Question about oxygen levels

[Hockeycowboy]

If the sea level rose 30,000 feet it wouldn't crush everything.
In the bible it says the waters rose from the deep as well as rained down, which wouldn't crush every thing.

… And furthermore, it wouldn’t require “30,000 feet”, as @Aupmanyav stated.

Psalms 104 explains that the “Waters” made the ‘mountains rise & valleys fall.’ (If one is going to ask questions about the Biblical Flood, then the Bible should be consulted to explain some aspects of the Flood, where it discusses it; don’t you think?)

So Psalms 104, when you reason on it, is telling us the Earth was smoother, topographically speaking, before the Deluge.

It makes sense; if waters spewed out from “vast” springs, the land directly above would have to fill that vacuum, i.e., sink.
But mountains have been found to have roots (look it up, it’s interesting); no doubt those roots help to stabilize the mountains. So by the surface sinking / deflating, many of the highest mountain ranges were formed.
And when you study the details of many of the mountain ranges (not all), they do appear youthful, geologically sealing, with crisp well-defined features despite the intense weathering and erosion they endure.

So…30,000 feet would not be needed.

Im not saying it was ever this smooth, but if the Earth were smoothed out like a cue ball, the volume of water we have now would be sufficient to cover the land 2 1/2 miles deep.

And within the mantle, more water is being discovered. (Google ringwoodite.)
Just sayin’.

So long, my cousin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

… And furthermore, it wouldn’t require “30,000 feet”, as @Aupmanyav stated.

Psalms 104 explains that the “Waters” made the ‘mountains rise & valleys fall.’ (If one is going to ask questions about the Biblical Flood, then the Bible should be consulted to explain some aspects of the Flood, where it discusses it; don’t you think?)

So Psalms 104, when you reason on it, is telling us the Earth was smoother, topographically speaking, before the Deluge.

It makes sense; if waters spewed out from “vast” springs, the land directly above would have to fill that vacuum, i.e., sink.
But mountains have been found to have roots (look it up, it’s interesting); no doubt those roots help to stabilize the mountains. So by the surface sinking / deflating, many of the highest mountain ranges were formed.
And when you study the details of many of the mountain ranges (not all), they do appear youthful, geologically sealing, with crisp well-defined features despite the intense weathering and erosion they endure.

So…30,000 feet would not be needed.

Im not saying it was ever this smooth, but if the Earth were smoothed out like a cue ball, the volume of water we have now would be sufficient to cover the land 2 1/2 miles deep.

And within the mantle, more water is being discovered. (Google ringwoodite.)
Just sayin’.

So long, my cousin.

We know that the mountains are far older than the Flood. Once again you are probably going to propose an action that would probably cook Noah and company.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We know that the mountains are far older than the Flood. Once again you are probably going to propose an action that would probably cook Noah and company.

Yeah, the rocks are old. (You are aware I’ve stated that many times). But in many ranges, the features they form, are young.

If you are right and they’re all millions of years old, then due to the extreme weathering they endure, the well-defined and crisp characteristics we observe in many ranges, wouldn’t exist; they’d be rounded stubs!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, the rocks are old. (You are aware I’ve stated that many times). But in many ranges, the features they form, are young.

If you are right and they’re all millions of years old, then due to the extreme weathering they endure, the well-defined and crisp characteristics we observe in many ranges, wouldn’t exist; they’d be rounded stubs!

Now you are just handwaving. You have no idea how much erosion to expect. Also volcanism is often associated with mountain building. The Andes even have a sort of volcanic rock named after them. Andesite is associated with the volcanoes in the Andes. Here is just one article on the dating of Andesite in Chile. It ranges from 11 to 72 million years old:

Detailed geologic field mapping and radiometric dating of the Abanico Formation in the Principal Cordillera, central Chile: Evidence of protracted volcanism and implications for Cenozoic tectonics

Oh, and as far as mountain ranges go, that is considered to be young by the experts in the field that do understand weathering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps @Hockeycowboy has been misled by creationists. Some mountains erode very quickly. Where I live that has happened. That is because there were volcanic mountains that were largely made of ash. Volcanic ash erodes very easily. Other rocks, not so much. There were all sorts of volcanic mountains where I live less than fifty million years ago. They have been eroded down to stumps. But a limestone mountain or well indurated sandstone one is not going to erode very quickly. Get some granite up that high and it lass hundreds of millions of years.

There is an easy way to test this. Get a rock tumbler and put different materials in it. Though not terribly useful for the real world you can see what rocks weather better or worse than others.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Im not saying it was ever this smooth, but if the Earth were smoothed out like a cue ball, the volume of water we have now would be sufficient to cover the land 2 1/2 miles deep.

