Classic
-
You can't break both without a large input of energy. Stripping the H from the OH- radical is extremely difficult because after H is removed the binding energy increases considerably. The entire point, which you seem unwilling to accept, is that atmospheric ozone arises from the oxygen cycle which has 4 main components: Photosynthesis (land) Photosynthesis (ocean) Photolysis of N2O Photolysis of H2O Oxygen is destroyed by the following processes: Aerobic Respiration Microbial Oxidation Combustion of Fossil Fuel (anthropogenic) Photochemical Oxidation Fixation of N2 by Lightning Fixation of N2 by Industry (anthropogenic) Oxidation of Volcanic Gases Chemical Weathering Surface Reaction of O3 It is not possible for Earth to sustain an oxygen atmosphere and thus an ozone layer from the production of oxygen/ozone/whatever you like by sunlight interactions with water, despite what your creationist cronies would have you believe.
73Zeppelin wrote:
The entire point, which you seem unwilling to accept, is that atmospheric ozone arises from the oxygen cycle which has 4 main components:
The entire point, which you are unwilling to admit, is that the initial assertion[^]: "Because at one point before green plants, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. No oxygen, no ozone" is false.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
The entire point, which you seem unwilling to accept, is that atmospheric ozone arises from the oxygen cycle which has 4 main components:
The entire point, which you are unwilling to admit, is that the initial assertion[^]: "Because at one point before green plants, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. No oxygen, no ozone" is false.
Ilíon wrote:
The entire point, which you are unwilling to admit, is that the initial assertion[^]: "Because at one point before green plants, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. No oxygen, no ozone" is false.
The best evidence suggests that it is true. The evidence for no oxygen in the atmosphere comes from the radiographically dated rock layers from ~3.5 billion years ago that contain predominantly unoxidized iron deposits. After oxygen was introduced as a waste product from the photosynthetic aerobic prokaryotic ancestors that developed the ability to use H2O instead of H2S as electron donors, the more recent layers predominantly contain FeO. If you would like to suggest that there were sporadic molecules of oxygen around before photosynthesis, you would be correct (just like trace amounts of all kinds of other compounds) - but there were too few to produce any meaningful ozone concentration in the atmosphere that could be considered protective. Tim is right. You're wrong. Shut the fuck up already.
- F
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Ah, perfect.
Yet, it's too bad that your (singular and plural) focus is on attempting to humiliate me ... rather than getting at some truth (even if it is minor).
73Zeppelin wrote:
Ah, perfect. I was trying to work out that reaction.
That *specific* reaction? Could it be because the assertion that that specific reaction is the only one possible ... so long as the assertion is unchallenged ... might serve to hide the fact that you are not humiliating me, but rather are but once again showing your own true colors? What's the problem? Didn't some other possible chain-of-reactions (of which you two are asserting there are none) serve your misguided purpose?
-
Ilíon wrote:
The entire point, which you are unwilling to admit, is that the initial assertion[^]: "Because at one point before green plants, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. No oxygen, no ozone" is false.
The best evidence suggests that it is true. The evidence for no oxygen in the atmosphere comes from the radiographically dated rock layers from ~3.5 billion years ago that contain predominantly unoxidized iron deposits. After oxygen was introduced as a waste product from the photosynthetic aerobic prokaryotic ancestors that developed the ability to use H2O instead of H2S as electron donors, the more recent layers predominantly contain FeO. If you would like to suggest that there were sporadic molecules of oxygen around before photosynthesis, you would be correct (just like trace amounts of all kinds of other compounds) - but there were too few to produce any meaningful ozone concentration in the atmosphere that could be considered protective. Tim is right. You're wrong. Shut the fuck up already.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Tim is right. You're wrong. Shut the fuck up already.
It's like nailing Jell-O to the wall with him; an exercise in absolute frustration. Thanks for your additions.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Ah, perfect.
Yet, it's too bad that your (singular and plural) focus is on attempting to humiliate me ... rather than getting at some truth (even if it is minor).
73Zeppelin wrote:
Ah, perfect. I was trying to work out that reaction.
That *specific* reaction? Could it be because the assertion that that specific reaction is the only one possible ... so long as the assertion is unchallenged ... might serve to hide the fact that you are not humiliating me, but rather are but once again showing your own true colors? What's the problem? Didn't some other possible chain-of-reactions (of which you two are asserting there are none) serve your misguided purpose?
Ilíon wrote:
Could it be because the assertion that that specific reaction is the only one possible ... so long as the assertion is unchallenged ... might serve to hide the fact that you are not humiliating me, but rather are but once again showing your own true colors? What's the problem? Didn't some other possible chain-of-reactions (of which you two are asserting there are none) serve your misguided purpose?
Cut the drivel. You were wrong. Just admit it for fuck's sake. It's not the end of the bloody world.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Tim is right. You're wrong. Shut the fuck up already.
It's like nailing Jell-O to the wall with him; an exercise in absolute frustration. Thanks for your additions.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's like nailing Jell-O to the wall with him; an exercise in absolute frustration.
and it's because you're inherently dishonest.
Ilíon wrote:
and it's because you're inherently dishonest.
Absolutely not. We already sorted out that one and it's you that's dishonest.
-
Oakman wrote:
Which explains why there aren't any large bodies of water in Earth. I'm glad he cleared that up.
Yeah me too. I was getting worried about a flood. Whew!
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I was getting worried about a flood.
Naw, god already did the flood thing. He's gonna do fire next time. :laugh:
2 75 22 6
Tim Craig wrote:
Naw, god already did the flood thing.
I wonder how Noah managed to get a male and a female of all 360,000 species of beetles and 120,000 species of flies on his wooden boat. :laugh:
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Naw, god already did the flood thing.
I wonder how Noah managed to get a male and a female of all 360,000 species of beetles and 120,000 species of flies on his wooden boat. :laugh:
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
DemonPossessed wrote:
I wonder how Noah managed to get a male and a female of all 360,000 species of beetles and 120,000 species of flies on his wooden boat.
Oh, haven't you heard? He wasn't mandated to take a pair of every species. Only certain ones. :laugh:
2 75 22 6
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's like nailing Jell-O to the wall with him; an exercise in absolute frustration.
and it's because you're inherently dishonest.
-
DemonPossessed wrote:
I wonder how Noah managed to get a male and a female of all 360,000 species of beetles and 120,000 species of flies on his wooden boat.
Oh, haven't you heard? He wasn't mandated to take a pair of every species. Only certain ones. :laugh:
2 75 22 6
Actually, the majority of animals went in groups of SEVEN! :wtf:
Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.
-
Actually, the majority of animals went in groups of SEVEN! :wtf:
Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Actually, the majority of animals went in groups of SEVEN
It was a BFB
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
BFB? :confused:
Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.