• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question about oxygen levels

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
301703371_166688219359090_1245393463087096475_n.jpg
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
@John53 Yes, it was a divine event.
That being said….

God didn’t want to kill the vegetation, did He? He’d be powerless to protect it while it was submerged I guess, huh? (Maybe to you, @Dan From Smithville, @Subduction Zone, and others.)

And doesn’t the Genesis account say the animals ‘came to’ Noah? You think that might indicate that Jehovah God brought the animals to Noah? If so, then it would stand to reason that God would have the power to take them back after the Flood.

And maybe the animals didn’t eat… or at least, not much. Doesn’t the Bible say that Moses was up in Mt. Sinai for 40 days, indicating he went without food? The Bible certainly states that Jesus didn’t eat for 40 days. If God can keep people alive without eating, you think He could do the same with animals?
The Bible does tell us, though, that God commanded they bring food for themselves and the animals, but not how much.
The point is, Noah obeyed… he did “just so.” Then God did His part.

Take care, my cousin.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Nope. it would make absolutely no difference. Solar radiation levels do not affect decay rates *at all*.
Yes, the Earth would be affected….
Excerpt from Wikipedia, Radiocarbon Dating:
“The method….was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby. It is based on the fact that radiocarbon (14
C) is constantly being created in the Earth's atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting 14C combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis; animals then acquire 14C by eating the plants. When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and thereafter the amount of 14C it contains begins to decrease as the 14C undergoes radioactive decay.”
A huge source of Cosmic rays that bombards our Earth is solar-based radiation.
Ok, so less water is needed.
Right.

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.
We aren’t told the percentages. But the ‘waters above’ could have existed far out into the exosphere, but just enough to keep the canopy suspended. It would not exert any pressure; it would be weightless.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
…your nonsense…
My nonsense? Your attacks have no meaning…and your link provided no answers.

Man, I await the day when you will find out the truth! I only hope you’ll be willing to change your attitude.

I think you’ll be given the chance. (Though it will probably mean you were resurrected.)
If I make it, I’ll look for you.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
My nonsense? Your attacks have no meaning…and your link provided no answers.

Man, I await the day when you will find out the truth! I only hope you’ll be willing to change your attitude.

I think you’ll be given the chance. (Though it will probably mean you were resurrected.)
If I make it, I’ll look for you.
I made no "attacks". I only corrected ignorant mistakes. You had no reply to that. And what did you not understand?

You can try to learn. You are the one that is fooling yourself. Everyone can see that. You claim not to be a YEC but then you make terribly ignorant YEC claims about how the mountains cannot be as old as they are. When you are challenged you only run away.

Would you like to go over the basics? Then you can understand why you do not have any evidence for your beliefs.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes, the Earth would be affected….
Excerpt from Wikipedia, Radiocarbon Dating:
“The method….was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby. It is based on the fact that radiocarbon (14
C) is constantly being created in the Earth's atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting 14C combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis; animals then acquire 14C by eating the plants. When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and thereafter the amount of 14C it contains begins to decrease as the 14C undergoes radioactive decay.”
A huge source of Cosmic rays that bombards our Earth is solar-based radiation.

Right.


We aren’t told the percentages. But the ‘waters above’ could have existed far out into the exosphere, but just enough to keep the canopy suspended. It would not exert any pressure; it would be weightless.

Wow! Just . . . wow.

Your article does not support your claim. It is only about the making of C14 isotopes. It is not about the decay rates of C14. It is clearly not about the decay rates of other radioactive isotopes. You really, really, really should be embarrassed for posting that..
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, the Earth would be affected….
Excerpt from Wikipedia, Radiocarbon Dating:
“The method….was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby. It is based on the fact that radiocarbon (14
C) is constantly being created in the Earth's atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting 14C combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis; animals then acquire 14C by eating the plants. When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and thereafter the amount of 14C it contains begins to decrease as the 14C undergoes radioactive decay.”
A huge source of Cosmic rays that bombards our Earth is solar-based radiation.

Yes, it affects the *production* of C14. It does NOT affect the decay rate of C14. Changes in production rate are taken into account via calibration from other dating methods.

Right.


We aren’t told the percentages. But the ‘waters above’ could have existed far out into the exosphere, but just enough to keep the canopy suspended. It would not exert any pressure; it would be weightless.

And this is wrong. if it is there and 'suspended', it produces pressure equivalent to its weight (mass in a gravitational field). There is no way around this.

The reason the air pressure is 15.7 punds per square inch is that there is 15.7 pounds of air in a column above each square inch.

if you add water vapor to this, the mass of the water will be added to the atmospheric pressure. This is unavoidable and is, in fact, required to have the water 'suspended' (the force on the water has to be 0, so the gravitational force needs to be balanced by the atmospheric pressure).
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Evidence has been posted. Lol.
No.

Claims of evidence have been posted. No explanations. Just speculation of the apparently desperate sort that drifts as far from the relevant points of evidence as it can.

Not even good evidence on which to base speculation.

Let's keep this on point. It is your claims that are the source of discussion and nothing else.

