News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Genesis VS Science Part 2: Early Earth's Atmosphere

Started by TheJackel, March 13, 2010, 08:49:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

TheJackel

RECAP:
Genesis VS Science: Earth, life, and the Heavens:
Quote3) Bonus argument on earths Atmosphere!:

In genesis the heavens that separated the land and sea were created after plants? No atmosphere makes it really difficult for plants to process CO2.. And the vacuum of space..wait space didn't exist yet? So how does Earth take up space if the heavens haven't been created yet? Does Earth not sit within the Heavens? Travel through them? Orbit around our star? Well, lets just pretend space was created before hand for sake of fun argument.. How did these plants survive the vacuum of space? -300 some degrees is a pretty damn harsh environment for a Plant to survive! So we now have an atmosphere problem. And things get worse for the creationist account because Earth's atmosphere is a prime example of the evolutionary process to where we are on our 3rd atmosphere. And I will be refuting Sarfati's claims on this subject in a related post later on :twak:

Post Argument / Quick Note :
Here the very first sentence concerning his hypothesis below is KEY to the entire composition of his entire argument! Notice his hypothesis runs on the notion of only Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, and Later Oxygen! So what's wrong with this picture?  Well, he's basically stating that Earth was nearly geologically dead, and with literally no volcanic activity! The intentional deletion of the key element that sparked life here on Earth.. What he did here was pretty sneaky and disingenuous. His hypothesis is what we call the MARS-SPHERE! He did this because he has to try and show that the atmosphere was "created" vs formed! So the intentional deletion can be shown below! So here we GO!

Sarfati's Argument:
QuoteThere is almost universal agreement among specialists that earth’s primordial atmosphere contained --->no<-- methane, ammonia or hydrogen â€" ‘reducing’ gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases. See The Primitive Atmosphere.

    The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photodissociation of water vapour. Oxidized minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million older than the earliest life. There is also evidence for organisms complex enough to photosynthesize at 3.7 billion of years ago (Rosing, M.T. and Frei, R., U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenlandâ€"indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 217:237â€"244, 2004). Also, red jasper or hematite-rich chert cored from layers allegedly 3.46 billion years old showed that ‘there had to be as much oxygen in the atmosphere 3.46 billion years ago as there is in today’s atmosphere. To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earth’s history than previously thought.’ (Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth, 24 March 2009) NB: these ‘dates’ are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject on both biblical and scientific grounds â€" see How long were the days mentioned in the Biblical creation account? and Evidence for a Young World).

    Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen (see Eastman et al., Exploring the Structure of a Hydrogen Cyanide Polymer by Electron Spin Resonance and Scanning Force Microscopy, Scanning 2:19â€"24, p. 20).

    All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Millerâ€"Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.

    Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (â€"NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.

    Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons â€" HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins.

    Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.

    No geological evidence has been found anywhere on earth for the alleged primordial soup. See Primeval soup â€" failed paradigm

    Depolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem.

    Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules (can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments produce five times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem.

    Sugars are destroyed quickly after the reaction (‘formose’) which is supposed to have formed them. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents. See The RNA World: A Critique.

    Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, & 9).

    Not all of the necessary ‘building blocks’ are formed; e.g. ribose and cytosine are hard to form and are very unstable. See Origin of life: Instability of building blocks.

    Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’) â€" proteins have only ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’ sugars. Miller experiments produce racemates â€" equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A small fraction of wrong handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes. See Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem.

    Life requires catalysts which are specific for a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probabilities (~10â€"650 for all the enzymes required). Prebiotic polymerisation simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins or enzymes. See Proteins and Casket Draws, Could monkeys type the 23rd Psalm? and Cheating with Chance.

    The origin of coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery are themselves encoded â€" a vicious circle. A code cannot self-organize. See Self-Replicating Enzymes?


