jeffox
Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007
|
RFJE is very confusing at times, and wrote:
| Quote | The popular hypothesis about the atmosphere is that it was formed by volcanoes spewing out CO2, water vapor, methane, nitrogen among other things ---no O2.
Therefore the IMPLICATION is that were alot of O atoms and they were underground, as in UNDER volcanoes. The O atoms were in such quantity that they bonded with H, were spewed out by volcanoes as water vapor, eventually condensed, and formed OCEANS, not ponds. That's alot of O atoms. (i did not have to have a degree in chemistry to figure this out).
|
Your first paragraph appears correct. Your second, however, is kind of silly. Why would the sole implication be that which you state? From what I understand, the currently-accepted "best guess" for where earth's oceans came from is from bombardment by asteroids and comets early in it's history.
As for there being a lot of oxygen "under volcanoes", well, duh! Oxygen is one of the most abundant elements in earth's crust, almost invariably bound up with silicon, which is the most abundant element in the crust. Being bound up like that means that it's not in a gaseous form, like it is in our current atmosphere. There's an abundant amount of evidence from all over the earth that, early on, the atmosphere contained no (or very little) free (gaseous) oxygen; and then, at some point in the distant past, that changed and oxygen became a major player in the earth's atmosphere, like it is today. BIF's are just one piece of that evidence.
In that same post, he wrote:
| Quote | | This oxygen crisis that I keep "yapping about" is in YOUR theory's geologic timescale. God forbid that I should say ANYTHING that is associated with creationism, so I use mainstream sources. The O2 catastrophe is there for all to read. |
I don't see why atmospheric oxygenation is a "crisis" or "catastrophe". It was a big change, but not big enough to wipe out the bacteria that created it. Why do you think so? And what "mainstream" source do you mean?
And later:
| Quote | Here's a better question: Why do they still have CO2 atmospheres?
Because they will never cool with an an atmosphere of CO2 (Venus up to 600C). So there will never be life to create O2.
|
Ummm, I think the average temperature on Mars is far colder than on earth. To quote a popular song, it ain't the kind of place to raise yer kids. It may have even HAD primitive life, just like on earth! Neat-O, eh? And not so hard, either. And just think, we now know of at least 100 other planets orbiting other stars! Life's probably common, ya know. But I'll hedge that bet until better evidence comes in, eh!
Further on:
| Quote | SO how did the earth cool loaded with CO2, and how did water vapor ever condense to form oceans? We are only at what .04 % CO2 level today and everyone is worried about global warming. How much more if we've got a "volcanic" atmosphere full of CO2.
|
The CO2 levels may have been at about the level they are now. Or the sun may have been cooler. There are a myriad of other possibilities that you haven't considered, evidently. By the way, the atmosphere's predominantly nitrogen; but you know that, right?
More:
| Quote | And as I said--no 03 either to protect from radiation. Where did O3 come from? Must have been exhaled by an extinct species that is now dust.
|
Currently O3 is produced by O2 interacting with the sun's radiation at high altitudes. Why wouldn't that be the case as soon as O2 became common? Many anerobic bacteria species are resistant to radiation. Radiation levels could have been different in the past, as I've aluded to earlier. I don't understand why this is a problem for "evolutionists".
And:
| Quote | Just like if radiometric was called into doubt or disproved, alot of your theory would come crumbling down.
|
Well, I have to agree with you there. Still, since radiometric dating disproval would take an awful lot of doing (handwaving won't work) you better get cracking and show me some objective, scientific evidence that the specific type of dating technique used in any particular dating environment is incorrect. Don't be shy, but do keep in mind that I (and some of the others here) have direct experience in working with the same theory that says that radiometric dating works the way it works. In my case, it's what drove a submarine around.
Get hot!!
|
