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 137 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

Let's take this one step at a time, gentlemen

I am still waiting for your first step. Incidentally, I read your referenced post in the other thread. I congratulate you on your fluent writing style, but its substance was nothng more than an attack on mainline Christianity for its attempt to drag itself out of the Dark Ages. Try again!

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 137 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

Oh -- so you are going to carefully construct the equipment, assemble the ingredients, set the conditions, and design the processes to achieve the results you have planned? Gonna design it yerself, are ye?

A carefully designed experiment to demonstrate once and for all... that there is no Designer?

Just be very, very careful, sir. You start monkeying around with primal goo, test tubes, and sparks, and you're liable to produce -- in addition to over 85% toxic combusted tar -- a handful of amino acids, like Miller did in 1953.

Of course, those amino acids will be racemic in terms of their chirality (50-50 right and left handed). And all living things, as you know, require optically pure left-handed amino acids. A single right-handed one attaches to the chain, and it won't unfold properly.

But if you repeat the process enough, and get 100 left handed ones to line up in a row -- you can get a lonely little protein! The odds are a little high against it; about like guessing a 30-digit PIN the first time. But keep at it!

Because if you can get that to happen, then all you have to do to get, e.g., calmodulin (the ubiquitous calcium-binding protein) is persuade 140 right-handed amino acids, from a pool of the 20 needed, to line up in the correct order!

That's only like guessing a 182-digit PIN on the first try.

But I'm sure you knew all that.

After all -- it's just basic science; and I know how deeply into science you Christian-bashers are.

I don't remember what Miller did in 1953. Back then I was with the US Air Force stationed in North Africa and making frequent flights to all the fun spots in Europe. I did visit St. Peters in Rome, but the Fräuleins in Germany were more fun.

But all that stuff with amino acids and proteins is easy. I just flip open the Bible and find it all explained in detail there. Didn't you know that?

[Goat]

There is no reason to try to make sense of religion via science. Religion is immune to science because it can play the trump card: "God Did It"/"It was magic".

There is no reason to analyze the physics of Middle Earth unless you are a fan of Hobbits. And, when you do, there is nothing useful gained from it.

It's the same thing with Biblical claims.

Dino's could have lived any time because believing in God is like believing a Cartoonist runs the universe. God can stop the Sun in the sky, make people walk on water, etc. He could also make them super strong, or fast, or anything you can find in comic books.


It really isn't a big mystery. Religion is the same genre as mythology and comics. Just because 10% of the planet takes it seriously doesn't mean we should.

Well stated.

And I agree. As long as you include the religions of "Scientism" and "Evolutionism".

Both make the tacit proposal that as long as you don't claim "God did it", then you are in some way making "scientific" assertions.

But, as I have maintained all along, the truth is that "God did it". And He has imparted to us a record of when, how, and why, that is suitable for ALL people in ALL times and ALL places. He is outside the purview of -- bigger than, if you like -- mere science. Just as the Cartoonist is "bigger than" the comic book he creates.

That's a great analogy, by the way. I'm giving you notice right now that I'm stealing it.

Indeed, God is the "cartoonist", and we exist in the cartoon that sprang from his imagination. Only our cartoon is a 4-dimensional representation, a subset, of whatever infinite hyper-dimensionality is his eternal mode of existence.

And as cartoonist, He is perfect and holy; omnipotent and omniscient.

We are not. But we are "characters" that have our own free will, and ability to choose.

He, out of His infinite and perfect love, has joined us in our limited condition. and has established a mechanism whereby we can leave the page, and join the "real world".

Your choice is whether to accept the offer; or remain on the newsprint through defiant denial and refusal, to be burned eventually in the rubbish heap.

How's that for an analogy?

It's a horrible analogy, but it does show your state of mind. What I see is a the bad augment to try to make science and religion 'equal' though the irrational technique of adding an 'ISM" at the end of something you want to disagree with.

I have yet to see a rational argument for adding the consideration of God into any science, or how it would possibly change any conclusions. I do see a lot of misrepresenting of science, and of biology and how it relates to probability in specific.

One of the things with science it pushes to testability and the ability to falsify a proposition. Tell you what, how can you actually TEST for the existence of God, and not just play metaphysical word games. Come up with that, and you can get me to change my mind.

[Volbrigade]

There is no reason to try to make sense of religion via science. Religion is immune to science because it can play the trump card: "God Did It"/"It was magic".

There is no reason to analyze the physics of Middle Earth unless you are a fan of Hobbits. And, when you do, there is nothing useful gained from it.

It's the same thing with Biblical claims.

