Creation history vs. evolution history

[nuttypiglet]

Well, you need to keep on top of your religion, like I do mine. I don't ask you to teach me the bible do I? However, I will attempt to educate you. It is known that the size of insects is limited by oxygen available in the air. If you have low oxygen, insects will be smaller to enable them to be active. Large insects with low oxygen would cease to function. This is why we no longer see giant dragonflies or indeed giant cockroaches.
Dinosaurs also pose a big problem. Look at the size of the large specimens. Do you realise just how much oxygen would be required to feed all that body tissue and drive muscles. The nostrils on most dinosaurs aren't much bigger than those found on a horse, so no way could they suck enough air into their lungs to feed their body. That is with the oxygen levels of today. If you had a t-rex in a lab now, genetically engineered as in the movie Jurassic park, it would quickly suffocate unless you put an oxygen mask on it. So decades ago it was theorised that oxygen levels must have been much higher on the Earth for giant insects and Dinosaurs to exist. The atmospheric pressure was probably greater too, giving flying dinosaurs more chance. Look at these two snippets, but the internet is full of such things.

New Scientist - Google Books

TrueAuthority.com - Dinosaurs - Death of the Dinosaurs

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Well, you need to keep on top of your religion, like I do mine. I don't ask you to teach me the bible do I? However, I will attempt to educate you. It is known that the size of insects is limited by oxygen available in the air. If you have low oxygen, insects will be smaller to enable them to be active. Large insects with low oxygen would cease to function. This is why we no longer see giant dragonflies or indeed giant cockroaches.
Dinosaurs also pose a big problem. Look at the size of the large specimens. Do you realise just how much oxygen would be required to feed all that body tissue and drive muscles. The nostrils on most dinosaurs aren't much bigger than those found on a horse, so no way could they suck enough air into their lungs to feed their body. That is with the oxygen levels of today. If you had a t-rex in a lab now, genetically engineered as in the movie Jurassic park, it would quickly suffocate unless you put an oxygen mask on it. So decades ago it was theorised that oxygen levels must have been much higher on the Earth for giant insects and Dinosaurs to exist. The atmospheric pressure was probably greater too, giving flying dinosaurs more chance. Look at these two snippets, but the internet is full of such things.

New Scientist - Google Books

TrueAuthority.com - Dinosaurs - Death of the Dinosaurs

I asked for the original journal article with the same conclusions as your statement, not erroneously edited, misunderstood, ignorant interpolations.

Take another run at it, if you like.

 

[CabVet]

Well, you need to keep on top of your religion, like I do mine. I don't ask you to teach me the bible do I? However, I will attempt to educate you. It is known that the size of insects is limited by oxygen available in the air. If you have low oxygen, insects will be smaller to enable them to be active. Large insects with low oxygen would cease to function. This is why we no longer see giant dragonflies or indeed giant cockroaches.
Dinosaurs also pose a big problem. Look at the size of the large specimens. Do you realise just how much oxygen would be required to feed all that body tissue and drive muscles. The nostrils on most dinosaurs aren't much bigger than those found on a horse, so no way could they suck enough air into their lungs to feed their body. That is with the oxygen levels of today. If you had a t-rex in a lab now, genetically engineered as in the movie Jurassic park, it would quickly suffocate unless you put an oxygen mask on it. So decades ago it was theorised that oxygen levels must have been much higher on the Earth for giant insects and Dinosaurs to exist. The atmospheric pressure was probably greater too, giving flying dinosaurs more chance. Look at these two snippets, but the internet is full of such things.

New Scientist - Google Books

TrueAuthority.com - Dinosaurs - Death of the Dinosaurs

Three things:

1. The O2 level in the atmosphere was not simply "higher in the past" as you are trying to make people believe. It FLUCTUATED in the past, big difference. There are many periods when it was as low as HALF of what it is today.

2. As I told you before, none of that shows that high oxygen levels make organisms live LONGER, which is what you said. In fact, an atmosphere with higher O2 concentration would probably make us live shorter lives because everything would oxidize faster.

3. I am still waiting for two things: errors in evolutionary biology text books, and biologists that don't know what life is.

 

[nuttypiglet]

I asked for the original journal article with the same conclusions as your statement, not erroneously edited, misunderstood, ignorant interpolations.

Take another run at it, if you like.

You must have access to journals if you are a scientist

 

[Tomk80]

You must have access to journals if you are a scientist

He is asking you to provide references to the article that comes to the same conclusions as you do regarding the size of dinosaurs and oxygen concentration. It's a simple enough request. So far, you haven't provided any such articles. You made the claim, so you support it. It is not incumbent on us to find the sources for the claims you make.

