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.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 107 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

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.

Thanks for your effort to "save" me, but No thank you. I have my own views on the subject. Many years ago I had a long conversation with an old Jesuit priest. I am sure my mention of a Jesuit has already raised your hackles, but bear with me.

Back then, I was an atheist fresh out of school, having been exposed to the vindictive tribal wargod of the Bible in Sunday School, but a friend persuaded me to have lunch with her and an old Jesuit priest who was visiting her church. I reluctantly agreed, expecting a tirade on sin. The old man began with the usual nonsense, but as soon as my friend left us alone, he switched to a very different approach. I was astonished and impressed. No more talk of sin, God, Jesus, church rituals or any other church claptrap. None of what he said would be recognized as Christianity, much less Catholicism. I have heard similar ideas since then and I now believe the old man was a closet Gnostic, or even a Deist.

The old man certainly did not convert me, but he did change me from an atheist to an agnostic searching for answers. I now believe the old man was simply tired of all the church nonsense and welcomed the opportunity to say what he really believed, a mixture of cynicism and abstract philosophy. I will not repeat it here, because I fear it would give you a heart attack.

Cheers. Quit preaching bigoted nonsense and look to the Inner Light within yourself.

:

[micatala]

[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 have read Safarti previously, although not on Ross specifically. I would be happy to consider what he has to say if you have a reference to it. At this point, I will note you did not address any of the substance of the remarks from Ross' organization.

One I will make explicit mention of. The extent of the flood described is described as follows in the NIV.

They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

Now, the Hebrews believed in a flat earth with a literal 'dome of sky'. They had no knowledge of areas of the earth outside the middle east. Under the entire heavens in this context would mean the extent of what they could see or experience. There is no reason to interpret this to mean the entire globe. Any assertions to that effect are no more than assumptions, and furthermore, assumptions that are made about the text or that are imposed on the text, not what is within the text.


Together with the physical evidence contradicting the flood, the most reasonable understanding is that this was a localized or regional flood, and there IS evidence to suggest that possibility. For example, the flooding of what is now the Black Sea has evidence to support it. It is also possible that a flood of the Mesopotamian valley actually occurred.

But a global flood contradicts a large amount of physical data, as has been noted.

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."

And most scholars would tell you that the forms of speech used in the early chapters of Genesis speak to a non-literal interpretation. Ross, for example, does take these issues into account in his discussion. I am not sure how what you say here refutes anything he or I have said.

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.

I would agree with the general notion that accounts that are not entirely consistent point to an oral tradition, not a collusion or fictionalized account. I certainly agree with the general outlines of Jesus' life, and for sure that he actually existed, and that the gospel and other evidence supports that. However, it also indicates that the standard doctrine of 'inerrancy' of the text does not work. The gospels clearly DO make statements contrary to fact in that they make statements that are inconsistent with other statements. I would certainly accept the actual truth in most cases is close to the general outlines of what is written, but that is not the same as being inerrant.

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.

Most diligent scholars do not believe in inerrancy.

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.

You are welcome. I would agree the disciples did not always do what they were told. I would agree one possible explanation is that the group of disciples 'split.' However, that would be a bit of a stretch at least as Luke is pretty clear that all 11 Apostles were in Jerusalem directly after the crucifixion. There is certainly no indication in any of the synoptic gospels of a 'split.' There is no indication in any of the gospels of Peter being both in Jerusalem and in Galilee in a time period starting more than a few days after the crucifixion.

If you want another comparison to make, note that in John Jesus commands Mary not to hold on to him, as he has not yet arisen. But in another gospel, she grasps his feet and weeps on them. In Luke, NO ONE sees Jesus either going to or going from the tomb. It is only on the road to Emmaus that Jesus first appears, and shortly after, to the 11 in Jerusalem.

In Acts, many later appearances are mentioned, as is the command to not leave Jerusalem. These appearances happen over 40 days. Jesus then ascends into heaven, not from the mountain in Galilee as described in Matthew, but at Bethany.


Now, I could certainly accept the larger group of followers being split between those in Jerusalem and those in Galilee. But the 11 are mentioned specifically, and especially with respect to Peter, it is rather difficult to think of a credible scenario that has him witnessing two different assumptions in two distant locations within the time frames we are talking about.

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.

No, such assurances have no weight, and are not credible, even for many of us who are Christians. It is simply an unwarranted assumption on the part of those who believe in inerrancy for other reasons. Inspired yes. Inerrant in every detail, no.

