Question about oxygen levels

[Dan From Smithville]

You really are dismissive.
Lol.
You said that Native Americans copied their Flood legends from the missionaries?
I found just the opposite:
View attachment 65847
And Mr. Montgomery’s book links the Flood narrative in Genesis with YEC concepts, which seems to be a disingenuous habit among geologists.

For the record, there are no currently understood natural processes that can account for the Pleistocene megafauna found across the Northern Hemisphere within the Permafrost.
Only the Flood explains that evidence.
So it’s best to ignore it, eh? Or at least minimize it.
“A mammoth”….. that was rich!

Of course I can be dismissive of claims without evidence.

I said "some" Native American tribes. Not all. Recall how you admonish others about what you claim as misrepresentation. Of course, having legends around a similar theme does not make a biased position on a specific theme the ultimate explanation. A position whose proponents evade the many facts that have been supplied regarding flood myths or that they really are not universal and multiple versions of the same story. Not the sort of evidence that clinches any case, but apparently straws are all those drowning in contradictory evidence have.

Attacking Montgomery over alleged YEC issues does not eliminate the evidence he presents showing cultural contamination which you pointedly did not address. At all.

What you do turn to are supposedly unanswered questions in science and are using those "GAPS" by claiming your ideological position, speculation and grasping fills those "GAPS" without benefit of a valid explanation of how.

Claiming a flood explains things is not an explanation. It is just a claim. The only flood anyone seems have evidence for is the flood of empty claims.

I do agree with you one thing though. I recognize the ideological position of literalism you have placed yourself in and your right to, but borrowing any valid evidence and reasoning for that view regarding a global flood, the only rational choice is to dismiss the empty claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really are dismissive.
Lol.
You said that Native Americans copied their Flood legends from the missionaries?
I found just the opposite:
View attachment 65847
And Mr. Montgomery’s book links the Flood narrative in Genesis with YEC concepts, which seems to be a disingenuous habit among geologists.

For the record, there are no currently understood natural processes that can account for the Pleistocene megafauna found across the Northern Hemisphere within the Permafrost.
Only the Flood explains that evidence.
So it’s best to ignore it, eh? Or at least minimize it.
“A mammoth”….. that was rich!

He did not say that. You need to reread his post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I can be dismissive to claims without evidence.

I said "some" Native American tribes. Not all. Recall how you admonish others about what you claim as misrepresentation. Of course, having legends around a similar theme does not make a biased position on a specific theme the ultimate explanation. A position whose proponents evade the many facts that have been supplied regarding flood myths or that they really are not universal and multiple versions of the same story. Not the sort of evidence that clinches any case, but apparently straws are all those drowning in contradictory evidence have.

Attacking Montgomery over alleged YEC issues does not eliminate the evidence he presents showing cultural contamination which you pointedly did not address. At all.

What you do turn to are supposedly unanswered questions in science and are using those "GAPS" by claiming your ideological position, speculation and grasping fills those "GAPS" without benefit of a valid explanation of how.

Claiming a flood explains things is not an explanation. It is just a claim. The only flood anyone seems have evidence for is the flood of empty claims.

I do agree with you one thing though. I recognize the ideological position of literalism you have placed yourself in and your right to, but borrowing any valid evidence and reasoning for that view regarding a global flood, the only rational choice is to dismiss the empty claims.

Oh poop! You just beat me to it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You really are dismissive.
Lol.
You said that Native Americans copied their Flood legends from the missionaries?
I found just the opposite:
View attachment 65847
And Mr. Montgomery’s book links the Flood narrative in Genesis with YEC concepts, which seems to be a disingenuous habit among geologists.

For the record, there are no currently understood natural processes that can account for the Pleistocene megafauna found across the Northern Hemisphere within the Permafrost.
Only the Flood explains that evidence.
So it’s best to ignore it, eh? Or at least minimize it.
“A mammoth”….. that was rich!

The note from Anthropos that you posted actually points out cultural contamination and how the Genesis story is built on the myths of preceding cultures.

All I see is that the article mentions flood stories attributed to New World people by "missionaries" and others without benefit of any demonstration that they really are support of Genesis or not explained by other reasons. We cannot determine anything beyond the claim that such stories exist as there is no further support. How can we know that those native people were not repeating back stories that they had previously heard from other "missionaries"?

It is better evidence for what is already known from others examples of cultural contamination and doesn't refute the contamination conclusion.

 

[syo]

I have an oximeter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh poop! You just beat me to it.

