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.

[Wootah]

[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.

Moderator Warning

Hi JohnPaul,

Please don't swear on the forums even in acronym.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Volbrigade]

[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.

My goodness! Such language... very "civil and respectful".

I believe the old adage is, "profanity is a failure of vocabulary".

But truth to tell (always ), your concluding acronym is, to date, your finest work in this thread. It expresses genuineness, if not truth; earlier correspondences are lacking in either. And the genuineness expressed is of frustration.

And who can blame you for that? How dispiriting (again, a word chosen advisedly, precisely -- mine always are ) it must be when, in order to flee from the concrete, abject reality of the need for a Creator; the overwhelming evidence for a "Creationist Orchard" over the quaint and outmoded "Evolutionary Tree"; and the world wide evidence of a catastrophic global flood as the source of the fossil record, deposited about 4,500 years ago: one must resort in desperation to juvenile rhetorical parlor tricks involving one's pet cat; or the even sillier and more desperate special plea that "some things don't need a cause -- the universe being one of them."

Whether these cerebral gyrations -- some may call them spasms -- are laughable, sad, or both, is -- like the position of a photon -- dependent on the observer.

One thing I do know, as surely as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow (literally -- you do know that the world is flat, don't you? ), unless interrupted in its course by the return of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, is that such anemic denials of our Creator are "without excuse".

The Good News is, just as with your impolite sign off to me, you are forgiven by Him for your "suppression of the truth in unrighteousness"; as well as for the "futility of your thoughts" and the "foolish darkening of your hearts" (Romans 1): if you will but repent, and accept that forgiveness.

I will pray the ministrations of His Holy Spirit upon you in that regard.

[micatala]

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!

This is only 'cleared up' if you ignore a lot of information. I am afraid there are details you have not taken account of.


Here are the appearances to the disciples specifically mentioned in the gospels.


John:
1) On the first day of the week after the resurrection (John 20:19) in Jerusalem where the disciples are hiding for fear of the Jews. From the text, it seems all 11 are there except Thomas. At this point, the Apostles receive the Holy Spirit.

2) One week later in the same place with Thomas present.

3) Some time later by the Sea of Tiberias. This is specifically said to be the third time Jesus appeared to the disciples after he was raised form dead. (John 21:14). As you noted, only 5 of the 12 are said to be there along with two other disciples. However, this is only the third time he has appeared to these. Note this is by the Sea of Tiberias, not by the mountain in Galilee.


Note that no ascension is mentioned in John.


Luke/Acts:
Since these two Biblical books are, by tradition and their own testimony, part of the same work, I will deal with these together.

1) Jesus does not appear to the women at the tomb at all, but does appear to two disciples walking to Emmaus. This is also on the first day of the week after the resurrection.

2) That same day, while the larger group of disciples are discussing the experience of the first two, Jesus appears to them. This occurs in Jerusalem. Jesus commands them to remain in the city until they are clothed with power from on high.

Immediately after this, the walk out to Bethany, and we have the ascension of Jesus from that location. The disciples return to Jerusalem, and are said to be continually in the temple blessing God.
Now, even just taking into account Luke and John, we have issues. John makes no mention of the appearance on the road to Emmaus. It is conceivable the second appearance in Luke is the same as the first appearance in John. They do occur on the same day.
In Acts, Luke reviews some of this. He repeats that Jesus ordered the disciples not to leave Jerusalem. He repeats the description of the ascension at Bethany. He adds mention of two men in white robes who ask them why they are looking up to heaven and says Jesus will come in the same way you saw him go. They then return to Jerusalem, as described in the gospel. All 11 are specifically said to be there in the upper room. From the narrative, this would still be on the first day of the week.
This creates a problem with respect to John who says Thomas was NOT present when Jesus appeared to the disciples on this first day of the week.
Luke does indicate Jesus appeared further over 40 days. This would indicate Jesus did come back after the initial ascension from Bethany. No mention is made of any appearances in Galilee. There is NO indication the Apostles ever left Jerusalem until well into the book of Acts, after interactions with the chief priests, and the sever persecution which begins with the stoning of Steven described in Chapter 7. However, even after this, as noted in Chapter 8, all except the Apostles were scattered throughout Judea.


Clearly, according to Luke, there are NO appearances of Jesus to the disciples except in Jerusalem. To assert otherwise is to read into the text facts that are not there.