Well there you have it, no volcanic gasses or thermal geological gasses in his hypotheses! This so called "creationist" scientist with an agenda has been debunked and regarded as spreading false information on such subjects.. He's right up there with the Banana man, and the idiotic theory of gravity being GOD pushing you down (remember that when you fall down and smack your head on the pavement).. So let's first explore this mans past credibility shall we?

Sarfati's Credibility:

*Stupidity About Dinosaur Growth Rates
yeah Dino's on the ARK MAN! ... I can see Noah wrangling  a couple of T-Rex dinosaurs onto the ark :)

Quote There is almost universal agreement among specialists that earth's primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen â€" 'reducing' gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases. See The Primitive Atmosphere

We can clearly see the fallacy of this argument! We can also see that his claims to scientists Almost agreeing only pertains to those that have creationist views trying to indoctrinate science into religion. However, here is where MOST scientist tell this scientist that he's a complete moron, and a liar.  His hypothesis blatantly deletes any notion of volcanic activity during early earth because he's going on the assertion that his planet was "created". Thus for his scientific hypothesis to even work, it would have to completely ignore a geologically active volcanic Earth, and the cooling of the planet! His entire hypothesis rides on the notion of the process of creation found in Genesis.. You can see how this is also impossible here

-

EARLY EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE:

QuoteThe atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photo-dissociation of water vapour. Oxidized minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million older than the earliest life. There is also evidence for organisms complex enough to photosynthesize at 3.7 billion of years ago

Not only do I find it funny that he attempted to use 3 billion year old rocks in his argument, but he also basically denies the possibility of their existence by removing geological and volcanic activity from his hypothesis! Our atmosphere today contains mostly nitrogen and oxygen.The early atmosphere was quite different, and contained far more greenhouse gases than we could stand today. Volcanoes helped form the warm Earth with their eruptions, which shot a mix of water vapor, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrochloric acid, methane, ammonia, nitrogen, hydrogen & sulfur gases into the atmosphere.

Volcanic Gases:

Here we will explore volcanic activity and Geological activity to see what these gasses are, and what effects they have on the formation of early Earth's atmosphere, and also their key roles in the birth of life! Below you can see key elements that Sarfati intentionally deletes from his hypothesis in order to maintain his belief that Earth had been "Created". And what's worse, under his hypothesis we would not be here today because our atmosphere would resemble the atmosphere of Mars! Without out-gassing our atmosphere would have long been whisked away by solar winds. And with a geologically dead planet our magnetic field wouldn't exist to protect us from deadly radiation and the solar winds! So lets first take a look at Volcanic activity, and then go back to early Earth's atmosphere!

Volcanic and Geological effcts:

*Mars Atmosphere / geological activity
*Volcano Gases - Early Earth
*Wiki - Volcano
*Volcano gases, amino acids make peptides
**The Haze Effect* {Blocking UV radiation)

Early Earth Atmosphere:

* Rocks tell of warm Earth
* Carbon Dioxide In Earth's Atmosphere
* Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide levels
* Oxygenation
* Hydrogen rich atmosphere
* NASA - Hydrogen rich atmosphere
-
*Hydrogen Rich Early Atmosphere:

Quote    "We show that the escape of hydrogen from early Earth's atmosphere likely occurred at rates slower by two orders of magnitude than previously thought. The balance between slow hydrogen escape and volcanic outgassing could have maintained a hydrogen mixing ratio of more than 30%. The production of prebiotic organic compounds in such an atmosphere would have been more efficient than either exogenous delivery or synthesis in hydrothermal systems. The organic soup in the oceans and ponds on early Earth would have been a more favorable place for the origin of life than previously thought."

So after examining the information I have provided above we can see that In these current studies, they show that hydrogen's reduction or escape was slower. However, there is evidence that it neglects the factors of other gasses, as well as Earths magnetic field. But, Those in the following link admit that there would be a slower rate irregardless because the volcanic activity shows that Hydrogen out-gassing was likely to have the same effect, if not compounded the effect. Earths Early tectonic activity was much greater than it is today.. Hence, this supports a much more active planet than the geologically inactive planet that creationist scientist Sarfati tries to claim.

