• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

High Oxygen Atmosphere before Flood

Status
Not open for further replies.

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,287
940
35
Ohio
✟99,593.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I have seen this brought up a number of times by creationists. So I want them to answer - how, exactly, would a high oxygen level allow things to grow bigger, live longer, etc? Everything I have learned in biochem so far suggests that the opposite would be the case.
 

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟31,620.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
First of all - the Scriptures are silent on this issue, so what we have is speculation.

I have not heard folks talk about a high oxygen atmosphere -- I *have* heard some propose a higher pressure atmosphere -- like a hyperbaric chamber. I also have heard folks talk about a different c-14 ratio because of all the live plants over the globe.
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's hard to find references to this -- apparently it doesn't exist at AIG (or if so, my search on a combination of oxygen, pressure, age, plants doesn't bring it up) but here's the first real reference I found:

http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/flood/jan2003.html
First off, slightly higher pressure has been shown to help in bacteria and I think in plant growth, but not in increasing the lifespan of mammals to my knowledge. Also, higher oxygen content is dangerous and even lethal to humans:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ39.html
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wait, plants have NO effect on c-14 ratios. They absorb and emit c-12 and c-14 equally and will REFLECT the current atmospheric ratio, but do not affect it in any way.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟31,620.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh, okay.

First off, the issue in this thread is how they could possibly claim there was 100 times more biomass on the Earth. Do you have a citation for where creationists come up with that number or is it arbitrary?

I'm afraid I'm at quite a loss as to how removing 99% of the Earth's biomass would change c-14 ratios. c-14 and c-12 exists in the same ratio in biomass and the atmosphere, so removing 99% (or 100%) of the biomass would have absolutely no effect on on the final ratio (only the final AMOUNT of carbon).
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
From what I read, higher oxygen levels is what allowed insects to grow larger. This is because they don't have lungs, and use air tubes to get their oxygen. As oxygen levels dropped, it was harder to get high enough oxygen to all of their parts. That's how I understood oxygen level's effects on insects. On other creatures, not so sure.
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm going to repeat myself because I have more time to be more specific here. After reading this passage about a dozen times, I'm still at a total loss as to how they conclude that C14/C12 ratio changed with the removal of 99% of the biomass.

What Dr. Baumgardner has done is claim that the earth had at least 100 times more biomass before the flood. I'd still like a reference or some kind of support for that, but that's not the problem here so I'll assume it for the moment.

He then claims that there was about 40% as much C14 in the atmosphere as today (apparently another unsupported assumption, but I'll play along here too -- though it should be noted that tree rings and ice cores have been calibrated back over 10,000 years without any such findings).

Then he does something really weird. He says that we might expect a C14/C12 ratio of about 0.4% of today's value based on these numbers.

Apparently he is guessing at the 40% TOTAL C14, and then saying that the total C12 was the same. But here's a huge mistake -- he apparently claims that this 0.4/1 (the C14/C12 ratio relative to modern values) should be divided by the difference in the amount of biomass to get 0.004 times the C14/C12 ratio.

Unless I'm missing something huge, this is an extreme mathematical error -- something that should CERTAINLY call into question the value of any ICR "peer review" process!

Since plants absorb C14 and C12 equally, a ratio that is lower at 40% of modern values would leave a C14/C12 ratio on plants totally independent of the amount of biomass on the planet. He's apparently decided to multiply the (entirely arbitrary) lower ratio by the ratio of plant life today to (entirely arbitrary) estimates of plant life then to get 0.4%.

This would only be valid if plants absorb ONLY C14 and not C12 -- in that case the C14 levels would drop by the amount of biomass taken out of the system (claiming 99%) while the C12 levels would remain constant. What actually happens in nature is that plants do not distinguish between C14 and C12 and absorb them equally.

I'm totally at a loss as to how a Ph.D. could make such bogus claims, and to how the editorial staff that claims to review the scientific content of the work would allow such a thing to be published...

[EDIT]I took a look at his credentials, and apparently he got a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and then went back for a Ph.D. in geophysics for the sole purpose of looking qualified to talk on creationist matters. While I don't doubt the quality of his education in either of his degrees, when he makes such huge mistakes by assuming that plants absorb C14 and not C12 I question his commitment to accuracy given that his stated purpose for getting the second Ph.D. was not to advance our knowledge but to look credible to creationists and non-creationists on these topics.[/EDIT]
 
Upvote 0

Jadis40

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
963
192
52
Indiana, USA
✟62,145.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Actually, while we're on the subject of oxygen levels, it's actually thought that the oxygen levels were actually much LOWER in the past, compared to present levels:

From http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/516516/

And from here:
http://scienceweek.com/2007/sw070112.htm

That's not to say it wasn't subject to fluctuation:

From http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=2205

EDIT: Found something else too, from here: http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=27608
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.