Granted, earth was smooth during the first 700 million years of its life (and earth according to science is some 4.54 billion years old). But your (young) earth is only 6,000 years old from the time of Adam. What does Bible say about that?

 

[crossfire]

<...>
Ooh, and I just thought of one more thing. If it was water vapor when it condensed that would also release a huge amount of energy. Now they are going to cook Noah from the inside out and outside in at the same time.

If it was ozone and other forms of oxygen in the upper atmosphere that were hit by hydrogen ions from a massive solar flare, these gases imploding into liquid water would cause a massive drop in atmospheric pressure, and with it, temperature from expanding gases. This pressure drop which would cause liquid water on the surface of the earth to boil/vaporize to compensate for the rapid drop in pressure, which would require a great deal of energy to go from liquid to vapor, resulting in a flash-freezing in the areas where the earth's magnetic field draws the charged hydrogen. (areas where we see the auroras.)

 

[crossfire]

… And furthermore, it wouldn’t require “30,000 feet”, as @Aupmanyav stated.

Psalms 104 explains that the “Waters” made the ‘mountains rise & valleys fall.’ (If one is going to ask questions about the Biblical Flood, then the Bible should be consulted to explain some aspects of the Flood, where it discusses it; don’t you think?)

So Psalms 104, when you reason on it, is telling us the Earth was smoother, topographically speaking, before the Deluge.

It makes sense; if waters spewed out from “vast” springs, the land directly above would have to fill that vacuum, i.e., sink.
But mountains have been found to have roots (look it up, it’s interesting); no doubt those roots help to stabilize the mountains. So by the surface sinking / deflating, many of the highest mountain ranges were formed.
And when you study the details of many of the mountain ranges (not all), they do appear youthful, geologically sealing, with crisp well-defined features despite the intense weathering and erosion they endure.

So…30,000 feet would not be needed.

Im not saying it was ever this smooth, but if the Earth were smoothed out like a cue ball, the volume of water we have now would be sufficient to cover the land 2 1/2 miles deep.

And within the mantle, more water is being discovered. (Google ringwoodite.)
Just sayin’.

So long, my cousin.

There is a geological mechanism (I think it is called something like geological bounce-back) where mountain ranges "spring back"-- increase in height when the weight of miles of glaciation holding them down is suddenly released by melting. And of course, valleys are eroded deeper by the sudden release of the water from the glacial lakes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In your words explain what would have happened to Noah and all in the ark if the world would have completely flooded to over the highest peaks.

You've been told that there isn't enough water on earth to submerge all of the mountain tops, so, if we want to discuss a global flood, we have to change the parameters of the earth and put that water somewhere. We've seen suggestions of atmospheric canopies and upwelling ground waters. And there are the logistic objections involved in building such a craft, stocking it with animals, feeding and cleaning up after the animals without them killing one another or dying from close quarters, and the beating that five miles of rain in forty days would dish out to the craft.

Let's just say that somehow, despite all of those barriers, somehow, the earth is flooded, and an ark of people and animals are floating at the new sea level. There should be no oxygen or atmospheric pressure problems for them. O2 ought to be 21% and air pressure 1 atmosphere at the watery surface.

You said you brought this meme over from elsewhere: "I have seen arguments stating if Noah's flood happened, the pressure would be too great and the oxygen would be too thin." I think your source was thinking of a mountaineer on Mt. Everest, where atmospheric pressure and oxygen content are both reduced owing to being so elevated above much of the atmosphere (near the top of the troposphere). Also, it's much colder than sea level. But as you've seen, you would be at the new sea level if the waters rose that high, not five miles into the atmosphere, and should experience typical sea level conditions.

Its said that there are over 6 quintillion gallons(over six million trillion) of water hiding in the Earth’s crust. Its a guess as it could be half less or 10 times more. We don't know A cubic mile of water equals around 1.1 trillion gallons. How much could have came from the deep?

You would about a billion times that to do the job if ground water were responsible for most of it.

The problem with this idea is that you'd need a way to get this water to the surface, have it remain there for at least several weeks while the rain was also coming down, and then have it return to its cisterns and aquafers and never reappear. What brings the water up? What keeps it up on the surface and then relaxes to allow it to fall back into the earth never to be seen again?

The amount of water needed to cover Everest is about 1,085,166,768 miles³ of water less whatever volume the mountains themselves occupy - maybe 5-10% of that volume - whether falling from unseen canopies above or upwelling from unseen ground water sources below. All the known water on earth adds up to about 332,500,000 miles³. You're going to need about triple the volumes of the oceans to come up from unseen sources for a while and then go back there to remain. The biblical story depends on miracles. Physics and earth science say it never happened because it couldn't.

