Dethinking The Unpossible

A closed mind is totally incapable of being shown real world facts.  Lead a person with a closed mind step by step through a very logical process; show them a simple experiment in actual progress; show them what every kid learns in science class: what happens?  The closed mind, having seen proof that a thing is real, must employ a strange chain of illogic to show that the proof was not merely impossible but unpossible.  A thing which has just been shown to be possible can only be shown to be unpossible by a reverse logic in which thoughts themselves are shown to be unpossible.  It takes a special thinking process to deconstruct a scientific proof and replace it with diametrically opposed dogma.

The science: plants produce oxygen

Joseph Priestley discovered that a candle or a mouse would be snuffed out in a closed volume of air.  He called the resulting air 'dephlogisticated air'.  In 1778, Jan Ingenhousz showed that a plant in sunlight could regenerate 'dephlogisticated air'.  It is now generally known that plants absorb CO2 and water and evolve oxygen as a waste product.  A widely performed school science experiment uses Canadian Pond Weed, or Elodea, to show oxygen being evolved.  The science is so widely accessible that it is now taken as a common-sense fact.

The unscience: plants are not necessary for generating oxygen

Rather than accept the reality of harmful human influences on our own environment, an 'researcher' wants us to believe that plants are not necessary for generating oxygen.  The unlogic is exemplary.  Crazy wrong, but nevertheless exemplary.

It seems that a Hebrew scholar, Dr. Steven Boyd, has determined that the Bible, from Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is narrative.  No arguments there, but it is unthinkable to some biblical literalists that the Bible might not be 100% literal truth, so the author concludes that if the passages are poetry then they merely illustrate a spiritual truth, but if they are narrative then they describe real events and real people.  We must dethink that Alice in Wonderland or any other work of fiction is a narrative: it is unpossible that such books describe real events and real people.

Birds can't fly without air, so there was air on day 5, and when the animals were made the air must have been breathable - so it contained oxygen.

"Aside from all the other reasons for which God may have created plants, the Bible specifically states that He made them for human and animal food, and this is largely being ignored by global warming advocates. ... Since all animals and mankind were vegetarians originally, plants were created as a reliable and sustainable source of food."

"God established enough oxygen in the original atmosphere to sustain life throughout the duration of the earth. This highlights the fact that plants are not necessary for generating oxygen."

But, hang on: further down the page the author itemizes the points made, and item 2 in 'post flood' says:
"Growing plants and shelled animals removed CO2 from the environment and added O2"

But then again, in 'Why there is no reason for alarm', the author states:
"Plants were created as food for humans and animals. They are not necessary for storing carbon or for generating O2."

So there we have it: an example of how to dethink the unpossible and prove to your readers that:
"The contention that man’s activities are causing global warming, as described in the media and by its advocates, is a myth. There is no reason either biblically or scientifically to fear the exaggerated and misguided claims of catastrophe as a result of increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide ..."

How long would a 'just right', a Goldilocks amount of oxygen last until all animal life died out?  How much oxygen have all the animals - including humans - used since Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC ?  How come we are still here?  How long have we got left?  Why do dethinkers of the unpossible contradict themselves so much?


I was raised in the Christian tradition and have some fairly strong religious views.  I also have some strong views about cherry-picking.  In my view, deliberately cherry-picks the Bible to support political arguments about education and taxation.  That offends my spiritual side, but when they try to claim that their biblical cherry-picking is science, then that offends also my logical side.  I hope I may be excused for seeing red.