 

[Loudmouth]

You really are out of touch aren't you. Didn't you read that air bubble in resin was analysed and found to be higher in oxygen concentration?

How does an air bubble in resin demonstrate that higher oxygen levels will allow humans to live longer? Who is the one that is out of touch?

Didn't you read research which concluded large dinosaurs would suffocate in the air of today due to lower oxygen? Where have you been for the last 10 years?

How does this indicate that higher oxygen levels allow for longer lifespans?

Ever wonder why people suggest that people take anti-oxidants?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, you need to keep on top of your religion, like I do mine. I don't ask you to teach me the bible do I? However, I will attempt to educate you. It is known that the size of insects is limited by oxygen available in the air. If you have low oxygen, insects will be smaller to enable them to be active. Large insects with low oxygen would cease to function. This is why we no longer see giant dragonflies or indeed giant cockroaches.
Dinosaurs also pose a big problem. Look at the size of the large specimens. Do you realise just how much oxygen would be required to feed all that body tissue and drive muscles. The nostrils on most dinosaurs aren't much bigger than those found on a horse, so no way could they suck enough air into their lungs to feed their body. That is with the oxygen levels of today. If you had a t-rex in a lab now, genetically engineered as in the movie Jurassic park, it would quickly suffocate unless you put an oxygen mask on it. So decades ago it was theorised that oxygen levels must have been much higher on the Earth for giant insects and Dinosaurs to exist. The atmospheric pressure was probably greater too, giving flying dinosaurs more chance. Look at these two snippets, but the internet is full of such things.

New Scientist - Google Books

TrueAuthority.com - Dinosaurs - Death of the Dinosaurs

How does any of this indicate that higher oxygen levels increase lifespans?

Do people who live high up in the Andes have much lower lifespans than people who live at sea level?

 

[nuttypiglet]

How does an air bubble in resin demonstrate that higher oxygen levels will allow humans to live longer? Who is the one that is out of touch?



How does this indicate that higher oxygen levels allow for longer lifespans?

Ever wonder why people suggest that people take anti-oxidants?

Anti-oxidants is a different thing to the amount of oxygen in the air lmao. Are you trying to say that a higher level of oxygen in the air would cause more oxygen in living tissue? I think you'll find this takes red blood cells and a circulatory system with the Lungs involved.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Three things:

1. The O2 level in the atmosphere was not simply "higher in the past" as you are trying to make people believe. It FLUCTUATED in the past, big difference. There are many periods when it was as low as HALF of what it is today.

2. As I told you before, none of that shows that high oxygen levels make organisms live LONGER, which is what you said. In fact, an atmosphere with higher O2 concentration would probably make us live shorter lives because everything would oxidize faster.

3. I am still waiting for two things: errors in evolutionary biology text books, and biologists that don't know what life is.

Now do some research into oxygen bubbles found in Amber, millions of years old (supposedly) and tell me how much more oxygen was in the air. It hasn't been fluctuating, it has been steadily decreasing. Did you read how it has even dropped in the last few decades?

 

[nuttypiglet]

No, I didn't read that. Perhaps you could link to the study (not what creats. say about the study mind you, but the actual study)?

Look, it is becoming apparent that you don't read anything. I mean, the study on oxygen was decades old and you knew nothing about it. I am not going to spent years on here pointing you to things to learn. Perhaps there is a night school near you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Look, it is becoming apparent that you don't read anything. I mean, the study on oxygen was decades old and you knew nothing about it. I am not going to spent years on here pointing you to things to learn. Perhaps there is a night school near you?

What study on oxygen demonstrated that higher levels extend human lifespans?

 

[nuttypiglet]

He is asking you to provide references to the article that comes to the same conclusions as you do regarding the size of dinosaurs and oxygen concentration. It's a simple enough request. So far, you haven't provided any such articles. You made the claim, so you support it. It is not incumbent on us to find the sources for the claims you make.

When I come to a forum like this, I expect the creationists to know their religion, and yes, they do. I also expect the science believers to know their stuff and to be ready for a good debate. What I don't expect is to go on such a forum and need to educate them first. I suggest you buy some up to date text books, ones with less errors and catch up. Maybe then you can come back and debate.

 

[Loudmouth]

Anti-oxidants is a different thing to the amount of oxygen in the air lmao. Are you trying to say that a higher level of oxygen in the air would cause more oxygen in living tissue?

Yes, that is how it works. That is why people have to take oxygen cylinders with them when they climb to the top of Mt. Everest.

Still waiting for you to show us how higher levels of oxygen can extend human lifespans as you claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

When I come to a forum like this, I expect the creationists to know their religion, and yes, they do. I also expect the science believers to know their stuff and to be ready for a good debate. What I don't expect is to go on such a forum and need to educate them first. I suggest you buy some up to date text books, ones with less errors and catch up. Maybe then you can come back and debate.