The irony of the global flood argument is that a global flood is claimed to have drowned the majority of a humanity grasping at any straw to save themselves from it and is supported by people grasping at any straw to support the claim.

An insignificant and incomplete note referencing alleged and unevidenced stories of Native American flood myths supporting a global flood scenario. An alleged gap in our scientific knowledge regarding Pleistocene megafauna. Empty claims of "a global flood explains it all" without benefit of any substantive support of how.

All I have seen against the flood of valid evidence to reject the Genesis story as fact is hand waving. At least the little Dutch boy had a real gap and something useful to plug it with against that flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The irony of the global flood argument is that a global flood is claimed to have drowned the majority of a humanity grasping at any straw to save themselves from it and is supported by people grasping at any straw to support the claim.

An insignificant and incomplete note referencing alleged and unevidenced stories of Native American flood myths supporting a global flood scenario. An alleged gap in our scientific knowledge regarding Pleistocene megafauna. Empty claims of "a global flood explains it all" without benefit of any substantive support of how.

All I have seen against the flood of valid evidence to reject the Genesis story as fact is hand waving. At least the little Dutch boy had a real gap and something useful to plug it with against that flood.

Yes, but did he really use his finger?

 

[Polymath257]

How I understand it, is this:
With “waters above” the Earth, it would provide a warm atmosphere in *most* places…Of course, the extreme northern & southern latitudes would be colder, simple due to Earth’s tilt. But the waters above would be an invisible (at least invisible to someone on the ground) blanket-like protection so not only would it provide somewhat warmer temperatures, but also serve as a layer of absorption for the Sun’s radiation. IOW, there would’ve been less.

So, how thick would that layer be if it was invisible? How thick can a layer of water be without significant absorption of light? Not to mention pretty significant refraction?

That would wreak havoc on the current methods of determining ages through radiometric dating.

Really? How, precisely, would it affect uranium dating? Or potassium-argon dating? Or rubidium-strontium dating? Or, for that matter, any dating relevant for anything over a million years old?

Now, conceivably, it could affect the production of C14 in the upper atmosphere, but C14 dating isn't used for such old samples anyway. I fail any effect that would 'wreck havoc' to the primary dating techniques.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Geologists have a fondness for linking the Genesis Flood narrative to the Young Earth idea.

i know why…
It is easy to refute a young earth perspective; so then, because they inextricably link the Flood to Young Earth ideas, they can by extension dismiss the Flood, too.

But by no means is the Flood story dependent on a Young Earth concept. Marrying the two together, is IMO a disingenuous attempt to not face the evidences of the Flood, from the global (300+) legends to the many cultural Festivals of the Dead celebrated on traditional calendars near their respective dates corresponding with the Genesis “17th day of the second month”, to the common thread found in many ancient myths of ‘gods-sleeping-with-humans’ (corroborating the account in Genesis 6:1-4: one reason for the Flood, aren’t you glad?), to the ancient Chinese ideogram for ‘big boat’, (vessel + eight + mouths), to the frozen remains currently being found within the Permafrost. Thanks in part to global warming, more and more of these creatures are being unearthed.

On top of these frozen-land-based discoveries, trawlers & dredgers in the Bering Straits & North Sea have pulled up vast numbers of these remains, including tusks of mammoths….

The watery grave of Europe's monsters

(How did they end up in the ocean?)

Taken separately, each line of evidence is definitely debatable. But when viewed together, all of them including the ones in the OP create strong evidence for the Flood.

Question: if the Flood wasn’t the cause of the megafauna being encased within the Permafrost — not on its surface, but within it — across the Northern Hemisphere (a sprawling field of evidence), just what natural process could accomplish it? Surely there’s gotta be something!

So, how thick would that layer be if it was invisible? How thick can a layer of water be without significant absorption of light? Not to mention pretty significant refraction?



Really? How, precisely, would it affect uranium dating? Or potassium-argon dating? Or rubidium-strontium dating? Or, for that matter, any dating relevant for anything over a million years old?

Now, conceivably, it could affect the production of C14 in the upper atmosphere, but C14 dating isn't used for such old samples anyway. I fail any effect that would 'wreck havoc' to the primary dating techniques.

I’ll try to answer your first question, regarding the atmospheric water: I don’t think the water was all together… it might have been suspended throughout the 5 main layers of the atmosphere?
But not all the water came from above…the account tells us that “vast springs” were opened; waters from below.

