Creationists

[cbirch2]

Your point ?

My point is that your argument has a cop out.

My argument is that all of these big cats are related. The tiger, the lion, the leopard, and the jaguar are all examples of evolution. Not only that, but if you would trace their lineage back far enough, you would see theyre related to dogs as well, and by the same process!

But you can claim something like: sure all big cats are related, thats just variation within a family. But obviously dogs and cats are not related, thats just ridiculous. There anatomy is totally different.

Cop out

The only reason you can claim that is because any common ancestor is long dead. And when we point to fossils your general response is to just act like they dont exist.

Have you not read where i believe variations happened within each family.

Yup and im telling you that this is a total cop out, because you can blur the line as much as you want.

Which animals are within the same family? Are a dog and a cat within the same family?

Do you mean literal Family, like in a taxonomy sense?

So an animal of the family Mephitidae, like a skunk, was created separate from an animal of the family Mustelidae, like a weasel? Or can those two be variations within what you call a "family"

Could the entire Order of carnivora, composed of many Families, be a a related group of animals?

I just dont know what your definition of "Family" is. Are you using the biological, taxonomic definition? Or some other amorphous definition that you have.

 

[cbirch2]

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *

The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:


There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1

As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.

How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question - because it seems to me the question most worth asking and working upon with all our intellectual and scientific resources.2


Rest of article here you need to see this contradiction.

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

Yea again i will tell that the law of entropy does not apply to an open system.

Does the law of entropy apply to DNA polymerase and the replication of genes??? Nooooo. Open system.....

Thats all i have to say about your dumb little creationist link. Will you stop using those?

Why because men of science contradict your points ?

No because the laws of entropy dont apply to open systems moron how many times do i have to say that?

I have asked you the purpose of gravity and our atmosphere ? why won't you answer the questions ?

Um what?

What do you mean purpose?

There is no purpose for either of these things. Gravity just is, everything with mass attracts everything else. Its not specific to earth, you didnt think it was did you? lol Like ive said, if there is a god this maybe be an avenue through which he works. But god isnt physically holding you down to earth with his hands, or sculpting cells like an artisan.

Whats the purpose of our atmosphere? Again, wtf?? There is no purpose, thats just how a ball of matter would coalesce. The dense rock is pulled to the middle more than gasses, and so the gas surrounds the rock.

I might counter by asking what the purpose of venus's atmosphere is? Or why galaxies light years away are still bound together by gravity, if gravity has a human-centric "purpose"?

 

[cbirch2]

Fossils can only be preserved by rapid burial because oxygen leads to rapid decay. Where were you educated ?

So how do we have so many nicely preserved fossils ? This evidence is consistent with the flood causing a lot of mud. What can bury a big dinosaur so fast ?
Have you ever seen a fish decay and how fast it takes place ?

You realize that "rapid" in this case is many years, right?

Theres a lot of ways bones can be covered by earth over a span of a few years....We find human bones as skeletons in ancient civilizations, how do you explain that.

Even skeleton of people in places that have existed for the last 2000 years. Hows does that match up with your idea that a massive flood is the only way to achieve fossilization?

Woefully ignorant.

But yet we find fish preserved in rock imagine that.

Yea im sure the fish bones were at a real danger of being oxidized by all that oxygen deep in the ocean....

 

[InDoctriNation]

I remember when I was young building a miniature house out of popsicle sticks. I started with a disorganized pile of popsicle sticks, and the finished product was a bundle of popsicle sticks organized in the shape of a house. According to YWC, I defied the law of entropy simply by gluing some popsicle sticks together in an organized fashion. How was I able to do this, YWC, since order always proceeds towards disorder? If you are able to answer that question, you will have answered why evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[cbirch2]

I remember when I was young building a miniature house out of popsicle sticks. I started with a disorganized pile of popsicle sticks, and the finished product was a bundle of popsicle sticks organized in the shape of a house. According to YWC, I defied the law of entropy simply by gluing some popsicle sticks together in an organized fashion. How was I able to do this, YWC, since order always proceeds towards disorder? If you are able to answer that question, you will have answered why evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I know right?

