Evolutionists Stumped Again: Early Earth Had Oxygen Atmosphere

Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/...45887887309620

Oxygen Production on Early Earth

Well hello to a massive crosspost. This really belongs in group
talk.origins, or better yet, nowhere at all. I'll only say that
sulphur isotopes are nowhere near the best evidence for oxygen in the
atmosphere, or not, at a given date. I understand there are
iron-bearing rocks that /rust/ when oxygen hits them, which plainly
implies that oxygen wasn't around when they formed. On the other hand,
I don't think the photochemistry of the pre-oxygen atmosphere of Earth
is fully understood.

Popular science news magazines and web sites are unfortunately under
great pressure to print the new controversial story. One in particular
almost never lets readers come away with the same understanding of the
nature of the universe as before, if they can help it. Another
consideration, particularly with a free web site, is that there is very
little money indeed to spend on journalism. So there isn't much
checking and there are a lot of press releases.

Robert Carnegie wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/...45887887309620

Oxygen Production on Early Earth

Well hello to a massive crosspost. This really belongs in group
talk.origins, or better yet, nowhere at all. I'll only say that
sulphur isotopes are nowhere near the best evidence for oxygen in the
atmosphere, or not, at a given date. I understand there are
iron-bearing rocks that /rust/ when oxygen hits them, which plainly
implies that oxygen wasn't around when they formed.

That would be the famous banded iron formations. The type of minerals
formed were dependant on oxygen levels, which were fluctuating, so
different beds have different chemical compositions.

On the other hand,
I don't think the photochemistry of the pre-oxygen atmosphere of Earth
is fully understood.

Popular science news magazines and web sites are unfortunately under
great pressure to print the new controversial story. One in particular
almost never lets readers come away with the same understanding of the
nature of the universe as before, if they can help it. Another
consideration, particularly with a free web site, is that there is very
little money indeed to spend on journalism. So there isn't much
checking and there are a lot of press releases.

"Sphere" wrote in message
ups.com...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" wrote in message
oups.com...


http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/...45887887309620


Oxygen Production on Early Earth


This is an interesting report:

http://www.livescience.com/othernews...gen_world.html



So?...

You implying that because there was (some) oxygen some moronic being
called
God created the Earth?

THERE IS NO GOD!! Only science.

Do I smell Scientism here?

Do you hold that there is only One Truth and that
Science is its' name?

No, there is only One Truth and you are the human proxy that a magic guy in
the sky appointed to tell the rest of us about it. So..........go ahead
we're waiting oh Great Keeper of the One Truth. How blessed we are to have
had you and your kind throughout history. Just think where the human race
might be without you. The mideast would probably be a mess. Extremists might
be threatening the world to advance their "One Truth".
Rob Brown

On 5 Sep 2006 06:52:35 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
spake thusly:


http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/...45887887309620


Oxygen Production on Early Earth

Every honest scientist knows that the Earth has always
had oxygen and that there was a higher oxygen content,
not a lower one and certainly not zero oxygen.


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
[]()X()[]
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"The best vitamin for a Christian is B1."

On 5 Sep 2006 07:02:00 -0700, "Sphere"
spake thusly:


Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/...45887887309620


Oxygen Production on Early Earth


This is an interesting report:

http://www.livescience.com/othernews...gen_world.html
...
But what are the chances that all of these complex
mechanisms managed to develop in less than 700 million years?
...

Approximately 100%.

And now you have claimed absolute truth. Therefore, you are
bound to absolute proof and no claim that "science isn't in the
business of proof" will be considered a valid statement.


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
[]()X()[]
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?

On 5 Sep 2006 07:05:53 -0700, "GSP"
spake thusly:


Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/...45887887309620


Oxygen Production on Early Earth


http://www.livescience.com/othernews...gen_world.html


Spot the obvious mistakes

I am prepared to believe (at least for sake of argument) that all of
these complex mechanisms could have developed as a result of blind,
random chance.

Nothing new. Next please

Another lying evolutionist thinks that these stupid remarks
equate to a scientific rebuttal.


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
[]()X()[]
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"Worry is interest paid on trouble before it is due."

:: Approximately 100%.

: And now you have claimed absolute truth.

Really? You think "approximately" means "absolutely"?
Hm. I guess they *do* both begin with the letter "a".

: Every honest scientist knows that the Earth has always
: had oxygen and that there was a higher oxygen content,
: not a lower one and certainly not zero oxygen.

And you call this "honesty". Hm. I'm sensing a pattern.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:06:54 GMT, Pastor Dave
wrote:

On 5 Sep 2006 07:02:00 -0700, "Sphere"
spake thusly:


Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/...45887887309620


Oxygen Production on Early Earth


This is an interesting report:

http://www.livescience.com/othernews...gen_world.html
...
But what are the chances that all of these complex
mechanisms managed to develop in less than 700 million years?
...

Approximately 100%.

And now you have claimed absolute truth.

Unless of course you read his second two words instead of snipping
them.

Sound of Trumpet wrote:



http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/...45887887309620


Oxygen Production on Early Earth


This is an interesting report:

http://www.livescience.com/othernews...gen_world.html



Rocks older than 2.4 billion years contain abnormal ratios of sulfur
isotopes compared with younger rocks. The only way known to generate
these abnormal ratios are reactions between sunlight and sulfurous
volcanic gas in the absence of an ozone shield that would normally help
screen out ultraviolet rays.


[snip]

Meanwhile, scientists speculate that a lack of oxygen in Sound of Trumpet's
early atmosphere is responsible for posts like this.

--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com

Robert Carnegie wrote:

Well hello to a massive crosspost. This really belongs in group
talk.origins, or better yet, nowhere at all. I'll only say that
sulphur isotopes are nowhere near the best evidence for oxygen in the
atmosphere, or not, at a given date. I understand there are
iron-bearing rocks that /rust/ when oxygen hits them, which plainly
implies that oxygen wasn't around when they formed. On the other hand,
I don't think the photochemistry of the pre-oxygen atmosphere of Earth
is fully understood.

Oxygen is one of the most common elements on the Earth. The issue is
not whether or not oxygen _existed_ on the Earth from its formation,
the issue is the extent to which _free oxygen_ (or even oxygen gas
molecules) existed and under what circumstances at what times. The
earliest Earth is believed to have little or no oxygen gas; most of the
oxygen was bound into carbon dioxide and water.

Photosynthesis is believed to have begun releasing significant amounts
of oxygen gas around 2.5 billion years ago, but this oxygen then bonded
with other substances, most notably iron, creating the banded iron
layers). By around 1.8 billion years ago, most of the available iron
had already been combined into oxides, and from this point on the level
of oxygen in the atmosphere increased, until other factors (such as the
spread of oxygen-breathing organisms) brought it into a dynamic
stability.

If new discoveries changed the details of this time table, this would
hardly invalidate evolutionary biology; it would merely mean that some
things happened earlier or later than we had previously believed.

- Jordan