Regarding the dating techniques, I should have been specific, I’m sorry … I was referring to ‘wreaking havoc’ on the C14 method, the means used to measure how long ago an organic object lived.
Dating the age of rocks, wouldn’t affect my POV at all, since I don’t subscribe to YEC ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Geologists have a fondness for linking the Genesis Flood narrative to the Young Earth idea.

i know why…
It is easy to refute a young earth perspective; so then, because they inextricably link the Flood to Young Earth ideas, they can by extension dismiss the Flood, too.

But by no means is the Flood story dependent on a Young Earth concept. Marrying the two together, is IMO a disingenuous attempt to not face the evidences of the Flood, from the global (300+) legends to the many cultural Festivals of the Dead celebrated on traditional calendars near their respective dates corresponding with the Genesis “17th day of the second month”, to the common thread found in many ancient myths of ‘gods-sleeping-with-humans’ (corroborating the account in Genesis 6:1-4: one reason for the Flood, aren’t you glad?), to the ancient Chinese ideogram for ‘big boat’, (vessel + eight + mouths), to the frozen remains currently being found within the Permafrost. Thanks in part to global warming, more and more of these creatures are being unearthed.

On top of these frozen-land-based discoveries, trawlers & dredgers in the Bering Straits & North Sea have pulled up vast numbers of these remains, including tusks of mammoths….

The watery grave of Europe's monsters

(How did they end up in the ocean?)

Taken separately, each line of evidence is definitely debatable. But when viewed together, all of them including the ones in the OP create strong evidence for the Flood.

Question: if the Flood wasn’t the cause of the megafauna being encased within the Permafrost — not on its surface, but within it — across the Northern Hemisphere (a sprawling field of evidence), just what natural process could accomplish it? Surely there’s gotta be something!

You seriously have to ask why they found mammoths in the ocean? Do you not know what the Bering Land Bridge was? The land did not rise to create that bridge. It was formed during the Pleistocene during the ice age. Sea level dropped exposing it. Sea level dropped up to 400 feet during the glacial maximum. As to your nonsense about the permafrost that has been refuted too many times:

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-does-present-glacier-extent-and-sea-level-compare-extent-glaciers-and-global-sea-level#:~:text=The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) occurred about 20,000 years ago,25% of Earth's land area

I’ll try to answer your first question, regarding the atmospheric water: I don’t think the water was all together… it might have been suspended throughout the 5 main layers of the atmosphere?
But not all the water came from above…the account tells us that “vast springs” were opened; waters from below.

Regarding the dating techniques, I should have been specific, I’m sorry … I was referring to ‘wreaking havoc’ on the C14 method, the means used to measure how long ago an organic object lived.
Dating the age of rocks, wouldn’t affect my POV at all, since I don’t subscribe to YEC ideas.

Sorry, but the atmosphere can only handle a very limited amount of water. Gravity is a thing. All you have here is another nonsensical handwaving explanation.

If you want to claim to have evidence you first need to come up with a testable hypothesis. One that can be tested on its own merits. Until you do that you do not have any evidence at all.

Also you have claimed countless times that you think that the mountains are ridiculously young. Radiometric dating, the kind that you just said that you do not have a problem with, shows even young mountains to be tens of millions of years old.

 

[Polymath257]

I’ll try to answer your first question, regarding the atmospheric water: I don’t think the water was all together… it might have been suspended throughout the 5 main layers of the atmosphere?
But not all the water came from above…the account tells us that “vast springs” were opened; waters from below.

OK, so about how much water are we talking about being 'above'? For the total to be above the highest mountains, we are talking about miles of liquid water in thickness at some point.

What percentage of that was water from above?

Suppose it was half a mile worth of liquid water thickness. That weight of water in the atmosphere would add to the overall atmospheric pressure by the weight of the water above. So, in addition to the usual air pressure, you would add on the equivalent of the water pressure when under water at half a mile.

And this would have been the atmospheric pressure *before* the flood, before all that water fell. That is the water pressure that needs to be addressed.

That is the effect that seems to be ignored by those who claim even some of the water was 'above'. We aren't talking about a couple of rain clouds, here. We are talking about water whose depth is measured in miles. And that water produces pressure on those *before* the flood.

Regarding the dating techniques, I should have been specific, I’m sorry … I was referring to ‘wreaking havoc’ on the C14 method, the means used to measure how long ago an organic object lived.
Dating the age of rocks, wouldn’t affect my POV at all, since I don’t subscribe to YEC ideas.

So it wrecks havoc only to those dates that are very recent and more relevant to archeology? And that deals with an effect that is already understood and accounted for by calibration?

Sorry, that isn't havoc at all.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

….an effect that is already understood and accounted for by calibration?

