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 117 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

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

Yes, I can imagine your Jesus hanging on the cross and thinking "Maybe it's time to put the old man away!" I prefer something a little more sophisticated than your vindictive tribal wargod who murders his own son to cover up his own blunders and then demands that you worship him for it. And then will probably toss you into eternal fire anyway because he doesn't like your haircut or catches you mowing your lawn on Sunday.

[micatala]

[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.

Well, I think your overly negative and slanted rhetoric is rather over the top, first. Sure, first century residents of Palestine were ignorant in many ways compared to an educated person in the 21st century. That doesn't mean they were necessarily unintelligent, or that their beliefs or literature having nothing to teach us today.

Following your logic, none of us should read or respect Shakespeare, Plato, Aristotle, or even Newton.

Secondly, and here I think there is clearly room for different opinions, whether the beliefs are 'objectively true' or not seems to me to somewhat miss the point. For some, yes, the purpose of having beliefs is to 'be right.' However, my view is that religious beliefs should be measure by how useful or beneficial they are for the people holding them. Jesus said that he came so that we might have life and have it abundantly. He did not say that he came so that everyone who followed him would be sure to have the correct or 'objectively true' beliefs. He seems to have avoided getting into issues of 'objective truth,' and this is illustrated by his habit of speaking in parables, and intentionally using ambiguous language.

Thirdly, regardless of what you think about the nature of the beliefs of either early or modern Christians, and given that the gospels are not meant as objective history and much of what is described is difficult to believe literally happened, the gospel narratives together with other evidence provide strong evidence that Jesus existed. If you want to make the case his supernatural actions did not actually occur, I won't belabor that point. But that is different than saying there is no actual person on which these narratives are based.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 117 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

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

Yes, I can imagine your Jesus hanging on the cross and thinking "Maybe it's time to put the old man away!" I prefer something a little more sophisticated than your vindictive tribal wargod who murders his own son to cover up his own blunders and then demands that you worship him for it. And then will probably toss you into eternal fire anyway because he doesn't like your haircut or catches you mowing your lawn on Sunday.

Why not consider preferring something with a lot more substance than the rather puerile mischaracterizations you cling to, the way those in flyover country are said to cling to their "guns and religion"?

Something that contains some truth?

Why not something that IS the truth? The "Way, the Truth, and the Life"?

Why not try preferring Jesus Christ, and the Good News?*

Instead of moldy old discredited pagan nonsense?

* "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time." -- 1 Corinthians 15:1-8

[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.

Well, I think your overly negative and slanted rhetoric is rather over the top, first. Sure, first century residents of Palestine were ignorant in many ways compared to an educated person in the 21st century. That doesn't mean they were necessarily unintelligent, or that their beliefs or literature having nothing to teach us today.

Following your logic, none of us should read or respect Shakespeare, Plato, Aristotle, or even Newton.

Secondly, and here I think there is clearly room for different opinions, whether the beliefs are 'objectively true' or not seems to me to somewhat miss the point. For some, yes, the purpose of having beliefs is to 'be right.' However, my view is that religious beliefs should be measure by how useful or beneficial they are for the people holding them. Jesus said that he came so that we might have life and have it abundantly. He did not say that he came so that everyone who followed him would be sure to have the correct or 'objectively true' beliefs. He seems to have avoided getting into issues of 'objective truth,' and this is illustrated by his habit of speaking in parables, and intentionally using ambiguous language.

Thirdly, regardless of what you think about the nature of the beliefs of either early or modern Christians, and given that the gospels are not meant as objective history and much of what is described is difficult to believe literally happened, the gospel narratives together with other evidence provide strong evidence that Jesus existed. If you want to make the case his supernatural actions did not actually occur, I won't belabor that point. But that is different than saying there is no actual person on which these narratives are based.

You have stretched what I said beyond all recognitiion. I did not say we should not read the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible is a very interesting and valuable collection of ancient writings describing the beliefs and lifestyle of an ancient tribe. It contains a few good moral teachings, but also contains a great mass of horrible atrocities either commtted or commanded by the tribal god and justified in his name.

What I did say was that the Bible is in no way proof of any of the supernatural events it describes. I have no reason to doubt that Jerusalem exists, although I have never seen it. I have no reason to doubt that Jesus existed and was a good man. However, if you tell me he survived a Roman crucifixion, I would want more than second-hand hearsay. If you tell me he was the son of a god...well, you get the idea.

I apologize if I offended your religious beliefs, but I notice you do not read the Bible literally yourself.

[Goat]

[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.

Is there TRUTH at all?? (Truth, as in the Capitalized metaphysical kind)
Can you show this to be a fact (the small truth).

[/quote]

[Goat]

[Replying to post 117 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

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

Yes, I can imagine your Jesus hanging on the cross and thinking "Maybe it's time to put the old man away!" I prefer something a little more sophisticated than your vindictive tribal wargod who murders his own son to cover up his own blunders and then demands that you worship him for it. And then will probably toss you into eternal fire anyway because he doesn't like your haircut or catches you mowing your lawn on Sunday.

Why not consider preferring something with a lot more substance than the rather puerile mischaracterizations you cling to, the way those in flyover country are said to cling to their "guns and religion"?

Something that contains some truth?

Why not something that IS the truth? The "Way, the Truth, and the Life"?

Why not try preferring Jesus Christ, and the Good News?*

Instead of moldy old discredited pagan nonsense?

