The History of Air?

[Volbrigade]

Lists of “fun facts� can be entertaining. Those focused on natural phenomena are a good way to promote an interest in science, and what it reveals to us about God’s creation, by drawing our attention to items that awaken our wonder and awe. Clearly, God has equipped us with curiosity regarding the workings of the natural world; as well as the capacity to explore and understand how He has designed it (which is the proper function of science).

However, “fun� facts are not fun, if they are not facts.

But that is what uniformitarian (“the present is the key to the past�; slow, gradual changes over vast expanses of time), evolutionist presuppositions are consistently presented as: unarguable facts -- which they categorically are not.

Case in point: a recent online infographic presenting “50 Unbelievable Facts About the Earth�.

While many of the facts are grounded in operational science, which involves direct observation and measurement – for instance, the hottest and coldest surface temperatures ever recorded; or the number of times that lightning strikes the earth each day, on average; several “facts� involve speculation as to events and conditions that occurred “millions of years� ago. For instance, this one:

“Dinosaurs could only exist because… the earth’s atmosphere once contained far more oxygen. Reptiles and amphibians can no longer grow to such large sizes.� ( http://mightymega.com/2013/04/18/infogr ... out-earth/ )

A Young Earth Creationist (YEC) is tempted to embrace this claim -- although with stipulations. On the face of it, it appears to support models of a dramatically different pre-Flood global environment. Our current post-Flood environment has been altered by the cataclysmic events associated with the release of the “Fountains of the Deep� (Genesis 8:2); the subsequent submersion of the earth’s entire surface under water; and the massive climatic changes that those events triggered, including an Ice Age that lasted several centuries.

The disappearance of the giant dinosaurs and arthropods in the altered post-Flood environment suggests that their inability to thrive in its lower-oxygen atmosphere may have been a cause. It would seem that conceding the “fact� of higher oxygen levels in the past, makes it possible to win the argument on this point when discussing origins and history. Changing the paradigm of those higher oxygen levels to a pre-Flood environment reinterprets the existing data in terms of a Biblical “lens�, or worldview. This kind of paradigm change applies to such pivotal factors as the fossil record and radiometric dating, as well.

But caution is advised. The eagerness to accept a theory in order to score a point with regard to Biblical truth must be tempered with careful scientific analysis of the existing theory. This kind of testing is needed to determine the theory’s validity under “real world� conditions.

This speaks to the non-negotiable framework that must be adhered to in terms of Scripture’s magisterial role over science. It is within that framework that normal scientific operational procedures can be used to arrive at the best explanations to describe past phenomena (for which direct observation and measurement is not possible), based on the forensic evidence those phenomena have left for us to study.

Sometimes this process involves acknowledging the slaying of a “beautiful hypothesis� by an “ugly fact� (per T. Huxley). An unyielding, uncompromising approach to analyzing evidence has produced a revision of several arguments once cherished by YECs. In this way, science – in its proper ministerial (subordinate) role to Scripture, can arrive at the best possible explanation for the evidence as presented.

In the case of higher oxygen levels in the pre-Flood atmosphere as an explanation for the large size attained by reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods in that environment (and their disappearance in the post-Flood environment), the evidence is not just inconclusive: it is questionable (some of the factors which have been reassessed include the presence of higher oxygen levels in amber air bubbles; higher air pressure being necessary for pterosaur flight; giant insects proving higher oxygen levels; et. al.).

Facts arrived at through scientific analysis that illuminate the design and order God imposed on His creation – even the fallen version of it that we inhabit – are fascinating, and they’re fun. But erroneous presuppositions (such as “matter is all that exists�) lead to false conclusions; and when those false conclusions are presented as “facts�, it’s not fun – but rather leads to confusion, and what The Bible refers to as “false knowledge� (1 Timothy 6:20).

Scientific analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the context of Scripture as “propositional truth� in order to arrive at the legitimate facts of nature, which is God’s creation.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 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.

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.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 130 by Volbrigade]

You say you have evidence, but you don't say what it is.

[olavisjo]

.

[Replying to post 130 by Volbrigade]

You say you have evidence, but you don't say what it is.

How does he say he has evidence? Evidence of what?

I don't think he is saying he has evidence but rather he is objecting to JohnPaul's simple chemistry experiment producing life.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 130 by Volbrigade]

You say you have evidence, but you don't say what it is.

Unh unh unh! That's a "one-line response". Strictly against the forum rules.

Which you would know, if you had read through the thread, and encountered my moderator warning.

Now, I'm willing to let it slide this time -- mainly because you appear to be a Beatles fan, and that "covers a multitude of sins."

So, if you'll carefully read through my every post on this thread, and here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24044

then we can discuss my "not saying what the evidence is" intelligently, and to your heart's content.

[Goat]

[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?

Why, while I can't show how 'molecules turned into men', since we only have a fraction of what is needed for abiogenesis. However, if you want to know the path way we went from single celled animals all the way to man, I suggest you read 'The Ancestor's Tale' by Richard Dawkins, which details the pathway we had from 'Goo to You' so to speak. Then, just for giggles, read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' , also by Richard Dawkins, that details the evidence for evolution in greater detail.

Now, when it come's 'historically, rational and 'self evidential', I find that people who claim 'self evidential' things, it is usually at the expense of it being 'rational and historical. ' I also find that when it comes to religion, many people claim things are 'historical' when they are not.

[JohnPaul]

[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?

Oh, yes! Please reveal unto us examples of the scientific, historical, rational and self-evident support you have for your personal beliefs. I have been waiting decades to hear it. Is it available on your DVD? Then give us the exact chemical composition of your God's "breath" which allededly turned dust into men (and women. The first woman, Lilith, created in Genesis 1:27 was proud and defiant, so your God demonized her and then gave Adam the subserviant little snippy called Eve, created later in Genesis 2;22 from Adam's rib.)

Incidentally, everyone knows that fairies are too flighty to be depended on to do serious work like Evolution.

[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?

Oh, yes! Please reveal unto us examples of the scientific, historical, rational and self-evident support you have for your personal beliefs. I have been waiting decades to hear it. Is it available on your DVD? Then give us the exact chemical composition of your God's "breath" which allededly turned dust into men (and women. The first woman, Lilith, created in Genesis 1:27 was proud and defiant, so your God demonized her and then gave Adam the subserviant little snippy called Eve, created later in Genesis 2;22 from Adam's rib.)

Incidentally, everyone knows that fairies are too flighty to be depended on to do serious work like Evolution.

Let's take this one step at a time, gentlemen (that includes you, Mr. Goat).

First -- I'm sure you'll want to give a more thorough consideration and response to this:

-------

Volbrigade wrote:
Quote:
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.

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.

[Goat]

[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?

Oh, yes! Please reveal unto us examples of the scientific, historical, rational and self-evident support you have for your personal beliefs. I have been waiting decades to hear it. Is it available on your DVD? Then give us the exact chemical composition of your God's "breath" which allededly turned dust into men (and women. The first woman, Lilith, created in Genesis 1:27 was proud and defiant, so your God demonized her and then gave Adam the subserviant little snippy called Eve, created later in Genesis 2;22 from Adam's rib.)

Incidentally, everyone knows that fairies are too flighty to be depended on to do serious work like Evolution.

Let's take this one step at a time, gentlemen (that includes you, Mr. Goat).

First -- I'm sure you'll want to give a more thorough consideration and response to this:

-------

Volbrigade wrote:
Quote:
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.

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 see a lot of 'appeal to probability' (without an understanding of how things work), and I see 'arguments from ignorance' and 'weak analogies', yet I don't see science.

Now, one thing you are missing is that the probability is incremental. You don't have to start out with calmodulin, since the more primitive (i.e. .the older, verses the modern) organism didn't use it. You don't need something like that to assemble in complete detail all at once. You can get there one small piece at a time.

Now, I don't feel like doing massive cut/pastes.. but this topic is covered
here.

[Ooberman]

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.

[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?