

That will make a great study. "Why (at least some of) the Disciples not obey Jesus' directive to stay in Jerusalem?" Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I assure you, there is an enlightening answer to that question. If there is one thing you can be assured of -- more certain than your own real name -- it's that the Biblical text is inspired and infallible; its every detail of language and structure exhibiting meticulous, deliberate design: idiomatically, structurally, symbolically, and in its usage of macro- and micro-codes.

(EDIT -- in response to Goat): I just noticed your response, upon my submission of this post.

Not making an assumption either way about the existence of God is a tacit assumption that He does not exist.

If you cannot grasp, or accept that, then I am sorry. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[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.

I see that your sense of humor is greater and certainly more subtle than my own. That is unusual among Christians. Perhaps we have something in common after all.

Thank you, sir. A generous concession.

It may interest you to know that many of us Christians were once "ordinary people", possessed of senses of humor, and participants in all kinds of behavior that they now consider anything BUT Christian.

I happen to identify strongly with a great Christian teacher who says "we all have a spiritual gift. Mine is sarcasm."

In all seriousness, though, I must say this to you:

We have a great deal in common.

We are both sinners by nature. Because of that, we are both in a position of estrangement from the God who created our space-time continuum; who is infinitely more frighteningly powerful than the event horizon of a black hole; more awesomely glorious than a super nova. These things -- the entire creation, which science is just a method of determining the nature of -- merely "declare His glory".

AND YET: He is more gentle, more loving, more caring, more nurturing, than the tenderest love of a mother for her young babe.

And He has gone to the most extreme measures possible; the most extreme imaginable, in order to rectify our position with Him. He is willing to clothe you in His righteousness. All you have to do -- all you CAN do -- is accept that gift. The medium of exchange is faith.

Fraudulent TV preachers and religious shysters may only want your money. But He wants something much more: He wants YOU. And He will conform you to His image, ultimately -- a form of eternal hyperdimensionality that we can only speculate in regard to (though we have a glimpse of it in our risen Lord), if you will allow Him to. It is your choice.

It will, in the end, be either 'His will be done' -- or yours.

Woe unto those that choose the latter.

There -- I have discharged my duty. What you do with the information is up to you: rather, it is between you and Him.

I pray you choose wisely.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 104 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

It is a fallacious argument, that is contradiction to the true Biblical account.

Operational science is science that is measurable and repeatable through direct observation. It is what yields technology; it results are directly verifiable. E.g., a laser either works, or it doesn't.

Your own very big presupposition here is that the Bible is true. You have absolutely no evidence of that except your own belief in it, and that would not be accepted as evidence in any court, or in this forum. You dismiss forensic evidence as inadequate and fallible for evolution, yet you resort to it and depend on it wholly in your analysis of the Bible.

I suppose you could say that Christianity is "operational science" because you have direct and repeated observation that prayer either works or it doesn't. I certainly agree with that.

Your presentations here so far have been nothing more than in-your-face narrow Evangelical preaching. Mocking them may be fun, but I believe such preaching is forbidden by forum rules. But do carry on!

[Goat]

[Replying to post 103 by micatala]

There is not much to say about this quickly other than it is completely false. The overwhelming physical evidence is against a global flood.

You might consider the work of Hugh Ross, another evangelical Christian and an astronomer. He does a pretty good job of debunking a global flood from both a scientific and a theological perspective.

I am familiar with Dr. Ross, a good scientist and a good Christian; albeit one who is laboring under inaccurate premises. I recommend that you NOT read Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's tour de force dismantling of Dr. Ross' position, "Refuting Compromise". Unless, that is, you wish to be disabused of Ross' erroneous positions.

I accept these tenets, but I allow for possible non-literal interpretations of some of these.

I will point out their is ample precedence in the Bible for that. Consider John Ch. 6 where Jesus talks about feeding his flesh and blood to the crowd. They take him literally. Jesus later instructs his disciples that the literal interpretation is wrong.

There have been upwards of 200 discrete and distinct forms of speech and expression that have been catalogued from Scripture; from the well-known ones (e.g., symbol, metaphor, simile, hyperbole) to some that are rather exotic, the names of which I can't recall as I type this.

A proper understanding of these forms, and their usages, is essential for the deepest and truest possible understanding of the text. As C. S. Lewis famously put it: "when He told us to be 'gentle as doves', He didn't mean for us to grow wings."