Impugning my beliefs only damages you.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
Crude demonstrations indicate that an olive tree would not survive two or three months of complete submergence.

Yet, here we do not see anyone addressing questions like that. Rather, what we see is references to obscure claims with no support that require acceptance of speculation and further speculation.

If an event of the scale of a global flood were to have occurred and so recently as a few thousand years ago, there would be an abundance of physical evidence. The very fact that arguments for a flood have to rely on fanciful interpretations of Chinese characters, cultural contamination and the schematics of boat building demonstrate that what are seeing is shots wildly fired over the shoulders of those in retreat.

I grew up around hills, hollows and rivers. While on a much smaller scale, even the flooding I witnessed left evidence and followed the laws of nature. I can go back home and find evidence for those floods. The Genesistent position doesn't even have that as evidence. The evidence that the arguments should be built on and not cultural festivals about death.

You'd think that a modern person with all the knowledge that we have would realize that dead grass after a week under water would mean the death of all plants after a year under water. It isn't even just the water that they are under, but everything carried by and dissolved in the water that kill the plants.

I still think that the only real focus of flood claims is to keep arguments alive on the gaps in our knowledge and the uncertainty of conclusions.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
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.
No. It shows the rocks to be old, not necessarily the mountains.
Some of the high-altitude ranges we have today, probably existed before the Flood (the Bible doesn’t say), but were not as high (which the Scriptures do indicate, at Psalm 104.)
Don't misrepresent my position.

How can I ‘misrepresent your position,’ when you’ve never defined what your position is? By your own statements, apparently you think God is not really powerful; you keep trying to apply natural methodology, to an obvious divine event. In so doing, you are ignoring the evidences that
resulted from it. Like the cultural legends it inspired, both about the Flood & the myths with the common thread of the ‘gods sleeping with women’; like the lack of the 1000-sq-miles of debris from the Grand Canyon (which the Flood washed away) and from other areas; the mammals’ remains within the Permafrost (some of which have been discovered extremely well-preserved); the Festival celebrations of the dead from various cultures, held around their respective dates that coincide with the same time of year as the Flood. Etc.

That’s a lot of coincidences!
I’m just not that naïve to accept them as such.

When you grasp what 1 John5:19 & Revelation 12:9 is telling us, then you’ll have a better understanding of my skepticism about what is “accepted.”

SZ goes on about “testable hypotheses” and how there’s no evidence without it, but I bet you have no qualms “accepting” the explanation of how the Earth was formed & how it established an orbit ‘by natural forces’.
Science posits a scenario that has no support from “testable hypotheses.”
But it doesn’t stop them, though.
Lol.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Then why bother with the flood at all. Getting to pick and choose things that happen by magic is a massive cop out.
Is the power that God has, “magic”? I wouldn’t think so. (It doesn’t take magic to bring animals to someone.)
Calling it “magic” just sounds like an excuse to ignore it.
Maybe that would be the best course for you, to just ignore my posts in this thread.
 
Last edited:

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Is the power that God has, “magic”? I wouldn’t think so. (It doesn’t take magic to bring animals to someone.)
Calling it “magic” just sounds like an excuse to ignore it.
Maybe that would be the best course for you, to just ignore this thread.

Maybe you should keep up with what you reply too. My comment was about available food for animals after the water receded, nothing about animals coming to anyone.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No. It shows the rocks to be old, not necessarily the mountains.
Some of the high-altitude ranges we have today, probably existed before the Flood (the Bible doesn’t say), but were not as high (which the Scriptures do indicate, at Psalm 104.)


How can I ‘misrepresent your position,’ when you’ve never defined what your position is? By your own statements, apparently you think God is not really powerful; you keep trying to apply natural methodology, to an obvious divine event. In so doing, you are ignoring the evidences that
resulted from it. Like the cultural legends it inspired, both about the Flood & the myths with the common thread of the ‘gods sleeping with women’; like the lack of the 1000-sq-miles of debris from the Grand Canyon (which the Flood washed away) and from other areas; the mammals’ remains within the Permafrost (some of which have been discovered extremely well-preserved); the Festival celebrations of the dead from various cultures, held around their respective dates that coincide with the same time of year as the Flood. Etc.

That’s a lot of coincidences!
I’m just not that naïve to accept them as such.

When you grasp what 1 John5:19 & Revelation 12:9 is telling us, then you’ll have a better understanding of my skepticism about what is “accepted.”

SZ goes on about “testable hypotheses” and how there’s no evidence without it, but I bet you have no qualms “accepting” the explanation of how the Earth was formed & how it established an orbit ‘by natural forces’.
Science posits a scenario that has no support from “testable hypotheses.”
But it doesn’t stop them, though.
Lol.
Incorrect. The rocks too. Are you forgetting that volcanic activity often accompanies uplift?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Is the power that God has, “magic”? I wouldn’t think so. (It doesn’t take magic to bring animals to someone.)
Calling it “magic” just sounds like an excuse to ignore it.
Maybe that would be the best course for you, to just ignore this thread.
Here is a weird idea. Why not try to learn what qualifies as scientific evidence? Then you could answer him with evidence and not insults.
 
Top