(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.

On this pint, I am with goat. You are engaging in a false dichotomy.

Science takes no position on the existence of God. It does exclude the actions of God from its methodology for the simple reason that those actions are not testable. Even using your own skewed notion of operational science, God cannot be part of science.

[Goat]

[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?

The first and foremost belief I think is just plain crazy is 'Neutrality is reguard to your opinion of his existence is not possible'.

Next, I challenge the statement

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.

We have Christians on this thread that accept evolution. Are you saying they are not Christians? They are 'evolutionists'. Please clarify this statement.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 112 by micatala]

micatala wrote:

I would agree with the general notion that accounts that are not entirely consistent point to an oral tradition, not a collusion or fictionalized account. I certainly agree with the general outlines of Jesus' life, and for sure that he actually existed, and ththe standard doctrine of 'inerrancy' of the text does not work. The gospels clearly DO make statements contrary to fact in that they make statements that are inconsistent with other statements. I would certainly accept the actual truth in most cases is close to the general outlines of what is written, but that is not the same as being inerrant.at the gospel and other evidence supports that. However, it also indicates that

Such arguments are irrelevant. Even if every word in the Bible could be proven to be precisely accurate, it still describes nothing more than the BELIEFS of an ancient, ignorant, isolated and biased tribe, and does nothing to prove the objective truth of those beliefs. If it did, we could similarly prove the truth of many other ancient beliefs, some of them much more convincing than the Bible, although I would doubt that the earth is really a flat plate resting on the back of a giant turtle.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 112 by micatala]

micatala wrote:

I would agree with the general notion that accounts that are not entirely consistent point to an oral tradition, not a collusion or fictionalized account. I certainly agree with the general outlines of Jesus' life, and for sure that he actually existed, and ththe standard doctrine of 'inerrancy' of the text does not work. The gospels clearly DO make statements contrary to fact in that they make statements that are inconsistent with other statements. I would certainly accept the actual truth in most cases is close to the general outlines of what is written, but that is not the same as being inerrant.at the gospel and other evidence supports that. However, it also indicates that

Such arguments are irrelevant. Even if every word in the Bible could be proven to be precisely accurate, it still describes nothing more than the BELIEFS of an ancient, ignorant, isolated and biased tribe, and does nothing to prove the objective truth of those beliefs. If it did, we could similarly prove the truth of many other ancient beliefs, some of them much more convincing than the Bible, although I would doubt that the earth is really a flat plate resting on the back of a giant turtle.

How can something be proven and not proven?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 112 by micatala]

micatala wrote:

I would agree with the general notion that accounts that are not entirely consistent point to an oral tradition, not a collusion or fictionalized account. I certainly agree with the general outlines of Jesus' life, and for sure that he actually existed, and ththe standard doctrine of 'inerrancy' of the text does not work. The gospels clearly DO make statements contrary to fact in that they make statements that are inconsistent with other statements. I would certainly accept the actual truth in most cases is close to the general outlines of what is written, but that is not the same as being inerrant.at the gospel and other evidence supports that. However, it also indicates that

Such arguments are irrelevant. Even if every word in the Bible could be proven to be precisely accurate, it still describes nothing more than the BELIEFS of an ancient, ignorant, isolated and biased tribe, and does nothing to prove the objective truth of those beliefs. If it did, we could similarly prove the truth of many other ancient beliefs, some of them much more convincing than the Bible, although I would doubt that the earth is really a flat plate resting on the back of a giant turtle.

How can something be proven and not proven?

I said that it would be proven that those people actually believed such things, not that the substance of those beliefs was objectively real. Do you have some trouble distinguishing between mental concepts and objective reality? If you can prove that someone believes in fairies or leprechauns, does that "prove" that such beings are objectively real and actually exist? Really? Tell me about it!

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 111 by JohnPaul]

The old man certainly did not convert me, but he did change me from an atheist to an agnostic searching for answers. I now believe the old man was simply tired of all the church nonsense and welcomed the opportunity to say what he really believed, a mixture of cynicism and abstract philosophy. I will not repeat it here, because I fear it would give you a heart attack.

Cheers. Quit preaching bigoted nonsense

I will if you will.

and look to the Inner Light within yourself.

I prefer the Outer Light, from the giver of Light.

I see you have ascertained that I am of a highly delicate sensibility. I do apreciate your restraint in sparing me the intellectual auto stimulation of your apostate Jesuit priest. Just the speculation of what it might contain is enough to give me the vapors.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 112 by micatala]

I have read Safarti previously, although not on Ross specifically. I would be happy to consider what he has to say if you have a reference to it. At this point, I will note you did not address any of the substance of the remarks from Ross' organization.

