Question about oxygen levels

[Subduction Zone]

So the Olympics is basically stuff scraped off the top of the Juan de Fuca plate as the rest of the plate subducts, as well as part of the North American plate folding at the edge from the force of the subduction going underneath.

And some of the top layers of basalt too. The oceanic crust starts with pillow basalts on top. Those are basalts that were exposed to sea water on eruption. They tend to have structures or "pillows" telling us this. The structures are rounded in shape with a skin of very finely crystalized basalt where it directly met seawater and cooled almost instantly with a coarser, but still fine grained, interior. Below that are a sheeted dike complex and under that gabbros. Gabbro is the oceanic crust equivalent of granite. It is a coarse grained mafic (high in MAgnessum and FerrIC or iron based, minerals).

Geology of Olympic - Olympic National Park (U.S. National Park Service).

file:///C:/Users/DOUGH/Downloads/4.13%20White%20and%20Klein%20Oceanic%20crust.pdf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I guess you will never learn.

Millions of years would make them all rounded stumps, like the Great Smokies. They are old, but we don’t see that with the Alps, Andes, Himalayas, Rockies, et.al. Millions & millions of years? .... lol.

That much time with the extreme weathering that some of the Alps & Himalayas experience, and their Dolomitic formations (Moh’s scale: 3.5 to 4) would have already been reduced to rubble.

I feel you’ve been misled... and I think you want to be.

Based on the general information of modern and current geology, the age of the Rocky Mountains is 50-80 million years. The Appalachians are 400-480 million years old. The St. Francis Mountains of the Missouri Ozarks are 1.4 billion years old. The latter are what old mountains look like after that long a time and erosion.

According to you and on no evidence at all, these all formed in a single year long event 4,000 years ago. That is simply what you choose to believe despite the evidence.

Imagine the energy released in one very brief period required to make things as they are and you wonder why people that have knowledge of geology recognize the futility of trying to force belief into reality against the flood of that knowledge. Believe it as you like brother, but don't get offended when others do not buy into those empty claims.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

…despite the evidence.

…those empty claims.

“Empty” claims?
I have provided all kinds of evidence. One facet of which (the frozen megafauna found within the permafrost) science has no explanation as to how they got there.

The other lines of evidence — like the numerous Flood legends with their similarities, the Ark’s ideal ratios, and others — you prefer to explain as massive coincidences.

They are not empty claims.

And *many* (not all) high-altitude mountain ranges, have features that are youthful-looking, geologically.

The Appalachians are 400-480 million years old. The St. Francis Mountains of the Missouri Ozarks are 1.4 billion years old.

Yep, they probably are. They look like it.

And the bedrock along the northeast coast of Hudson Bay, Canada, could very well be over 4 billion.

These apparent facts present no conflict with the Bible’s POV, in my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“Empty” claims?
I have provided all kinds of evidence. One facet of which (the frozen megafauna found within the permafrost) science has no explanation as to how they got there.

The other lines of evidence — like the numerous Flood legends with their similarities, the Ark’s ideal ratios, and others — you prefer to explain as massive coincidences.

They are not empty claims.

And *many* (not all) high-altitude mountain ranges, have features that are youthful-looking, geologically.




Yep, they probably are. They look like it.

And the bedrock along the northeast coast of Hudson Bay, Canada, could very well be over 4 billion.

These apparent facts present no conflict with the Bible’s POV, in my opinion.

Nope, you have only made an ad hoc explanation. Without a testable hypothesis by definition you cannot have evidence in the world of science.

 

[Twilight Hue]

First off I don't believe in Noah's flood. With that said I have seen arguments stating if Noah's flood happened, the pressure would be to great and the oxygen would be to thin for them to survive if all of earth was covered with water.

By your thought and opinions, are those true statements?

.

That crazy water canopy theory alone would have boiled Noah and everything on the ark alive like an unlucky bright red lobster.

 

[crossfire]

“Empty” claims?
I have provided all kinds of evidence. One facet of which (the frozen megafauna found within the permafrost) science has no explanation as to how they got there.

Actually, I do have a hypothesis that might explain this: Sudden atmospheric pressure drop, which would cause any liquid water to instantly boil, which would flash freeze anything in that location, as the energy needed to convert liquid water to water vapor would be drawn from the immediate vicinity in the form of heat. Any sort of massive implosion (like gaseous hydrogen chemically bonding with gaseous oxygen to form liquid water in the upper atmosphere where the auroras occur) would do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I do have a hypothesis that might explain this: Sudden atmospheric pressure drop, which would cause any liquid water to instantly boil, which would flash freeze anything in that location, as the energy needed to convert liquid water to water vapor would be drawn from the immediate vicinity in the form of heat. Any sort of massive implosion (like gaseous hydrogen chemically bonding with gaseous oxygen to form liquid water in the upper atmosphere where the auroras occur) would do.