Which current textbooks have errors, and what are the errors?

 

[Loudmouth]

La Paz, Bolivia is the world's highest capital at nearly 12,000 feet. At that altitude the percent oxygen in the air is 13.2%. At sea level the percent oxygen in the air is 20.9%. In La Paz, the oxygen content is 63% of the oxygen content at sea level, or nearly half. Do you think the life expectancy in La Paz is 63% of the life span of that for people living at sea level? Or is your claim that higher oxygen levels will extend human lifespans a bunch of hooey?

 

[nuttypiglet]

La Paz, Bolivia is the world's highest capital at nearly 12,000 feet. At that altitude the percent oxygen in the air is 13.2%. At sea level the percent oxygen in the air is 20.9%. In La Paz, the oxygen content is 63% of the oxygen content at sea level, or nearly half. Do you think the life expectancy in La Paz is 63% of the life span of that for people living at sea level? Or is your claim that higher oxygen levels will extend human lifespans a bunch of hooey?

See, ANOTHER classic example of taking a small section of a comment and then taking it all out of context. Read my post about the air being different AND no nuke testing AND no DISEASE, AND perfect genes. You simply pick the Oxygen out of the list and keep on and on and on and on about it.
Diet would be another factor on top of that. Before the flood, humans didn't eat meat, only vegetation. It has been shown that a continual diet on just fruit, veg, nuts keeps your arteries very supple. Atmospheric pressure was also higher in those days, meaning injuries would heal quicker and be less prone to infection. Mind you, I suppose you haven't read that higher atmospheric pressure assists healing either?

 

[Loudmouth]

See, ANOTHER classic example of taking a small section of a comment and then taking it all out of context. Read my post about the air being different AND no nuke testing AND no DISEASE, AND perfect genes. You simply pick the Oxygen out of the list and keep on and on and on and on about it.

We will get to the rest in time. Or you can actually show that there were perfect genes, no disease, and that nuke testing is the cause for shorter lifespans in modern populations.

Please show us any study where people live longer due to higher concentrations of oxygen. Or were you just making that up?

Diet would be another factor on top of that. Before the flood, humans didn't eat meat, only vegetation. It has been shown that a continual diet on just fruit, veg, nuts keeps your arteries very supple. Atmospheric pressure was also higher in those days, meaning injuries would heal quicker and be less prone to infection. Mind you, I suppose you haven't read that higher atmospheric pressure assists healing either?

Mind you, people's lifespans are not limited by infection nor oxygen. You have not shown any evidence to back up your claims about this fantastical past with a global flood that shows up nowhere in the geologic column, no evidence that higher pressure or oxygen increases lifespans, different genomes, different diets, and the list goes on.

You complain about scientists taking things at face value, and here you are pushing claims that you have never backed with evidence. Go figure.

 

[CabVet]

Which current textbooks have errors, and what are the errors?

I have been asking for at least a week, not going to happen.

 

[nuttypiglet]

We will get to the rest in time. Or you can actually show that there were perfect genes, no disease, and that nuke testing is the cause for shorter lifespans in modern populations.

Please show us any study where people live longer due to higher concentrations of oxygen. Or were you just making that up?



Mind you, people's lifespans are not limited by infection nor oxygen. You have not shown any evidence to back up your claims about this fantastical past with a global flood that shows up nowhere in the geologic column, no evidence that higher pressure or oxygen increases lifespans, different genomes, different diets, and the list goes on.

You complain about scientists taking things at face value, and here you are pushing claims that you have never backed with evidence. Go figure.

no peoples life spans are not affected by infections are they, apart from the millions who die from pneumonia and lots of other infections. What am I dealing with here? someone from another reality?

 

[CabVet]

See, ANOTHER classic example of taking a small section of a comment and then taking it all out of context. Read my post about the air being different AND no nuke testing AND no DISEASE, AND perfect genes. You simply pick the Oxygen out of the list and keep on and on and on and on about it.
Diet would be another factor on top of that. Before the flood, humans didn't eat meat, only vegetation. It has been shown that a continual diet on just fruit, veg, nuts keeps your arteries very supple. Atmospheric pressure was also higher in those days, meaning injuries would heal quicker and be less prone to infection. Mind you, I suppose you haven't read that higher atmospheric pressure assists healing either?

Ok, let me pick on another one then. Nuke testing started in the 1940's and 1950's. Life expectancy since the start of nuke testing actually increased. So, what does the lack of nuke testing have to do with life expectancy?

Diseases. Many older people don't die of disease. They die from falling. So, why would a lack of disease make for a longer life when the risk for falling is just the same?

Falls common cause of serious injury, death among elderly — Health — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine