New Evidence Confirms Old Arguement From Creationists

Instructor: Scientists think that the original atmosphere was reducing, that is, without oxygen. It was composed of carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and nitrogen instead of our present carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen, and oxygen.

Student: But prof, there is no evidence anywhere in the rock strata that this planet has ever been without oxygen. The earliest rocks show evidence of oxidized iron, and there could be no water without oxygen. Every living creature has to have water, and it has to have oxygen! Taken from the Bio-Chemistry Classroom.

One person responded, “Your hypothetical student is a bit clueless. I suggest he does some reading on the subject before he tried to contradict his ‘prof’ again.” Always attack the person rather than the substance, huh? Well let’s take a look at a recent discovery in science daily which confirms once again, one of the hypothetical student’s claims…

“Red jasper cored from layers 3.46 billion years old suggests that not only did the oceans contain abundant oxygen then, but that the atmosphere was as oxygen rich as it is today, according to geologists.”

Looks like not only was the hypothetical student was right, but this is what creationists have been saying for years now. Evolutionary scientists were outright rejecting the evidence, believing in a story not science. The earth always had oxygen in it, not only that but at the same levels as today!

“Everyone agrees that this jasper is 3.46 billion years old,” said Ohmoto…”

No, not everyone agree that particular jasper is 3.46 years old, because it’s based purely on speculation, plus other data which conflicts with it, is generally thrown out for the desired readings.

We found that the hematite from this core was made of a single crystal and therefore was not hematite made by ultra violet radiation,” said Ohmoto.”

“This could only happen if the deep ocean contained oxygen and the iron rich fluids came into contact at high temperatures. Ohmoto and his team believe that this specific layer of hematite formed when a plume of heated water, like those found today at hydrothermal vents, converted the iron compounds into hematite using oxygen dissolved in the deep ocean water.”

Very good science work done here. As we can see, creationists are not “clueless”, they are not filled with ignorance. Although some Christians may not be familiar with all the details of this particular subject on historical science but certainly not “clueless.”

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “New Evidence Confirms Old Arguement From Creationists

  1. I am getting bored with these hypothetical conversations, which are only setting up strawman arguments …

    So why do you immediately believe a suggestion (!) quoted in science daily, but not the overwhelming body of real evidence (facts, I would say) for evolution ?
    You really cherrypick whatever suggestion you can find and then jump to the conclusions you want (i.e. creationism). That is really bad science.

  2. It’s always interesting to see what pops up in “Possibly related links” in the WordPress universe!

    Trying to tie any observations, irrespective of their scientific merit or lack thereof, to a system that is, even if the bare facts are disambiguated, reliant on FAITH, is a chronic waste of human mental resources. There is so much in religious/spiritual doctrine that stacks very poorly against logic or objective scrutiny that argument on any technical minutae suggests personal fear and insecurity. There is sufficient practical merit in the human wisdom of each of the great religions to justify certain leaps of faith in constructing personal values and establishing behaviours, without recourse to academic/intellectual justification.

    The composition of Earth’s environment, in either Biblical or geological timeframes, has nothing whatsoever to do with acceptance of a creator God. A creator God supercedes current human understanding and is thus beyond reasonable enquiry. A creator God of the type generally understood establishes the rules of nature, and is at liberty to change them on a whim – interpretation of historical evidence is subject to the assumption that the rules have always been as we understand them to be now – an assumption that cannot be maintained in the presence of an all-powerful creator. (Creationists need to be very careful what the powers they attribute to their God, lest they find it necessary to revoke them to explain subsequent events!)

    No technical argument can displace an established faith, and there is no merit in the attempt to do so. Humans are complex creatures and science and religion/spirituality appeal to particular aspects of our nature – the balance of character in terms of these needs and their fulfilment can be seen in a person’s approach to life, with many of the world’s foremost problems clearly seen to have roots in this very ratio.

    Believe in God or don’t, up to you, but (as Eelco quite adequately states) take care when attempting to elevate the status of your arguments (pro or con!) by gratuitous reference to science.

    As for this particular instance of creationist argument – 2/5 – hard to follow the point and dubious relevance of chosen “facts”. No “science” evident apart from selective quoting from popular scientific sources.

    Cheers,
    Craig

  3. This only means that cyanobacteria probably evolved earlier. Cyanobacteria were the first organisms that evolved a type of photosynthesis that produce oxygen. Without oxygen in the atmosphere and with the right conditions, life arose quite quickly from a geological point of view (see Stanley-Miller). In fact, the fossil record clearly shows that organisms resembling modern bacteria (including cyanobacteria) existed 3.6 billion years ago.

    These oxygen-producing organisms were very successful and covered almost the entire planet. As a consequence, oxygen filled the atmosphere.

    Please allow this comment to appear on your post, so that people can read also the other side of the story.

    Pablo
    Pablo’s Origins Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s