None of your sources even hinted at that and I doubt if you have a hypothesis.

What is your idea and what reasonable test could possibly refute it?

 

[crossfire]

None of your sources even hinted at that and I doubt if you have a hypothesis.

What is your idea and what reasonable test could possibly refute it?

Have you been paying attention? Correlating auroras with barometic pressure drops? Also, what else could explain the flash freeze other than a sudden drop in pressure causing water to boil to equalize the pressure drop, taking heat energy from the surroundings so the water can evaporate/vaporize? Do you have a more plausible explanation for the flash freezes, or would you rather just throw out the evidence of flash freezing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you been paying attention? Correlating auroras with barometic pressure drops? Also, what else could explain the flash freeze other than a sudden drop in pressure causing water to boil to equalize the pressure drop, taking heat energy from the surroundings so the water can evaporate/vaporize? Do you have a more plausible explanation for the flash freezes, or would you rather just throw out the evidence of flash freezing?

That is just an ad hoc explanation. It is not a hypothesis. i asked you a clear question that you had no answer for. That tells us that you have no evidence. You do not even understand the term.

 

[crossfire]

That is just an ad hoc explanation. It is not a hypothesis. i asked you a clear question that you had no answer for. That tells us that you have no evidence. You do not even understand the term.

OK, so you choose to ignore. Understood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so you choose to ignore. Understood.

No. If anything you are the one ignoring the refutation.

Once again, by definition, this is not my definition but from the definition of "scientific evidence" to even have scientific evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis. When I asked you what your testable hypothesis was and how you would test it you ignored that question. That tells us that you do not have a testable hypothesis and therefore cannot claim to have any evidence.

You might as well try to refute the fact that I have a dragon in my garage.

 

[crossfire]

No. If anything you are the one ignoring the refutation.

Once again, by definition, this is not my definition but from the definition of "scientific evidence" to even have scientific evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis. When I asked you what your testable hypothesis was and how you would test it you ignored that question. That tells us that you do not have a testable hypothesis and therefore cannot claim to have any evidence.

You might as well try to refute the fact that I have a dragon in my garage.

Well hey, I did my best to explain the evidence found. You may not find my hypothetical explanation of the finding of flash freezing to be plausible. I'm also hard-pressed to explain the evidence found that the asteroid Vesta is composed of igneous rocks (and all that implies.) That does not mean that I am going to ignore and throw out the findings and the evidence of these things, as that would be denying reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well hey, I did my best to explain the evidence found. You may not find my hypothetical explanation of the finding of flash freezing to be plausible. I'm also hard-pressed to explain the evidence found that the asteroid Vesta is composed of igneous rocks (and all that implies.) That does not mean that I am going to ignore and throw out the findings and the evidence of these things, as that would be denying reality.

Once again, that is not evidence. All you have are observations and an ad hoc explanation. In the sciences an ad hoc explanation is worthless. You can support almost any claim with an ad hoc explanation.

It even explains the dragon in my garage.

 

[crossfire]

Once again, that is not evidence. All you have are observations and an ad hoc explanation. In the sciences an ad hoc explanation is worthless. You can support almost any claim with an ad hoc explanation.

It even explains the dragon in my garage.

Actually, my hypothesis can be falsified in any number of ways:

• Demonstrating that strong solar flares/coronal mass ejections that hit the earth following the earth's magnetic field causing auroras are not also accompanied by an atmospheric barometric pressure drop. (Those studies are behind paywalls, so I can't see them. I was hoping someone could see them or has specific knowledge of this.)
• Demonstrating that sudden, drastic barometric pressure drops do not cause evaporative cooling.
• Demonstrating that the polar vortex is not influenced by solar flares/coronal mass ejections.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, my hypothesis can be falsified in any number of ways:

• Demonstrating that strong solar flares/coronal mass ejections that hit the earth following the earth's magnetic field causing auroras are not also accompanied by an atmospheric barometric pressure drop. (Those studies are behind paywalls, so I can't see them. I was hoping someone could see them or has specific knowledge of this.)
• Demonstrating that sudden, drastic barometric pressure drops do not cause evaporative cooling.
• Demonstrating that the polar vortex is not influenced by solar flares/coronal mass ejections.

No, none of these appear to be "reasonable". If there were such drastic changes they would show up in the abstracts. At best you can say that there may be minor changes in air pressure, but that would do nothing for your supposed model. And that still has nothing to do with the mythical flood of Noah.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“Empty” claims?