I dont think he gets the concept of open system.

By his definition the formation of an H2O molecule defies the laws of entropy.

 

[cbirch2]

^^Variation within a "family"^^

^^Variation within the mammalian "family"^^

 

[Youwerecreated]

Im saying it not as if a group of molecules are thrown together like bowling balls and must come together just right.

Its all basically 4 types of organic molecules. See any similarities?

Nucleic acids:

Amino acid:

fatty acid:

Glucose:

OK ill teach you organic chemistry.

Theyre all just rings or chains of carbon with functional groups of N, H, or O attatched somewhere. Considering these are just a handful molecules that are electromagnetically attracted to each other in specific ways, they can form pretty readily.

From here you just have to go from these single monomers, to polymers (sugars, lipids, proteins, and DNA/RNA).

And then you have to wonder what happens when you have the oceans of the earth filled with these things. We already know that lipids like to form small spherical membranes in aqueous solutions. You would think that random concoctions of amino acids and nucleic acids would dissolve into the lipid membranes that we talked about above, and this would happen pretty much everywhere. And from there theres a lot of reactions that can take place.

Your picture of chemistry is just all wrong. Its like you think its analogous to throwing boards together and building a house. It's not.

So where do you get the amino acids we know what oxygen does to amino acid binding blocks ? Oxygen is poisonous to organic and inorganic material.

Free oxygen would not have existed in early earth for precisely this reason. All of it is already readily bound to other molecules, mostly carbon, to form CO2. You cant have oxidation without free oxygen.

There had to have been a mechanism to break molecular bonds and form free oxygen. That didnt happen until plants slowly began to oxygenate the atmosphere. For earths early history our atmosphere was very different.

That was the assumptions that miller urey assumed because they knew it could not happen with oxygen present.

What evidence do they have to reach this conclusion ? How does man know the conditions of the enviornment that many years ago ? This test was done through years of training in the field,but it was accomplished through intelligence.

But i would love to know how scientist knew what the enviornment was like some 4 or 5 billion years ago. Interesting they new it could not happen with oxygen present.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My point is that your argument has a cop out.

My argument is that all of these big cats are related. The tiger, the lion, the leopard, and the jaguar are all examples of evolution. Not only that, but if you would trace their lineage back far enough, you would see theyre related to dogs as well, and by the same process!

But you can claim something like: sure all big cats are related, thats just variation within a family. But obviously dogs and cats are not related, thats just ridiculous. There anatomy is totally different.

Cop out

The only reason you can claim that is because any common ancestor is long dead. And when we point to fossils your general response is to just act like they dont exist.

Have you not read where i believe variations happened within each family.

Yup and im telling you that this is a total cop out, because you can blur the line as much as you want.

Which animals are within the same family? Are a dog and a cat within the same family?

Do you mean literal Family, like in a taxonomy sense?

So an animal of the family Mephitidae, like a skunk, was created separate from an animal of the family Mustelidae, like a weasel? Or can those two be variations within what you call a "family"

Could the entire Order of carnivora, composed of many Families, be a a related group of animals?

I just dont know what your definition of "Family" is. Are you using the biological, taxonomic definition? Or some other amorphous definition that you have.

I am saying a family= dogs. I am saying a family= cats. They are not from the same family.

They only have the genetic data to produce what they are.

 

[cbirch2]

So where do you get the amino acids we know what oxygen does to amino acid binding blocks ? Oxygen is poisonous to organic and inorganic material.

Free oxygen would not have existed in early earth for precisely this reason. All of it is already readily bound to other molecules, mostly carbon, to form CO2. You cant have oxidation without free oxygen.

There had to have been a mechanism to break molecular bonds and form free oxygen. That didnt happen until plants slowly began to oxygenate the atmosphere. For earths early history our atmosphere was very different.