* "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time." -- 1 Corinthians 15:1-8

Can you show that is more than pure speculation, wishful thinking and religious rhetoric?can you show the claim is accurate and factual?>

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 117 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

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

Yes, I can imagine your Jesus hanging on the cross and thinking "Maybe it's time to put the old man away!" I prefer something a little more sophisticated than your vindictive tribal wargod who murders his own son to cover up his own blunders and then demands that you worship him for it. And then will probably toss you into eternal fire anyway because he doesn't like your haircut or catches you mowing your lawn on Sunday.

Why not consider preferring something with a lot more substance than the rather puerile mischaracterizations you cling to, the way those in flyover country are said to cling to their "guns and religion"?

Something that contains some truth?

Why not something that IS the truth? The "Way, the Truth, and the Life"?

Why not try preferring Jesus Christ, and the Good News?*

Instead of moldy old discredited pagan nonsense?

* "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time." -- 1 Corinthians 15:1-8

Can you show that is more than pure speculation, wishful thinking and religious rhetoric?can you show the claim is accurate and factual?>

Sure. Come on over to the house and I'll show you the proof. It's on a DVD. You get one when you've been a Christian long enough, and go through enough message board battles. It comes straight from HQ -- it's "the good stuff" -- the Big Guy Himself is on there, and He gives you the whole story. Straight up.

Seriously --

I am convinced that it is indeed "more than pure speculation"; that it is the "accurate and factual" circumstances of our shared reality (not the one that exists only in our heads).

That it is the Truth, in the ultimate sense of the word.

I believe that for uncountable reasons; that are cohesive, consistent, mutually reinforcing... experiential, intellectual, scientific... spiritual...

I understand that you don't. I didn't either, once.

At any rate: I am prepared to make a case for the faith that I have. Are you prepared to make a case for why dirt should happen to come alive, organize itself, and eventually start thinking?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 127 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

At any rate: I am prepared to make a case for the faith that I have. Are you prepared to make a case for why dirt should happen to come alive, organize itself, and eventually start thinking?

Sure. C'mon to my house and I'll show you how it works with my Chemistry Set. The chemistry of carbon is amazing and easily forms very complex giant molecules, but only if an easy source of carbon is around, like carbon dioxide, other elements like hydrogen and oxygen, a liquid environment like warm water, and a source of energy like sunlight, volcanic vents, or lightning. Snippy prefers electric sparks for indoor work.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 117 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

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

Yes, I can imagine your Jesus hanging on the cross and thinking "Maybe it's time to put the old man away!" I prefer something a little more sophisticated than your vindictive tribal wargod who murders his own son to cover up his own blunders and then demands that you worship him for it. And then will probably toss you into eternal fire anyway because he doesn't like your haircut or catches you mowing your lawn on Sunday.

Why not consider preferring something with a lot more substance than the rather puerile mischaracterizations you cling to, the way those in flyover country are said to cling to their "guns and religion"?

Something that contains some truth?

Why not something that IS the truth? The "Way, the Truth, and the Life"?

Why not try preferring Jesus Christ, and the Good News?*

Instead of moldy old discredited pagan nonsense?

* "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time." -- 1 Corinthians 15:1-8

Can you show that is more than pure speculation, wishful thinking and religious rhetoric?can you show the claim is accurate and factual?>

Sure. Come on over to the house and I'll show you the proof. It's on a DVD. You get one when you've been a Christian long enough, and go through enough message board battles. It comes straight from HQ -- it's "the good stuff" -- the Big Guy Himself is on there, and He gives you the whole story. Straight up.

Seriously --

I am convinced that it is indeed "more than pure speculation"; that it is the "accurate and factual" circumstances of our shared reality (not the one that exists only in our heads).

That it is the Truth, in the ultimate sense of the word.

I believe that for uncountable reasons; that are cohesive, consistent, mutually reinforcing... experiential, intellectual, scientific... spiritual...
I understand that you don't. I didn't either, once.

At any rate: I am prepared to make a case for the faith that I have. Are you prepared to make a case for why dirt should happen to come alive, organize itself, and eventually start thinking?

WHy, it is not the biologist that claim 'dirt came alive, organized itself and eventually started thinking'.. that is the story of Genesis.

Now, if you said 'Self replicating molecules became increasing sophisticated , started metabolizing, and then over billions of years became mutlicellular and became thinking', youl would be closer.

I not that , aside from the snark, you don't have any evidence to actually show, just personal belief and unsupported claims ..

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 129 by Goat]

WHy, it is not the biologist that claim 'dirt came alive, organized itself and eventually started thinking'.. that is the story of Genesis.

Now, if you said 'Self replicating molecules became increasing sophisticated , started metabolizing, and then over billions of years became mutlicellular and became thinking', youl would be closer.

I not that , aside from the snark, you don't have any evidence to actually show, just personal belief and unsupported claims ..

Of course. How very careless of me. I should've typed "dirt began self-replicating, became alive, starting getting organized (a natural law: disorder always produces order. That's why cars improve with age and use); got sophisticated on us (sort of like JP's religious views?), and eventually started thinking."

How can you not be snarky in response to such malarky?

As far as evidence for my "personal beliefs": they are supported scientifically, historically, rationally, and self-evidentially ("The Fall is the only Christian doctrine for which there is empirical proof" -- G. K. Chesterton, emphasis mine).

What have you got to show how molecules turned into men?

The Evolution Fairy?