Have you thought about the rainfall if it were the principal source of the floodwaters? 30,000 feet of water over 40 days is about 750 feet of rain a day, assuming the whole earth was being rained on at once the entire time. That's about 30 feet per hour, or enough to flood a three story building every hour for about six weeks. You've seen how homes and businesses do with about 2 feet of rainfall total lately.

A point many miss is what it took to build the Ark Encounters exhibit, a scale replica of the ark. Thousands of tons of milled timber was trucked in in thousands of trucks by thousands of men. Cranes were used, as well as metal nails and braces. Noah and his family didn't do that, especially with a few out gathering kangaroos and emperor penguins from the far reaches of the world - much more than a day's ride away on camels and their other ships.

 

[PureX]

Would the extra mass of 20,000 ft of water increase gravity?

Would all that water use up the Earth's supply of hydrogen and oxygen?

 

[F1fan]

Ok. In your words explain what would have happened to Noah and all in the ark if the world would have completly flooded to over the highest peaks.

This way your explination will clear up any misunderstandings. I think that is fair.

They would have died of starvation. Unless there was a 7-11 still open after the flood waters receded.

But that's OK, because the amount of water needed isn't anywhere on or around this planet.

 

[John53]

Would all that water use up the Earth's supply of hydrogen and oxygen?

Ummm no idea but now I have something else to worry about.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm dismissing myself.

Tis good to recognize that some arguments are
best avoided. Here's one....
What if water were pumped up from the oceans
depths to add to the surface? Could the surface
rise 20,000'? Would the atmosphere go away?

 

[John53]

Tis good to recognize that some arguments are
best avoided. Here's one....
What if water were pumped up from the oceans
depths to add to the surface? Could the surface
rise 20,000'? Would the atmosphere go away?

See my answer to @PureX

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it was ozone and other forms of oxygen in the upper atmosphere that were hit by hydrogen ions from a massive solar flare, these gases imploding into liquid water would cause a massive drop in atmospheric pressure, and with it, temperature from expanding gases. This pressure drop which would cause liquid water on the surface of the earth to boil/vaporize to compensate for the rapid drop in pressure, which would require a great deal of energy to go from liquid to vapor, resulting in a flash-freezing in the areas where the earth's magnetic field draws the charged hydrogen. (areas where we see the auroras.)

No.

 

[PureX]

What if water were pumped up from the oceans depths to add to the surface? Could the surface rise 20,000'?

Only in Biblical times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a geological mechanism (I think it is called something like geological bounce-back) where mountain ranges "spring back"-- increase in height when the weight of miles of glaciation holding them down is suddenly released by melting. And of course, valleys are eroded deeper by the sudden release of the water from the glacial lakes.

You mean isostasy. And no, that is a very slow process.

 

[F1fan]

You mean isostasy. And no, that is a very slow process.

Right. And for whole mountains to move miles into the air in a short time? That would cause massive shockwaves through the whole planet. Look at the damage earthquakes do when fault zones shift just a few inches. Cities crumble. Massive tsunamis wipe out coasts, where people tend to settle. These suggestions are absurd. Just more magic.

If creationists are going to cite magic, just say magic and be done with it. They shouldn't try to squeeze science and nature into the process of their implausible and irrational religious beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right. And for whole mountains to move miles into the air in a short time? That would cause massive shockwaves through the whole planet. Look at the damage earthquakes do when fault zones shift just a few inches. Cities crumble. Massive tsunamis wipe out coasts, where people tend to settle. These suggestions are absurd. Just more magic.

If creationists are going to cite magic, just say magic and be done with it. They shouldn't try to squeeze science and nature into the process of their implausible and irrational religious beliefs.

All but the totally insane realize after a while that saying "magic" in response to a hundred different questions is so thin of an argument as to be unbelievable. As a result they want evidence for their beliefs. They need evidence for their beliefs. And it is easier to make up stories about the limited science that one does understand. so they stop there. Actual learning is counter productive because then one learns what flaws one's argument has.

 

[HonestJoe]

At the top of Mount Everest, over 29,000 feet there is only ⅓ of the oxygen available there as there is at sea level.

If the normal sea level rose by 20,000 feet and the new sea level is 20,000 feet higher than what it is now, what would happen to the oxygen level?

Would the oxygen levels be increased at higher altitudes due to the higher sea level?

That significant of a change in the make-up of the planet would have so many different consequences and impacts that atmospheric oxygen concentration would be the least of it. The specifics would depend on how/why sea level rose by so much.