Inerrancy is not theologically or textually defensible in my view. Consider the inconsistencies in the post-resurrection narratives between the gospels. In Luke, Jesus commands the disciples to stay in Jerusalem, and based on that text and Acts (also by Luke) that is what they did.

Matthew and Mark have Jesus commanding them through the women to go to Galilee, which they do.

It is hard to see how both can literally be true.

There are also inconsistencies in who met Jesus after the resurrection.

I don't think most books of the Bible were ever meant to be taken strictly literally.

I agree. That is, I think only the passages that were intended to be literal should be taken literally.

The inconsistencies in (e.g.) the Resurrection accounts actually serve to underscore the veracity of the texts. If they agreed on every detail, that would indicate collusion. When one account describes one angel at the tomb, that does not exclude the presence of two.

Actually, in the Resurrection account, you have a narrative that best yields the entire picture when you put them all together, as has been done by diligent scholars.

The dominical directive you referred to in Luke is a good call! It's amazing how you can study the text for years, and continually turn up new wrinkles such as that, which had escaped me. It might well be a 'remez"; which the rabbis referred to as a 'hint of deeper meaning'; 'dig here, there is treasure'. They are sprinkled all through Scripture; the first "easter eggs"?

I'll have to look into that one more. At first blush, I'll offer this, by way of explanation.

We know that the disciples did not always do what they were told -- especially Peter. In fact, it appears that it was only toward the end of Jesus' resurrected manifestation that Peter was 'redeemed', or reaffirmed as an Apostle. That occurred in Galilee, and is recorded in John 21. And it involved only a partial group of the 12 (now 11) -- seven, to be precise.

That will make a great study. "Why (at least some of) the Disciples not obey Jesus' directive to stay in Jerusalem?" Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I assure you, there is an enlightening answer to that question. If there is one thing you can be assured of -- more certain than your own real name -- it's that the Biblical text is inspired and infallible; its every detail of language and structure exhibiting meticulous, deliberate design: idiomatically, structurally, symbolically, and in its usage of macro- and micro-codes.

(EDIT -- in response to Goat): I just noticed your response, upon my submission of this post.

Not making an assumption either way about the existence of God is a tacit assumption that He does not exist.

If you cannot grasp, or accept that, then I am sorry. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well, I would love to see back up the statement that 'not making an assumption about the existence of God is a tacit assumption that he does not exist. that sounds like are assuming that if you don't assume God exists, you assume she doesn't. That is a false dichotomy.

I would ALSO love to see how you think that the claims from Jonathan Sarfatri is reasonable at all.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 108 by JohnPaul]

Your own very big presupposition here is that the Bible is true.

Of course. I admit that. That's because it is.

Evolutionists refuse to admit that their operational position is that it is not, and that God doesn't exist. And then maintain that they are "objective, unbiased". That is deceit, practiced in defense of a fraud.

You have absolutely no evidence of that except your own belief in it, and that would not be accepted as evidence in any court, or in this forum. You dismiss forensic evidence as inadequate and fallible for evolution, yet you resort to it and depend on it wholly in your analysis of the Bible.

I have limitless evidence, some of which I have presented here. As demonstrated, it is microbes-to-man evolution for which there is no evidence; it is an impossibility that were it suggested in the light of our current understanding, instead of that of the 18th and 19th centuries, would be thrown out of court before trial.

Your last sentence here contains more truth than any I have yet seen from you. Well done.

Well, I would love to see back up the statement that 'not making an assumption about the existence of God is a tacit assumption that he does not exist. that sounds like are assuming that if you don't assume God exists, you assume she doesn't. That is a false dichotomy.

We're not speculating as to the possible presence of a black cat in a dark room here. Or whether the cake in the pantry has chocolate or butterscotch icing.

There, you can remain neutral in assumption.

We're talking about the God who created heaven and earth; the source of all existence; the Designer; uncreated, eternal, the "Aleph and the Tau" (Alpha and Omega); He who knows all things, the "end from the beginning".

Neutrality in regard to your opinion of His existence is not possible. It is, by default, unbelief.

I would ALSO love to see how you think that the claims from Jonathan Sarfatri is reasonable at all.

Very well. Tell you what -- let's approach it this way:

Why don't you tell me which claims you find unreasonable?