That was the assumptions that miller urey assumed because they knew it could not happen with oxygen present.

What evidence do they have to reach this conclusion ? How does man know the conditions of the enviornment that many years ago ? This test was done through years of training in the field,but it was accomplished through intelligence.

But i would love to know how scientist knew what the enviornment was like some 4 or 5 billion years ago. Interesting they new it could not happen with oxygen present.

Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere
"

1. Hypothesis: Oxygen was nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.
   1. Evidence to support the above hypothesis: Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years old (Figure 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look much the same (Figure 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind of iron ore (Figure 9).
      A second line of evidence, to suggest that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere like Venus and Mars, is the presence of detrital (formed from the products of erosion of pre-existing rocks) pyrite in sedimentary deposits older than two billion years old. Iron pyrite forms in reducing environment and is quickly chemically decomposed in the presence of oxygen. Today such minerals are only preserved in rocks that formed in reducing environments such as swamps etc. However, in rocks older than two billion years old this mineral (iron pyrite) is found in rocks that were probably formed in streambeds."

 

[cbirch2]

Have you not read where i believe variations happened within each family.

Yup and im telling you that this is a total cop out, because you can blur the line as much as you want.

Which animals are within the same family? Are a dog and a cat within the same family?

Do you mean literal Family, like in a taxonomy sense?

So an animal of the family Mephitidae, like a skunk, was created separate from an animal of the family Mustelidae, like a weasel? Or can those two be variations within what you call a "family"

Could the entire Order of carnivora, composed of many Families, be a a related group of animals?

I just dont know what your definition of "Family" is. Are you using the biological, taxonomic definition? Or some other amorphous definition that you have.

I am saying a family= dogs. I am saying a family= cats. They are not from the same family.

They only have the genetic data to produce what they are.

If you say "they only have the genetic data to produce what they are" one more time im going to rip my hair out.

Miacids only had the information to make other miacids. yet small variations in that template produced the entire order of carnivora. Of course, the miacids may not be the exact LCA of carnivora, but its close.

And now were back to you not answering the question. What constitutes a family? All of Felidae is related, then? And any two Families within the same order are just similar animals created by god?

Or are you using some totally differnt classification system that doesnt go Domain > Kingdom > Phylum > Class > Order > Family > Genus > Specie

 

[cbirch2]

Your still stuck on this notion of similarity and information.

You admit that all big-cats may be related, but then you deny that there can be any deeper relation between other members of carnivora.

Why can this tiger

not be related to this miacid?

Variation within a family cant go that far?

I bet if i said the miacid skeleton was a tiger and the tiger was a miacid, you wouldnt have even realized.

 

[cbirch2]

You cant just say family = dogs, family = cats.

Again, thats just avoiding the entire topic im trying to get at and you know it. All domestic cats are of the same species, the same with dogs. But i thought we established prior that not all animals that we consider separate species are unrelated in your eyes, because you classify according to some "family" term. So some animals that we consider to be separate species, may in fact just be "variation within a family". So lets talk about that

Im talking about big cats, when im talking about cats. Unless i specifically say domestic cats.

Are leopards (Panthera Pardus):

related to cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus)?

Variation within a family? Or no?

Perhaps they descended from the Proailurus?

And maybe that Proailurus is related to the miacis, which is a type of miacid?

It kind of looks like an amorphous, generic cat doesnt it? You might think its just an artists rendition, but there are actually animals alive today that are pretty similar. Meet the fossa:
Madagascar's Strange Predator -- the Fossa - YouTube

The point is that the animals of Order Carnivora are most certainly related, and split into Ferliformia (cat-like) suborder and caniformia (dog-like) suborder.

 

[amrchaos]

You should do not believe liberals!

Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.

Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours

Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube

Who is John Morris Pendleton?

This is quite the CV, let me tell you........