No, the ‘waters above’ aren’t considered in any calibration, come on! Although they would definitely filter out the Sun’s radiation hitting the ground, resulting in slower decay rates.

That would cause erroneous measurements of dates further back in time.

About the waters covering the mountains….. the Bible in Psalms 104 describes the Flood waters as changing Earth’s topography; the ‘mountains rising, and valleys deepening.’ That would mean prior to the Flood, there were no high altitude ranges. Not like today.

So, less water needed.
In fact, if the Earth were smoothed out like a billiard ball, the surface waters currently existing would cover the Earth 2.5 miles deep!
There may have been even more water that Jehovah God could have used: researchers have found / are finding more reservoirs that are now within the crust & mantle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the ‘waters above’ aren’t considered in any calibration, come on! Although they would definitely filter out the Sun’s radiation hitting the ground, resulting in slower decay rates.

That would cause erroneous measurements of dates further back in time.

About the waters covering the mountains….. the Bible in Psalms 104 describes the Flood waters as changing Earth’s topography; the ‘mountains rising, and valleys deepening.’ That would mean prior to the Flood, there were no high altitude ranges. Not like today.

So, less water needed.
In fact, if the Earth were smoothed out like a billiard ball, the surface waters currently existing would cover the Earth 2.5 miles deep!
There may have been even more water that Jehovah God could have used: researchers have found / are finding more reservoirs that are now within the crust & mantle.

Sunlight does not affect decay rates. Sunlight does not make C14. Even cosmic radiation does not affect decay rates. Perhaps you are trying to claim that there would be less C14 made since cosmic radiation would be filtered out?

Why don't you do your homework? Show that this would be the case. You need a testable hypothesis on how the production of C14 would be less and that it would mess up dates. You would also have to explain how we can apparently continually date back to roughly 50,000 years when certain precautions are followed. As it is right now all you have is an ad hoc explanation which means that you have no evidence.

And you are back to your YEC claims/ The Rockies are about 35 million years old. That was when the uplift that made them ended. After that it has been erosion that shaped them:

Rocky Mountain National Park | U.S. Geological Survey.

The Andes are perhaps the youngest of major mountain ranges. The uplift that made them ended 6 million years ago:

The Andes’ Mountainous Paradox: So tall, so young.

People were not even here when the Andean uplift ended. Once again since then they are the product of erosion. And the sort of radiometric dating used on them cannot be reset without melting everything.

When you make claims like you just made you are telling everyone that you are a YEC.

 

[Polymath257]

No, the ‘waters above’ aren’t considered in any calibration, come on! Although they would definitely filter out the Sun’s radiation hitting the ground, resulting in slower decay rates.

Nope. The decay rates would not be affected at all. nThat is fairly basic nuclear physics.

What *can* be affected is the rate of production of C14 in the upper atmosphere. But the varying rates of such production are already dealt with by the calibration of raw C14 dates to other dating methods.

That would cause erroneous measurements of dates further back in time.

Nope. it would make absolutely no difference. Solar radiation levels do not affect decay rates *at all*.

About the waters covering the mountains….. the Bible in Psalms 104 describes the Flood waters as changing Earth’s topography; the ‘mountains rising, and valleys deepening.’ That would mean prior to the Flood, there were no high altitude ranges. Not like today.

So, less water needed.
In fact, if the Earth were smoothed out like a billiard ball, the surface waters currently existing would cover the Earth 2.5 miles deep!
There may have been even more water that Jehovah God could have used: researchers have found / are finding more reservoirs that are now within the crust & mantle.

Ok, so less water is needed. I still ask how much was atmospheric and what the affect would be on air pressure. That is why I *underestimated* the layer as corresponding to one only half a mile deep. And such a layer would add the equivalent pressure of going under water half a mile. That is a huge effect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Geologists have a fondness for linking the Genesis Flood narrative to the Young Earth idea.

i know why…
It is easy to refute a young earth perspective; so then, because they inextricably link the Flood to Young Earth ideas, they can by extension dismiss the Flood, too.

Geologists concluding there is nothing to support the occurrence of a global flood is not dependent on a YEC perspective. You are arguing against a position that doesn't exist.

But by no means is the Flood story dependent on a Young Earth concept.

I agree. I've never seen a geologist claim it is.