Dino's could have lived any time because believing in God is like believing a Cartoonist runs the universe. God can stop the Sun in the sky, make people walk on water, etc. He could also make them super strong, or fast, or anything you can find in comic books.


It really isn't a big mystery. Religion is the same genre as mythology and comics. Just because 10% of the planet takes it seriously doesn't mean we should.

Well stated.

And I agree. As long as you include the religions of "Scientism" and "Evolutionism".

Both make the tacit proposal that as long as you don't claim "God did it", then you are in some way making "scientific" assertions.

But, as I have maintained all along, the truth is that "God did it". And He has imparted to us a record of when, how, and why, that is suitable for ALL people in ALL times and ALL places. He is outside the purview of -- bigger than, if you like -- mere science. Just as the Cartoonist is "bigger than" the comic book he creates.

That's a great analogy, by the way. I'm giving you notice right now that I'm stealing it.

Indeed, God is the "cartoonist", and we exist in the cartoon that sprang from his imagination. Only our cartoon is a 4-dimensional representation, a subset, of whatever infinite hyper-dimensionality is his eternal mode of existence.

And as cartoonist, He is perfect and holy; omnipotent and omniscient.

We are not. But we are "characters" that have our own free will, and ability to choose.

He, out of His infinite and perfect love, has joined us in our limited condition. and has established a mechanism whereby we can leave the page, and join the "real world".

Your choice is whether to accept the offer; or remain on the newsprint through defiant denial and refusal, to be burned eventually in the rubbish heap.

How's that for an analogy?

It's a horrible analogy, but it does show your state of mind. What I see is a the bad augment to try to make science and religion 'equal' though the irrational technique of adding an 'ISM" at the end of something you want to disagree with.

Wow. Tough crowd...

I have yet to see a rational argument for adding the consideration of God into any science, or how it would possibly change any conclusions. I do see a lot of misrepresenting of science, and of biology and how it relates to probability in specific.

One of the things with science it pushes to testability and the ability to falsify a proposition. Tell you what, how can you actually TEST for the existence of God, and not just play metaphysical word games. Come up with that, and you can get me to change my mind.

I'm not trying to get you to change your mind. That's entirely your business. I'm just demolishing arguments here.

You don't "add God in" to science. He is the ground of the reality that science studies. He is the reason there IS anything to study.

You can take it or leave it. He even esteems you highly enough to give you that choice.

The universe had a beginning. Ergo, something caused it. Ultimately, there has to be an uncaused cause; something with no beginning. That -- whatever it is -- we call God.

What are the attributes of this being? How can we know anything about it? Has it communicated with us? What has it told us?

I believe the answer to all these questions are found in the Bible -- "an integrated message system from outside our time domain." I've been giving compelling reasons why this is so for 14, 15 pages.

I'm sorry that you don't agree.

Neither you, nor anyone else, has countered with anything to convince me why I should believe that "once there was nothing, and then it exploded. And then it turned microbes into men."

All I've gotten is precisely the sort of rank opinion I continually have been accused of offering.

Not one scrap of defendable science. Because there isn't any.

Do you have anything concrete, verifiable? Anything? Dawkins' books? They've been debunked.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 144 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

The universe had a beginning. Ergo, something caused it. Ultimately, there has to be an uncaused cause; something with no beginning. That -- whatever it is -- we call God.

I have already demolished this pathetic medieval argument and pointed out to you that at least some of us call it Snippy with equal validity. You earlier dismissed this very same argument as flippant. If you are now presenting it as a serious argument, you are either not paying attention or you are being grossly offensive.

[Goat]

I'm not trying to get you to change your mind. That's entirely your business. I'm just demolishing arguments here.

You don't "add God in" to science. He is the ground of the reality that science studies. He is the reason there IS anything to study.

You can take it or leave it. He even esteems you highly enough to give you that choice.

The universe had a beginning. Ergo, something caused it. Ultimately, there has to be an uncaused cause; something with no beginning. That -- whatever it is -- we call God.

How is making all these unsupported claims 'demolishing anything'. I mean , the entire 'uncaused cause' metaphysical nonsense is extremely poorly designed, full of logical fallacies, and just about worthless. It can not show it's premises are true, you can't test the flow of reasoning (or lack there of) along the way, nor can you test the conclusion. It is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

At best, this is a pitiful attempt to define God into place. At worse, it is totally meaningless.

[JohnPaul]

I'm not trying to get you to change your mind. That's entirely your business. I'm just demolishing arguments here.

You don't "add God in" to science. He is the ground of the reality that science studies. He is the reason there IS anything to study.

You can take it or leave it. He even esteems you highly enough to give you that choice.

The universe had a beginning. Ergo, something caused it. Ultimately, there has to be an uncaused cause; something with no beginning. That -- whatever it is -- we call God.