• 
  - In the year 2000, he has answered and mailed free creationist materials in Spanish to almost 120 individuals from 13 countries. These were letters and emails in response to the Spanish radio broadcasts of Back to Genesis of the Institute for Creation Research.
  - At present, he is dedicating his efforts to Zacatecas, Mexico to bring the message of creation into the public schools and the community, and to equip the local churches with teachings and materials to do the same.
  - Founder and director of the Grupo Internacional de Científicos Creacionistas -- G.I.C.C. -- The International Group of Creation Scientists and their group of associate members.
  - Presented the creationist conferences in Cuba in March and December of 1999, with plans to tour all of Cuba in 15 days in July or August of 2001.
  - Was one of the main speakers in the First and Second National Creationist Congress in Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico in May, 1998 and August, 2000.
  - His creationists conferences in video (Spanish and English) are now in the U.S.A., 15 Latin American countries, Spain, Zimbabwe, Africa and India.
  - Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of Wisconin in Madison, U.S.A.
  - Automotive technician for 10 years.
  - Worked in cancer research for 1 1/2 years.
  - Made creationist conferences for Christian television in El Paso, Midland-Odessa and San Antonio, Texas.
  - Part of the team that won the debate on CREATION AND EVOLUTION at the University of Morelos in Cuernavaca, Mexico in 1994.
  - Translated and published in Spanish 15,000 copies of the powerful booklet by Ken Ham -- DINOSAURS AND THE BIBLE.
  - Interviewed on various radio and t-v stations in the U.S.A., Mexico, Venezuela and Paraguay.
  - For television, made 40 half-hour programs about science, the Bible, the creation, evolution, dinosaurs and the flood.

• 
  
  The guy's got a bachelor's degree and worked as a mechanic and thinks he can slap a labcoat on and have instant credibility.
  
  Hilarious.
  
  At least, unlike Kent Hovind, he didn't buy a Ph.D. at a Diploma Mill.

• 
  
  He is a chemist, so yes he can slap on a labcoat. Although what he is saying seems more fit for a straitjacket.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You cant just say family = dogs, family = cats.

Again, thats just avoiding the entire topic im trying to get at and you know it. All domestic cats are of the same species, the same with dogs. But i thought we established prior that not all animals that we consider separate species are unrelated in your eyes, because you classify according to some "family" term. So some animals that we consider to be separate species, may in fact just be "variation within a family". So lets talk about that

Im talking about big cats, when im talking about cats. Unless i specifically say domestic cats.

Are leopards (Panthera Pardus):

related to cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus)?

Variation within a family? Or no?

Perhaps they descended from the Proailurus?

And maybe that Proailurus is related to the miacis, which is a type of miacid?

It kind of looks like an amorphous, generic cat doesnt it? You might think its just an artists rendition, but there are actually animals alive today that are pretty similar. Meet the fossa:
Madagascar's Strange Predator -- the Fossa - YouTube

The point is that the animals of Order Carnivora are most certainly related, and split into Ferliformia (cat-like) suborder and caniformia (dog-like) suborder.

They have no evidence just speculation about the enviornment 4.or 5 billion years ago.

I don't know the exact breeds God created in each family and i don't know which ones were a product of variation. Don't know i was not there.

Reckless speculation is not science ok. It proves nothing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You should do not believe liberals!

Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.

Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours

Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube

Who is John Morris Pendleton?

This is quite the CV, let me tell you........

