Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disproving Creation: As oxygen filled the world, life’s universal clock began to tick
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Budikka666
May 19, 2012, 6:46:28 PM5/19/12
to
Another black eye for young-earth creationism:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/05/16/universal-clock-oxygen-life/
Budikka
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/05/16/universal-clock-oxygen-life/
Budikka
Andrew
May 20, 2012, 3:16:34 PM5/20/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:02624b43-a84b-4039...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/05/16/universal-clock-oxygen-life/
Budikka's article builds upon the *false* premise, "The Earth's earliest days were largely free of
oxygen." Ignoring current research: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=35408
"For decades, scientists believed that the atmosphere of early Earth was highly reduced, meaning
that oxygen was greatly limited. . . . Now, scientists at Rensselaer are turning these atmospheric
assumptions on their heads with findings that prove the conditions on early Earth were simply not
conducive to the formation of this type of atmosphere, but rather to an atmosphere dominated by
the more oxygen-rich compounds found within our current atmosphere -- including water, carbon
dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.
"We can now say with some certainty that many scientists studying the origins of life on Earth
simply picked the wrong atmosphere," said Bruce Watson, Institute Professor of Science at
Rensselaer." http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=35408
Thus further supporting the creation model of origins, and disproving the abiogenesis model.
>
> Budikka
Thanks Budikka!
Andrew
> Another black eye for young-earth creationism:
Rather, a black eye for the abiogenesis story.
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/05/16/universal-clock-oxygen-life/
Budikka's article builds upon the *false* premise, "The Earth's earliest days were largely free of
oxygen." Ignoring current research: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=35408
"For decades, scientists believed that the atmosphere of early Earth was highly reduced, meaning
that oxygen was greatly limited. . . . Now, scientists at Rensselaer are turning these atmospheric
assumptions on their heads with findings that prove the conditions on early Earth were simply not
conducive to the formation of this type of atmosphere, but rather to an atmosphere dominated by
the more oxygen-rich compounds found within our current atmosphere -- including water, carbon
dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.
"We can now say with some certainty that many scientists studying the origins of life on Earth
simply picked the wrong atmosphere," said Bruce Watson, Institute Professor of Science at
Rensselaer." http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=35408
Thus further supporting the creation model of origins, and disproving the abiogenesis model.
>
> Budikka
Thanks Budikka!
Andrew
Free Lunch
May 20, 2012, 3:28:15 PM5/20/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 12:16:34 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:02624b43-a84b-4039...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> Another black eye for young-earth creationism:
>
>Rather, a black eye for the abiogenesis story.
No, Andrew. You are lying again because you refuse to learn any science.
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/05/16/universal-clock-oxygen-life/
>
>Budikka's article builds upon the *false* premise, "The Earth's earliest days were largely free of
>oxygen." Ignoring current research: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=35408
Before there was life there was no free oxygen. Nothing in that article
implies that there was. The question it is telling us was being answered
was what sort of oxides were available in the atmosphere. They have
concluded, but this will still be tested further, that oxidized hydrogen
and carbon were more common than some had expected in the atmosphere.
There is still no evidence for oxygen molecules.
>"For decades, scientists believed that the atmosphere of early Earth was highly reduced, meaning
>that oxygen was greatly limited. . . . Now, scientists at Rensselaer are turning these atmospheric
>assumptions on their heads with findings that prove the conditions on early Earth were simply not
>conducive to the formation of this type of atmosphere, but rather to an atmosphere dominated by
>the more oxygen-rich compounds found within our current atmosphere -- including water, carbon
>dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.
>
>"We can now say with some certainty that many scientists studying the origins of life on Earth
>simply picked the wrong atmosphere," said Bruce Watson, Institute Professor of Science at
>Rensselaer." http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=35408
>
>Thus further supporting the creation model of origins, and disproving the abiogenesis model.
As you know, there is no creation model of origins, even though you
assert there is one. Why must you lie to us? Why is your god such a joke
that you need to tell lies on his behalf?
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:02624b43-a84b-4039...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> Another black eye for young-earth creationism:
>
>Rather, a black eye for the abiogenesis story.
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/05/16/universal-clock-oxygen-life/
>
>Budikka's article builds upon the *false* premise, "The Earth's earliest days were largely free of
>oxygen." Ignoring current research: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=35408
implies that there was. The question it is telling us was being answered
was what sort of oxides were available in the atmosphere. They have
concluded, but this will still be tested further, that oxidized hydrogen
and carbon were more common than some had expected in the atmosphere.
There is still no evidence for oxygen molecules.
>"For decades, scientists believed that the atmosphere of early Earth was highly reduced, meaning
>that oxygen was greatly limited. . . . Now, scientists at Rensselaer are turning these atmospheric
>assumptions on their heads with findings that prove the conditions on early Earth were simply not
>conducive to the formation of this type of atmosphere, but rather to an atmosphere dominated by
>the more oxygen-rich compounds found within our current atmosphere -- including water, carbon
>dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.
>
>"We can now say with some certainty that many scientists studying the origins of life on Earth
>simply picked the wrong atmosphere," said Bruce Watson, Institute Professor of Science at
>Rensselaer." http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=35408
>
>Thus further supporting the creation model of origins, and disproving the abiogenesis model.
assert there is one. Why must you lie to us? Why is your god such a joke
that you need to tell lies on his behalf?
0 new messages