Mark:
The original gospel of Mark records no appearances of Jesus to anyone at all. A man in a white robe appears to the women (plural) and tells them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee. The gospel ends with “and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.�

Now, Mark has come to include either a shorter ending, or a longer ending, neither of which was part of the original according the manuscript evidence as analyzed by most scholars. However, if we include the longer ending, we do have appearances.
1) After appearing to Mary Magdalene, he appears to two unnamed believers in the country. This could conceivable the same two described in Luke.
2) Later, no time specified, he appears to the 11 ‘at table’ and upbraids them for their lack of faith.
The time and place of both appearances is vague, but if we make the assumption (and that is what it is, an assumption) that Mark is consistent with Luke and John, this second appearance to the 11 must be in Jerusalem. But again, it is inconsistent with John in that all 11 are said to be present, while John said Thomas was absent.
Note that after this appearance, Jesus ascends. Given what is written in Luke, this again must be from Bethany, and this would put the timing of this event on the first day of the week.

Matthew:
Jesus appears to the two Mary’s after they see the angel. They grasp his feet and worship him (this is inconsistent with John). They get the same message to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, but here, unlike in Mark, they deliver this message.
Here, the disciples DO go to Galilee without ANY mention of having seen Jesus before doing so. All 11 see him at the mountain to which they had been directed, as Jesus had told the women. In fact, In Matt. 28:11, the author says “While they were going . . “ the Roman guards relay the news of Jesus’ absent body to the authorities. This happens directly after getting the message from the women. According to Matthew, the disciples immediately leave Jerusalem to go to Galilee, where they have their first meeting with Jesus.


There is no reasonable way to reconcile all these details. The disciples can’t be leaving Jerusalem on the day of or after the resurrection, and still be there for over a week to meet with Jesus twice in the upper room in Jerusalem.
They can’t have their first meeting with Jesus on the mountain in Galilee, and then have their third meeting with Jesus by the Sea of Tiberias after two meetings with Jesus in Jerusalem as described in John.

Not to mention that the women can’t both say nothing to anyone, and then also tell the disciples what the angel told them as soon as they get back from the tomb.


In addition, I will give you two more details that are not reconcilable.

Read Mark chapter 11 and Matthew chapter 21. In Mark, Jesus curses the fig tree and it is withered the next day. In Matthew, it withers on the spot before their very eyes.

Secondly, how many women actually are at the tomb and what happens there? Note that in Matthew, an earthquake is mentioned which causes the stone to roll away, and an angel appears to reassure the women, who are evidently witnessing all of this. The women are both named Mary.
In Mark, Salome is also present and there is no earthquake. The stone is already rolled away before they get there. Again, there is no reasonable way both can be literally true down to the details.

In Luke, an unspecified number of women from Galilee saw his tomb the day before, and then came back the next day. The stone had already been rolled away. Later, the women are said to be the two Mary’s along with Joanna, one of their mothers, and other unnamed women. Thus, not two as in Matthew, nor three as in Mark but four and probably more. In addition, in Luke, Jesus does NOT appear AT ALL to any of these women.

Finally, in John, ONLY Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb and finds the stone rolled away. She goes back and without any mention of angels or Jesus, tells the disciples that Jesus is gone. Peter and John run to the tomb and find it empty. Mary returns as well. Then, after Peter and John leave, an angel and then Jesus appears to her. Here, Jesus says not to touch his feet.


And in fact, here is another. Did Judas ever kiss Jesus? In Mark, he does. In John, he does not.


These are just some of the example indicating that inerrancy is not really a tenable position. I will again point out that the Bible itself no where proclaims inerrancy. Paul does say that scripture is inspired, which I believe, and useful, but not 'inerrant.'

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 153 by micatala]

An excellent summary! I have printed it out and folded it into my copy of the Bible for future reference. It does absolutely nothing to convince me of the objective reality of the resurrection claim, but is is certainly useful for study of the Bible itself, and perhaps in future debates. Thanks.

[otseng]

One thing I do know, as surely as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow (literally -- you do know that the world is flat, don't you? ), unless interrupted in its course by the return of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, is that such anemic denials of our Creator are "without excuse".

The Good News is, just as with your impolite sign off to me, you are forgiven by Him for your "suppression of the truth in unrighteousness"; as well as for the "futility of your thoughts" and the "foolish darkening of your hearts" (Romans 1): if you will but repent, and accept that forgiveness.