• 
  - In the year 2000, he has answered and mailed free creationist materials in Spanish to almost 120 individuals from 13 countries. These were letters and emails in response to the Spanish radio broadcasts of Back to Genesis of the Institute for Creation Research.
  - At present, he is dedicating his efforts to Zacatecas, Mexico to bring the message of creation into the public schools and the community, and to equip the local churches with teachings and materials to do the same.
  - Founder and director of the Grupo Internacional de Científicos Creacionistas -- G.I.C.C. -- The International Group of Creation Scientists and their group of associate members.
  - Presented the creationist conferences in Cuba in March and December of 1999, with plans to tour all of Cuba in 15 days in July or August of 2001.
  - Was one of the main speakers in the First and Second National Creationist Congress in Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico in May, 1998 and August, 2000.
  - His creationists conferences in video (Spanish and English) are now in the U.S.A., 15 Latin American countries, Spain, Zimbabwe, Africa and India.
  - Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of Wisconin in Madison, U.S.A.
  - Automotive technician for 10 years.
  - Worked in cancer research for 1 1/2 years.
  - Made creationist conferences for Christian television in El Paso, Midland-Odessa and San Antonio, Texas.
  - Part of the team that won the debate on CREATION AND EVOLUTION at the University of Morelos in Cuernavaca, Mexico in 1994.
  - Translated and published in Spanish 15,000 copies of the powerful booklet by Ken Ham -- DINOSAURS AND THE BIBLE.
  - Interviewed on various radio and t-v stations in the U.S.A., Mexico, Venezuela and Paraguay.
  - For television, made 40 half-hour programs about science, the Bible, the creation, evolution, dinosaurs and the flood.

• 
  
  The guy's got a bachelor's degree and worked as a mechanic and thinks he can slap a labcoat on and have instant credibility.
  
  Hilarious.
  
  At least, unlike Kent Hovind, he didn't buy a Ph.D. at a Diploma Mill.

• 
  
  He is a chemist, so yes he can slap on a labcoat. Although what he is saying seems more fit for a straitjacket.

• 
  
  Not all creationist are mechanics and they are in agreement on many things i present.
  
  You were making fun of Dr. Spetner and claiming he was something he was not.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Free oxygen would not have existed in early earth for precisely this reason. All of it is already readily bound to other molecules, mostly carbon, to form CO2. You cant have oxidation without free oxygen.

There had to have been a mechanism to break molecular bonds and form free oxygen. That didnt happen until plants slowly began to oxygenate the atmosphere. For earths early history our atmosphere was very different.

That was the assumptions that miller urey assumed because they knew it could not happen with oxygen present.

What evidence do they have to reach this conclusion ? How does man know the conditions of the enviornment that many years ago ? This test was done through years of training in the field,but it was accomplished through intelligence.

But i would love to know how scientist knew what the enviornment was like some 4 or 5 billion years ago. Interesting they new it could not happen with oxygen present.

Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere
"

1. Hypothesis: Oxygen was nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.
   1. Evidence to support the above hypothesis: Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years old (Figure 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look much the same (Figure 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind of iron ore (Figure 9).
      A second line of evidence, to suggest that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere like Venus and Mars, is the presence of detrital (formed from the products of erosion of pre-existing rocks) pyrite in sedimentary deposits older than two billion years old. Iron pyrite forms in reducing environment and is quickly chemically decomposed in the presence of oxygen. Today such minerals are only preserved in rocks that formed in reducing environments such as swamps etc. However, in rocks older than two billion years old this mineral (iron pyrite) is found in rocks that were probably formed in streambeds."

What good is this post if you can't follow the scientific method ? Like test study or observe the enviornment 4 or 5 billion years ago ?

 

[cbirch2]

You cant just say family = dogs, family = cats.

Again, thats just avoiding the entire topic im trying to get at and you know it. All domestic cats are of the same species, the same with dogs. But i thought we established prior that not all animals that we consider separate species are unrelated in your eyes, because you classify according to some "family" term. So some animals that we consider to be separate species, may in fact just be "variation within a family". So lets talk about that

Im talking about big cats, when im talking about cats. Unless i specifically say domestic cats.

Are leopards (Panthera Pardus):

related to cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus)?

Variation within a family? Or no?

Perhaps they descended from the Proailurus?

And maybe that Proailurus is related to the miacis, which is a type of miacid?