Marrying the two together, is IMO a disingenuous

Then why keep bringing it up? It isn't an argument of science and I haven't seen anyone here claim the two are dependent.

attempt to not face the evidences of the Flood, from the global (300+) legends to the many cultural Festivals of the Dead celebrated on traditional calendars near their respective dates corresponding with the Genesis “17th day of the second month”, to the common thread found in many ancient myths of ‘gods-sleeping-with-humans’ (corroborating the account in Genesis 6:1-4: one reason for the Flood, aren’t you glad?), to the ancient Chinese ideogram for ‘big boat’, (vessel + eight + mouths), to the frozen remains currently being found within the Permafrost. Thanks in part to global warming, more and more of these creatures are being unearthed.

None of that is evidence for a flood.

On top of these frozen-land-based discoveries, trawlers & dredgers in the Bering Straits & North Sea have pulled up vast numbers of these remains, including tusks of mammoths….
The watery grave of Europe's monsters

(How did they end up in the ocean?)

Yeah. It used to be above water and apparently had mammoths. Then the glaciers melted.

Taken separately, each line of evidence is definitely debatable. But when viewed together, all of them including the ones in the OP create strong evidence for the Flood.

It isn't evidence for a flood. It is evidence that creationists will do anything to keep the argument alive and deny admitting there was no global flood as described in Genesis.

A geological layer containing a mix of fossils all dating to the same time. That would be evidence. Discontinuity of cultures. Never happened. Where did all the water come from? Never answered within anything other than wild speculation and fantasy. Where did it go? Same answers.

Your best evidence is that with some imagination you can claim anything about a Chinese character.

Question: if the Flood wasn’t the cause of the megafauna being encased within the Permafrost — not on its surface, but within it — across the Northern Hemisphere (a sprawling field of evidence), just what natural process could accomplish it? Surely there’s gotta be something!

You should be telling us. You keep claiming there is no other answer, but a flood. You should have this done and dusted and be explaining it to us.

I’ll try to answer your first question, regarding the atmospheric water: I don’t think the water was all together… it might have been suspended throughout the 5 main layers of the atmosphere?
But not all the water came from above…the account tells us that “vast springs” were opened; waters from below.

Unsubstantiated speculation.

Regarding the dating techniques, I should have been specific, I’m sorry … I was referring to ‘wreaking havoc’ on the C14 method, the means used to measure how long ago an organic object lived.
Dating the age of rocks, wouldn’t affect my POV at all, since I don’t subscribe to YEC ideas.

I know of no evidence that anyone has presented that would indicate issues with the results of C14 dating. Speculating a water curtain around the Earth is not evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, the ‘waters above’ aren’t considered in any calibration, come on! Although they would definitely filter out the Sun’s radiation hitting the ground, resulting in slower decay rates.

That would cause erroneous measurements of dates further back in time.

About the waters covering the mountains….. the Bible in Psalms 104 describes the Flood waters as changing Earth’s topography; the ‘mountains rising, and valleys deepening.’ That would mean prior to the Flood, there were no high altitude ranges. Not like today.

So, less water needed.
In fact, if the Earth were smoothed out like a billiard ball, the surface waters currently existing would cover the Earth 2.5 miles deep!
There may have been even more water that Jehovah God could have used: researchers have found / are finding more reservoirs that are now within the crust & mantle.

Why would anyone take into account something that exists only as speculation when calculating ages based on C14? How can anyone claim that the C14 dates are all messed up based on something they imagined and have never demonstrated?

There you go with more speculation about a smooth Earth and with your usual lack of any evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How long would an olive tree survive completely submerged in water?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How could a flood wipe out everything on this earth a few thousand years ago and leave absolutely no evidence behind that it happened?

 

[John53]

How long would an olive tree survive completely submerged in water?

That's always baffled me, even if they had enough food on the ark for 12 months what did the animals eat when it was over. I grew up on a flood plain and water over the grass for a week is enough to kill it. That's not even taking into account the carnivores which would be preying on the pairs then starving death.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's always baffled me, even if they had enough food on the ark for 12 months what did the animals eat when it was over. I grew up on a flood plain and water over the grass for a week is enough to kill it. That's not even taking into account the carnivores which would be preying on the pairs then starving death.

There are countless problems with the Ark story. Since believers in the Ark myth also tend to be creationists millions of species would be needed on the Ark. And yet guess how many windows the Ark had for ventilation and how big those windows were? The "door" was shut until it landed and the animals got off. So to provide ventilation for millions of animals. Or even thousands, they had one, count them one window. And it was roughly 18 inches on a side. Call it 50 centimeters on a side. Imagine that window not only being the only ventilation for that Ark, but also what they would have to use to get rid of tons of animal waste generated each every day.

Aron Ra on YouTube has a nice series on why we know that there was no Flood and it does so from several perspectives, and he did not cover all of the problems with Noah's Magic Box.