Yes.

I have provided all kinds of evidence. One facet of which (the frozen megafauna found within the permafrost) science has no explanation as to how they got there.

You have declared things are evidence without benefit explaining how they are evidence of a global flood. Declared evidence is just empty claims.

The other lines of evidence — like the numerous Flood legends with their similarities, the Ark’s ideal ratios, and others — you prefer to explain as massive coincidences.

These have all been explained and refuted. And not in hand waving them to be coincidence either.

Flood myths are not universal. Cultures that have flood myths do not have the same myths. Where they are similar there is obvious evidence of cultural contamination. Mutual occupation, trade routes, co-mingled cultures, etc.

The ratios would only mean that the writers knew or knew someone that had knowledge of ship construction. Certainly not evidence the boat existed or that a flood occurred. Not evidence of a flood at all.

A mammoth with a mouthful of flowers was conjecture, hyperbole, misinformation and modern mythology that took on a life of its own but has been explained for what it is and does not hold up.

They are not empty claims.

They are. As near as I can tell they are just offered to keep the argument alive for you. They certainly do not support a global flood.

And *many* (not all) high-altitude mountain ranges, have features that are youthful-looking, geologically.

No idea what you mean. This doesn't make sense to me.

Yep, they probably are. They look like it.

And the bedrock along the northeast coast of Hudson Bay, Canada, could very well be over 4 billion.

These apparent facts present no conflict with the Bible’s POV, in my opinion.

What does this mean? You are just shooting out facts as if they mean something without explaining any meaning.

The Bible says a flood over the entire Earth occurred over the course of year. You speculate that all the current mountains were formed, all the continents moved to their present positions, water canopy, etc., in that year. Events that would release cataclysmic energy that would lay waste to a tiny boat (and this planet so as not to recover as it is now). And your answer to this is...magic.

You haven't done anything real or meaningful to support your claims. Thus they are empty. All the purple, rolling eye emojis on the internet will not change that fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually, my hypothesis can be falsified in any number of ways:

• Demonstrating that strong solar flares/coronal mass ejections that hit the earth following the earth's magnetic field causing auroras are not also accompanied by an atmospheric barometric pressure drop. (Those studies are behind paywalls, so I can't see them. I was hoping someone could see them or has specific knowledge of this.)
• Demonstrating that sudden, drastic barometric pressure drops do not cause evaporative cooling.
• Demonstrating that the polar vortex is not influenced by solar flares/coronal mass ejections.

Are you trying to argue that the Earth wasn't just flooded completely, but became a ball of ice? I'm lost on what you are claiming.

 

[crossfire]

Are you trying to argue that the Earth wasn't just flooded completely, but became a ball of ice? I'm lost on what you are claiming.

This is actually a tangent away from oxygen levels--someone upthread (post #120) mentioned the flash-frozen megafauna that have been found--and this is my hypothesis as to how it might have occurred.

Regarding Noah's flood--I see this as part of the widespread great flood myths than can be found from cultures all over the world. I believe these are referring to the megafloods that occurred at the end of the last glaciation. Humans were around at that time, and it obviously left a great impression on the humans of the time. The flash frozen megafauna also occurred at the end of the last glaciation, so they are related to what took place at that time.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And your answer to this is...magic.

You haven't done anything real or meaningful to support your claims. Thus they are empty. All the purple, rolling eye emojis on the internet will not change that fact.

For one claiming to be a Methodist, exactly how is Jesus’ sacrifice important to you? Magic? Or God’s power?
Or doesn’t God have any power? (That’s the impression I get from you.)
My answer is what Jesus said….”you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” -Mark 12:24

What was God’s purpose for causing the Flood? (It wasn’t to destroy the planet!) Why would it need to be worldwide (as the account indicates by having the Ark float for so long)?

And *many* (not all) high-altitude mountain ranges, have features that are youthful-looking, geologically.

“No idea what you mean.”
Uh-huh.

Look at the Canadian Rockies, or parts of the Alps, the Himalayas, and the Andes.
They exhibit features that are young-looking….certainly not enduring millions of years of extreme weathering!


“…cultural contamination…”
I’ve heard that counter argument before, but I’ve never read any evidence supporting that conclusion.
Just hopes… I mean, it has to be that, right? Academics can’t allow for any God doing anything.

“A mammoth….”
?????
Please… I’d hoped you would stay amiable & open minded. But when you feel you have to start misrepresenting the evidence, i have to say goodbye.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You speculate that all the current mountains were formed, all the continents moved to their present positions….

No, I never said “all”!

Misrepresentation & gross generalization of what I’ve said.
Just stop.