It kind of looks like an amorphous, generic cat doesnt it? You might think its just an artists rendition, but there are actually animals alive today that are pretty similar. Meet the fossa:
Madagascar's Strange Predator -- the Fossa - YouTube

The point is that the animals of Order Carnivora are most certainly related, and split into Ferliformia (cat-like) suborder and caniformia (dog-like) suborder.

They have no evidence just speculation about the enviornment 4.or 5 billion years ago.

I don't know the exact breeds God created in each family and i don't know which ones were a product of variation. Don't know i was not there.

Reckless speculation is not science ok. It proves nothing.

Lol this is slightly more than speculation you idiot. Radiometric dating and rock strata both accurately date specimens. Those specimen fall into line with our anatomical understanding of how organisms are similar, and that understanding is exactly the same as our genetic tree of life.

its a complete picture. If theyre just all unrelated you must explain why they form a coherent timeline.

 

[cbirch2]

That was the assumptions that miller urey assumed because they knew it could not happen with oxygen present.

What evidence do they have to reach this conclusion ? How does man know the conditions of the enviornment that many years ago ? This test was done through years of training in the field,but it was accomplished through intelligence.

But i would love to know how scientist knew what the enviornment was like some 4 or 5 billion years ago. Interesting they new it could not happen with oxygen present.

Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere
"

1. Hypothesis: Oxygen was nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.
   1. Evidence to support the above hypothesis: Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years old (Figure 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look much the same (Figure 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind of iron ore (Figure 9).
      A second line of evidence, to suggest that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere like Venus and Mars, is the presence of detrital (formed from the products of erosion of pre-existing rocks) pyrite in sedimentary deposits older than two billion years old. Iron pyrite forms in reducing environment and is quickly chemically decomposed in the presence of oxygen. Today such minerals are only preserved in rocks that formed in reducing environments such as swamps etc. However, in rocks older than two billion years old this mineral (iron pyrite) is found in rocks that were probably formed in streambeds."

What good is this post if you can't follow the scientific method ? Like test study or observe the enviornment 4 or 5 billion years ago ?

Can you read? You dont have to be somewhere when something happened to know it did, the scientific method does not claim anything of the sort. Observation does not mean you actually have to see earths early atmosphere, you just have to observe evidence that it was there.

If i drive past the ruins of a burnt down house, how do i know it was destroyed by a fire. I didnt see the actual fire, but the charred remains are pretty good evidence that the house burnt down...

 

[InDoctriNation]

Nope, gotta see the house burn down in person, otherwise it's just speculation. Just as likely that a tsunami wiped it out!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere
"

1. Hypothesis: Oxygen was nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth so photosynthesis would have created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and later in the atmosphere. Eventually with sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere respiration would have balanced photosynthesis except when burial removed the organic material from the oxygenated water or air. Before oxygen could build up in the atmosphere it must have oxidized reduced ions in seawater.
   1. Evidence to support the above hypothesis: Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years old (Figure 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look much the same (Figure 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind of iron ore (Figure 9).
      A second line of evidence, to suggest that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere like Venus and Mars, is the presence of detrital (formed from the products of erosion of pre-existing rocks) pyrite in sedimentary deposits older than two billion years old. Iron pyrite forms in reducing environment and is quickly chemically decomposed in the presence of oxygen. Today such minerals are only preserved in rocks that formed in reducing environments such as swamps etc. However, in rocks older than two billion years old this mineral (iron pyrite) is found in rocks that were probably formed in streambeds."

What good is this post if you can't follow the scientific method ? Like test study or observe the enviornment 4 or 5 billion years ago ?

Can you read? You dont have to be somewhere when something happened to know it did, the scientific method does not claim anything of the sort. Observation does not mean you actually have to see earths early atmosphere, you just have to observe evidence that it was there.

If i drive past the ruins of a burnt down house, how do i know it was destroyed by a fire. I didnt see the actual fire, but the charred remains are pretty good evidence that the house burnt down...

Imagination proves nothing got it ?

When are you gonna tell me the purpose of gravity and the atmosphere ? why are you avoiding these questions ?