Increased Carbon. Dad's Model, and Rapid Growth

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Given a Universal Flood surmised from a plain reading of the Words God told Moses to write. And Given the apparant Coal, Oil, and other Carbon sources that were trapped by that Flood. We, it would seem, can know that the ratio of carbon, in compounds, and available to compounds would be dramatically more.

Presumed constant physical laws are not changed by this. We already know that extra CO2 would aid in plant growth. There is a huge abundance of ignorance on how the release of all the carbon locked in all the trapped reserves would change the operation of the physical laws of life.

First you are assuming that all of this carbon was available. Even if it were this doesn't necessarily translate into higher growth rates.
High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals

"Why would elevated carbon dioxide in combination with other factors have a suppressive effect on plant growth? The researchers aren't sure, but one possibility is that excess carbon in the soil is allowing microbes to outcompete plants for one or more limiting nutrients. "

The next important point is that all this carbon was not atmospheric carbon buut organic material. Being trapped in organic material how did it possibly accelerate plant growth?

Also one should keep in mind that it is true that high levels of CO2 will increase growth rates and yields but will not cause the plant to mature more rapidly as well. No study has shown a correlation between concentrations of carbon and early fruiting. Also the proposed increase in growth rates have not been duplicated in studies. ie, yeild increases are in the 40-50% increase range not the phenomenal growth rates discussed here.

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Good observations, I agree.

Wouldn't the higher carbon content of the ground be associated with the process of sinking a great deal of it?

Not sure what you mean here.

Your statement is a testimony to the fact that there would be increased life and growth, because in order for there to be more organic carbon as well as more free or atmospheric carbon, than that tells of larger animals and more animals.

I don't think the relationship is as linear or as simple as you seem to be suggesting.

I'm not sure hoe to determine what that reatio mayhave been, but it is likely that there is at lest somereasonableness to the model dad holds to, I;m not sure to what extent it may have operated I think creation included some creativ acts that are extra physical.

If there are extra physical forces at play then why are we discussing anything at all?

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I meant that I wonder if the higher carbon content of the ground has anything ot do with large amounts of it getting trapped in the ground?

Not sure where you got higher carbon content in the ground.

I don't think the relationship is as linear or as simple as you seem to be suggesting.

I'm not suggesting that it is linear or simple at all, I am quite sure it is very complex. IF you look at the great quantities of carbon trapped in coal beds and other fossil fuels, it seems apparent there must have been a time earlier in earths history when carbon was more readily available to the atmosphere and to life.

This might be a hasty assumption.

If there are extra physical forces at play then why are we discussing anything at all?

Do you mean that since we don't have a full understanding of things that we should stop investigating?

No

The prescence of a spirit world is not a reason to suspend scientific investigation.

No but this responce was to you stating that "Presumed constant physical laws are not changed by this". If you are going to then reneg and state that special forces which cannot be observed today are at play then there is no reason to even try to reason scientifically based on any present day observations.

Dark matter and Dark energy, and for that matter light, are extra physical to our senses and knowledge, yet we see them operate on the physical environment.

The difference here is that these explanations are assumed to operate in the present, past, and the future.

Do you want to presuppose that you are the grand winner and know the truths of reality in their entirety?

I think you are over-reacting. I am simply responding to your post which tried to use current physics and chemistry to explain Dads propositions. It is you who dropped the ball and reintroduced special creation as an explanation.

If not than it seems you must be willing to at least accept that there are extra-our understanding of physical reality forces at work.

I guess I don't understand why you feel that one must suspend logic and careful application of reason simply becasue they believe that God's special creation involves at the very least processes that we don't understand.

Processes which we don't understand which no longer can possibly occur are out of our ability to understand. For instance if the universe was at one time millions of degrees warmer we could exten our knowledge of todays physics to what could have taken place under such conditions. But if the very laws of the Universe are different how can we extrapolate any observations from today into the past? We simply cannot and therefore any discussion here is pointless.

[Jbuza]

gone

[dad]

Given a Universal Flood surmised from a plain reading of the Words God told Moses to write. And Given the apparant Coal, Oil, and other Carbon sources that were trapped by that Flood.

But who says they were trapped by the flood?? I say that most were pre flood.

[dad]

...

The next important point is that all this carbon was not atmospheric carbon buut organic material. Being trapped in organic material how did it possibly accelerate plant growth?

Also one should keep in mind that it is true that high levels of CO2 will increase growth rates and yields but will not cause the plant to mature more rapidly as well. No study has shown a correlation between concentrations of carbon and early fruiting. ....

Personally, I blame the different past, and processes, and light. Perhaps CO2 was really a byproduct of some other process then? That would mean that early in the life, say, of a tree, it would have less carbon. Today, that is assumed to mean great age, if it has less carbon, because it is assumed that it decayed away.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Jbuza
I meant that I wonder if the higher carbon content of the ground negatively impacting plant growth has anything to do with large amounts of it getting trapped in the ground? Let me edit what I said to try to be more clear . . .IT appears clear that the carbon content of the ground was lower at earlier periods in earth history.

You didn't read the article did you...

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

No. I read the excerpt you provided, but this stement makes me think that I should go read it, so I will do that.

OK BGood I took a look at the link.

It appears they were able to create a computer model based upon there assumptions about global warming, and found that plant growth would be something like 40% faster, when they applied their model to actual plants.

I see no reason to assume that their model accounts for all the variables involved are accurtly reflects what the climate will belike in 100 years.

IT is unknown to what extent CO2 will be absorbed by plant life, and perhaps they have some of their factors wrong.


Also wouldn't the implications be far different for North Dakota than they would be for the grasslands of california? Increased cloud cover, and temperature would significantly delay frost in many areas.

GOOD!
I can tell you read the article this time.
=)

These new comments make sence, and they are excellent questions. You are right that not all variables are accounted for. the 40% increase is not based on a model but on experimentation.

You are correct that different climates may effect the experiment, the results are inconclusive, however the data does not seem promising in reagrds to DAD's notion of a plant growing to full size in a matter of days/weeks.