I will pray the ministrations of His Holy Spirit upon you in that regard.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any comments if someone violates the rules. Preaching as a response is not appropriate either.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 153 by micatala]

I applaud your very thorough analysis of the text, micatala! Well done, indeed. You are adhering to the Berean creed: "daily searching the Scriptures, to see if these things were so." (Acts 17:11)

I'm not going to address your post point-by-point, in the manner that it probably deserves. I'm simply too lazy.

The effortless swatting of the flies of Whateverist nonsense is one thing: grappling point by point in regard to hermeneutical differences is an entirely different affair. Doing both, with an array of differing partners, is a full time job.

Let me address your examples by saying this: you are aware that they are well-known, and thoroughly documented and studied, I'm sure.

Aside from the fact that they are remarkable evidence of the integrity and accuracy of the Scriptures, in terms of the faithfulness of their transposition from the original source documents (i.e., the apparent inconsistencies you cite having never been edited out) --

they also point to the historicity of the accounts. Just as the differing historical accounts of Hannibal's crossing the Alps don't negate the fact that he in fact did; the disparities between the number of women mentioned, or whether it was night, or first light, don't negate the central and core message: that the tomb was empty, and that Our Lord had risen from the dead.

Do you think it's possible that God allowed such minor divergences in detail, precisely to pass on to (e.g.) our skeptical era that these are, in fact, the eye witness of those involved; in three cases, related to those who were not a part of the actual events at the tomb; and in the fourth (John), set forth many years after them (probably in Ephesus, toward the end of his life -- and, importantly, AFTER his experience on Patmos)?

In any event, what we have are four accounts, delivered in four different Gospels, each from a different perspective, with a different emphasis, and with a different audience in mind.

Matthew emphasizes the Messiah, the Lion of the tribe of Judah; and was written primarily for the Jews.
Mark emphasizes the obedient servant of YHWH; and was written primarily for the Romans.
Luke emphasizes Jesus as the Son of Man; it was for all Gentiles.
John emphasizes Jesus as the Son of God -- His Gospel is organized around seven miracles, seven discourses, and seven "I AM" statements. It was written so that we might believe on Him.

That they differ slightly is no indication of errancy, or even error. It is rather an invitation to analyze those differences, to see if there is a different point of emphasis, and to determine what the Holy Spirit may be saying.

For instance, in the case of the fig tree: In Mark, Peter notices the tree dried up from the roots the day after Jesus curses it.

In Matthew, the tree "withers" immediately. But so does a rose, once it has been cut; it is dead, cut off from the life of the bush. The effects of this withering may not be immediate, however.

Is this an allusion to Adam, who "withered" immediately upon his disobedience and sin? Though the effects of that spiritual death would only effect his soul gradually, and his body ultimately (in his case, 930 years)?

And would this be a point of emphasis to the Hebrews; something that they might've recognized, where the readers of Mark wouldn't?

Remember, the Bible is God's word to ALL men in ALL places in all ALL times.

How could such a message system NOT be inerrant (in its original languages)?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 152 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

,,,resort in desperation to juvenile rhetorical parlor tricks involving one's pet cat; or the even sillier and more desperate special plea that "some things don't need a cause -- the universe being one of them."

Perhaps you misunderstood my objection to your First Cause logic. I do doubt there is any logical or scientific support for a First Cause, but that is beside the point. What I objected to was your concluding line to it: "And this we call God." As you well know, that line hangs out there in vast logical emptyness, completely and totally unconnected and unsupported by anything before it. You are free to call it God, of course, just as I am free to call it Snippy, but there is absolutely no logical support for either of these conclusions. That was the point I was trying to make in my previous deificaton of Snippy. Apparently it went over your head.

BTW, your last line, "I will pray for you," is the low point and most offensive of your posts so far. I can't remember how many times I have heard that tired old parting line from some evangelist who came knocking at my door to bring me the "Good News" that I am saved. I usually try to be polite, and only once did I slam the door in their face. That was during a discussion on my doorstep with a pleasant-looking elderly woman. I asked her what she thought of the Israelite slaughter of women and children prisoners during the Israelite invasion of Canaan. At first she didn't realize what I was talking about, and then exclaimed in an almost joyful voice: "Oh, they worshiped idols!" I stared at her for a moment, then slammed the door in her face and stood there shaking in rage at the evil monster standing on my doorstep.

Your parting line reminded me of that incident.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 156 by Volbrigade]


Well, protestations aside, I will take your lack of point by point response as an indication that inerrancy as it is usually defined is, in fact, not reasonably defensible.


Yes, I agree the inconsistencies are consistent with the likelihood of actual persons and events underlying the gospel narratives. This is, however, a diversion from the claims of inerrancy, which typically means that the gospels (or the Bible) make no statements contrary to fact. The inconsistencies you most blithely sweep aside definitely do indicate statements contrary to fact.


On the one point you do mention:

That they differ slightly is no indication of errancy, or even error. It is rather an invitation to analyze those differences, to see if there is a different point of emphasis, and to determine what the Holy Spirit may be saying.

For instance, in the case of the fig tree: In Mark, Peter notices the tree dried up from the roots the day after Jesus curses it.

In Matthew, the tree "withers" immediately. But so does a rose, once it has been cut; it is dead, cut off from the life of the bush. The effects of this withering may not be immediate, however.

This does not address that in one narrative, the tree does wither immediately, and in the other, it does not. Your response here simply ignores the reality of what the text says and attempts to divert from that reality.

Now, one can certainly consider the metaphorical interpretations you offer for the meaning of the withering fig, but those interpretations do not depend on the gospels being literally true in every fact. For the interpretation, it does not matter, really, if the fig withered at once or a day later. But again, those interpretive issues do not address the failure of inerrancy to be a reasonably justifiable doctrine.





If, in fact, you are willing to go to such rhetorical lengths in order to attempt some defense for inerrancy, then in fact, you make inerrancy worthless.


For example, you assert elsewhere in the thread the following.

and the world wide evidence of a catastrophic global flood as the source of the fossil record, deposited about 4,500 years ago:

I will be happy in a future post to show that a global flood happening in the last 5000 years is wildly inconsistent with a huge amount of physical evidence. I have already provided some, which you have again failed to address in anything approaching a reasonable manner.



However, for now let's consider the Bible. You have asserted that the history of the earth including the history of life on earth is consistent with the Bible.


Can you explain how you get the 4,500 year date you mention above from the Bible, in at least general terms? What are some of the passages the you would use to justify this claim?

[McCulloch]

Aside from the fact that they are remarkable evidence of the integrity and accuracy of the Scriptures, in terms of the faithfulness of their transposition from the original source documents (i.e., the apparent inconsistencies you cite having never been edited out) --

We do concede that the New Testament has been remarkably and accurately transmitted to modern times from their late first century originals. However that does not imply that the originals were in any way accurate portrayals of the events that they wrote about.

That they differ slightly is no indication of errancy, or even error. It is rather an invitation to analyze those differences, to see if there is a different point of emphasis, and to determine what the Holy Spirit may be saying.

It is not just errors in emphasis or interpretation. There are errors in fact. It is impossible to reconstruct a narrative of the events that take into account all of the bits included in the four gospels.

Remember, the Bible is God's word to ALL men in ALL places in all ALL times.

How could such a message system NOT be inerrant (in its original languages)?

Was this meant as a rhetorical question? The message could not be inerrant if it is not from God. What is the evidence that the New Testament is from God? Its wonderful accuracy? It is accurate because it is from God and it is from God because it is accurate. Any inaccuracies we think that we have found must be mistakes in our understanding because we have an a priori belief that the NT is from God. Right.

[McCulloch]

Can you explain how you get the 4,500 year date you mention above from the Bible, in at least general terms? What are some of the passages the you would use to justify this claim?

From http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ213.html
Possible Date for the Flood Based on the Bible

[mrow]Event [mcol]Years [mcol]References [row]Abraham (Abram) was born 352 years after the flood began. [col]352 [col]Gen 11:10–12:4, Acts 7:4 [row]Jacob entered Egypt 290 years after Abraham was born. [col]290 [col]Gen 21:5, 5:26, 47:9 [row]Jacob’s descendants were in Egypt for 430 years. [col]430 [col]Gen 15:13, Ex 12:40, Acts 7:6, Gal 3:17 [row]The Exodus from Egypt occurred 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon’s reign. [col]480 [col]I Ki 6:1 [row]In 967 B.C., during his fourth year as king, Solomon began to build the Temple in Jerusalem. [col]967 B.C. [col]historical records; I Ki 6:1[row]Total:[col]2519 B.C.

There are a number of areas of uncertainty that are pointed out in the linked article, however, this could serve as an order of magnitude estimate.