I am engaged in several parallel conversations on this thread, of which this one is far and away the most interesting.

It is also the most time consuming, and requires the most effort; and from that standpoint is the least enjoyable.

I suggest that you google the work by Sarfati that I mentioned, and come to your own conclusions in regard to it. I warn you, though -- be prepared to abandon your comfortable compromise with evolutionary misconceptions, if you do.

Quote:


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.

You are welcome. I would agree the disciples did not always do what they were told. I would agree one possible explanation is that the group of disciples 'split.' However, that would be a bit of a stretch at least as Luke is pretty clear that all 11 Apostles were in Jerusalem directly after the crucifixion. There is certainly no indication in any of the synoptic gospels of a 'split.' There is no indication in any of the gospels of Peter being both in Jerusalem and in Galilee in a time period starting more than a few days after the crucifixion.

If you want another comparison to make, note that in John Jesus commands Mary not to hold on to him, as he has not yet arisen. But in another gospel, she grasps his feet and weeps on them. In Luke, NO ONE sees Jesus either going to or going from the tomb. It is only on the road to Emmaus that Jesus first appears, and shortly after, to the 11 in Jerusalem.

In Acts, many later appearances are mentioned, as is the command to not leave Jerusalem. These appearances happen over 40 days. Jesus then ascends into heaven, not from the mountain in Galilee as described in Matthew, but at Bethany.


Now, I could certainly accept the larger group of followers being split between those in Jerusalem and those in Galilee. But the 11 are mentioned specifically, and especially with respect to Peter, it is rather difficult to think of a credible scenario that has him witnessing two different assumptions in two distant locations within the time frames we are talking about.

Now this is truly interesting. After looking at it, the explanation is obvious.

First of all, Matthew does not contain an account of the Ascension. No contradiction there.

In Luke, as in Acts ("Luke part II"), the directive to remain in Jerusalem until imbued with the Holy Spirit is given just before the Ascension. This allows 40 days (Acts 1:3) for the intervening action, including the journey of some of the Disciples to Galilee (presumably they went home in order to "sort things out").

Thank you so much for the opportunity to clear that up!

Quote:

(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.

On this pint, I am with goat. You are engaging in a false dichotomy.

Science takes no position on the existence of God. It does exclude the actions of God from its methodology for the simple reason that those actions are not testable. Even using your own skewed notion of operational science, God cannot be part of science.

All that's fine. As I told Goat, neutrality in regard to the existence of God is impossible (it is purely theoretical). It is de facto unbelief. And unbelief is error; it has spawn the failed theory that purports an explanation that excludes God.

Look at it this way.

You can remain blithely neutral, while standing on a railroad track, to the existence of the train that is barreling down on you. You can refuse to accept the evidence of its rumblings; its warning whistle; even the light form its headlamp; dismissing them as not being empirical proof that there is a train.

But to do so is to disregard the reason the tracks are there, and your proper response to both theirs, and your, existence.

[Goat]

All that's fine. As I told Goat, neutrality in regard to the existence of God is impossible (it is purely theoretical). It is de facto unbelief. And unbelief is error; it has spawn the failed theory that purports an explanation that excludes God.

You keep saying that. However, you do not support it. It does show you attitude against those who do not proclaim God with every act, but you do not show that neutrality about the existence of God impossible, or why insisting there is a god when investigating any scientific endeavor is reasonable, rational or valid... or not considering a god one way or another when figuring out solutions is bad.

Does a plumber have to consider god when figure out where the leaky pipe is?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 119 by Goat]

Does a plumber have to consider god when figure out where the leaky pipe is?

Only if he wants to know the truth in regard to it.

If all he wants to do is fix the pipe -- or even make one; or develop a better kind of pipe -- then he doesn't need to consider the reality of God to do so.

If he wants to know who made the atoms of which the pipe is constructed, and how that came to pass, and who he is, and the reason for his existence (is it just to repair leaky pipes?), and why he is asking such questions, when the pet dog who is observing him make the repair doesn't seem concerned with them --

then he'll have to consider God, if he is searching for truth in regard to those answers.

Or, he could just content himself with "I guess it's cuz the yoonavurse just does that sort of thing. Explodes inta existence from nuthin', and makes little germs and junk that turn inta hoomun beans."