How is making all these unsupported claims 'demolishing anything'. I mean , the entire 'uncaused cause' metaphysical nonsense is extremely poorly designed, full of logical fallacies, and just about worthless. It can not show it's premises are true, you can't test the flow of reasoning (or lack there of) along the way, nor can you test the conclusion. It is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

At best, this is a pitiful attempt to define God into place. At worse, it is totally meaningless.

Pitiful indeed. And the assertion that "You can take it or leave it" sounds more like preaching than debate to me. Goat's description of it as "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" is too kind. I suggest that odoriferous bovine excrement would be a better description, or even Schweinenscheisse.

[Volbrigade]

I'm not trying to get you to change your mind. That's entirely your business. I'm just demolishing arguments here.

You don't "add God in" to science. He is the ground of the reality that science studies. He is the reason there IS anything to study.

You can take it or leave it. He even esteems you highly enough to give you that choice.

The universe had a beginning. Ergo, something caused it. Ultimately, there has to be an uncaused cause; something with no beginning. That -- whatever it is -- we call God.

How is making all these unsupported claims 'demolishing anything'. I mean , the entire 'uncaused cause' metaphysical nonsense is extremely poorly designed, full of logical fallacies, and just about worthless. It can not show it's premises are true, you can't test the flow of reasoning (or lack there of) along the way, nor can you test the conclusion. It is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

At best, this is a pitiful attempt to define God into place. At worse, it is totally meaningless.

Wrong. It is simply a statement of an unarguable fact. Something caused the universe. Everything hinges on the question, "what"?

The totality of the evidence, carefully looked at, points to the Biblical account as being "The History Book of the Universe." Without it, you have literally nothing.

As you and JP have articulated satisfactorily for several pages now.

Still waiting on either of you to provide a cogent, credible, plausible, or even interesting defense of your position that everything sprang from nothing. Or whatever it is you posit -- honestly, do you have ANY coherent position other than "I don't believe in God or the Bible"?

[Goat]

I'm not trying to get you to change your mind. That's entirely your business. I'm just demolishing arguments here.

You don't "add God in" to science. He is the ground of the reality that science studies. He is the reason there IS anything to study.

You can take it or leave it. He even esteems you highly enough to give you that choice.

The universe had a beginning. Ergo, something caused it. Ultimately, there has to be an uncaused cause; something with no beginning. That -- whatever it is -- we call God.

How is making all these unsupported claims 'demolishing anything'. I mean , the entire 'uncaused cause' metaphysical nonsense is extremely poorly designed, full of logical fallacies, and just about worthless. It can not show it's premises are true, you can't test the flow of reasoning (or lack there of) along the way, nor can you test the conclusion. It is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

At best, this is a pitiful attempt to define God into place. At worse, it is totally meaningless.

Wrong. It is simply a statement of an unarguable fact. Something caused the universe. Everything hinges on the question, "what"?

The totality of the evidence, carefully looked at, points to the Biblical account as being "The History Book of the Universe." Without it, you have literally nothing.

As you and JP have articulated satisfactorily for several pages now.

Still waiting on either of you to provide a cogent, credible, plausible, or even interesting defense of your position that everything sprang from nothing. Or whatever it is you posit -- honestly, do you have ANY coherent position other than "I don't believe in God or the Bible"?

Really?? How do you know that the conditions that allowed the universe to form didn't 'always' exist in one way or another? How do you know that the state known as 'the big bang', which space/time formed isn't merely the universe changing state from another , as of yet unknown state? How do you know that universe was 'caused'?? There are things that according to some interpretations of Quantum mechanics are 'uncaused'. How did you eliminate the universe from being uncaused?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 148 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

Something caused the universe. Everything hinges on the question, "what"?

The totality of the evidence, carefully looked at, points to the Biblical account as being "The History Book of the Universe." Without it, you have literally nothing.

As you and JP have articulated satisfactorily for several pages now.

Still waiting on either of you to provide a cogent, credible, plausible, or even interesting defense of your position that everything sprang from nothing. Or whatever it is you posit -- honestly, do you have ANY coherent position other than "I don't believe in God or the Bible

Science can trace the development of the universe through observation and mathematics back to the first few microseconds. Before that, science can say nothing and does not attempt to. The "source from nothing" you speak of is not an assertion of science, it is Christian anti-science propaganda.

Tou claim to have a "totality of the evidence" to prove your God created the universe. I suggest you publish that evidence in an appropriate scientific journal and win a Nobel Prize. When you do, I will personally travel to wherever you are, pat you on the back, and congratulate you. Until then, STFU.