---


Religiously rejecting evidence?:

Quotethe Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earth's history than previously thought.' (Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth, 24 March 2009) NB: these 'dates' are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject on both biblical and scientific grounds â€" see How long were the days mentioned in the Biblical creation account? and Evidence for a Young World).

Response:

1) He doesn't logically refute other scientific claims, but resorts to rejecting them because they don't line up to his biblical creationist account! Interestingly his doesn't either according to Genesis! And again he has to state a no volcanic Earth to retain his claims to "Creation". And sadly a geologically dead planet wouldn't be capable of supporting human life or the current atmosphere!
-

2) The evidence is clearly stacked against him because the sly scientist sneakily deletes volcanic activity from his hypothesis! And what's worse, he uses volcanic rock samples while at the same time removing the notion of volcanic activity and it's effects on Earth's Chemistry, atmosphere, water, and amino acids.
* Volcanic Emissions
* Deep Sea Rocks point to Oxygen on Early Earth -
Quote"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 evidence was omitted by Sarfati when he made his claims to Early Earths oxygen levels as evidence suggesting that life existed as it did today! And this brings us to another little bi-product of volcanic activity outlined under #3.
-

3) As we note Sarfati's  claims of deep sea rocks showing high levels of Oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, we can see that he also ignores another major important deep sea mineral such as Majorite that act as oxygen reservoir.. These played a HUGE ROLE IN EARLY EARTH AND LIFE! Hence, why again Sarfati ignores volcanic activity to understand why deep sea rocks can have higher oxygen levels than one would normally expect. His hypothesis would completely ignore the existence of geological activity at the bottom of Earth's early oceans, and why iron oxidation would not require massive amounts of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere!

* Wiki - Majorite
* Deep Sea Mineral Acts As A Oxygen Reservoir
-

4) He continues to Ignore Volcanic activity:

QuoteDepolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem.

    Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules (can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments produce five times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem.

    Sugars are destroyed quickly after the reaction ('formose') which is supposed to have formed them. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents. See The RNA World: A Critique.



This would require the entire deletion of volcanic activity! And most importantly oils! The Low molecular weight liquid hydrocarbons from various sources, would have formed an oil layer covering the primeval ocean (present already 4.0â€"4.4 × 109 yr ago), preventing water from evaporating into the atmosphere. Water from other sources, precipitated by cold traps at higher altitude in the atmosphere, becomes trapped in the ocean. In a thereby more dry and presumably reducing atmosphere (before 3.9 × 109 yr ago) even more hydrocarbons, as well as reactive molecules will form. An oil layer can possibly act as a dry solvent for reactions, where the reactive molecules can produce monomers and condensing agents. Monomers and eventual polymers formed could become strongly concentrated at the oil-water interface, favoring molecular interactions at high mobility and low dilution, without exposure to the destructive action of UV-light. Increased water leakiness of the oil layer due to accumulation of polar molecules within, would lead to photo-oxidation of liquid hydrocarbons, and subsequent emulsification at the oil-water interface, forming cellular structures. The atmosphere would then have lost its reducing character. Not only this, volcano's make up the majority of the amino acids required for life on early Earth.

Also found to be true here:

* NASA - Oil-Seeps:
* Mud Volcano oil Discharge:
* Volcanoes produced much of the world's oil:
* Amino acids, oil / water:
* NASA: Life origins - Volcanic amino acids:

Just because we don't, or may not yet or completely fully understand the chemical composition of 3.5 billion years ago, does not make any claims against evolution valid! This is especially true when Sarfati's claims intentionally ignore and delete things like:

* Volcanic activity
* lightning and volcanic ash
* volcanic amino acids
* volcanic oils
* types of volcanic gasses
* deep sea volcanic environments
* natural UV-blockers
* Slow hydrogen reduction in the atmosphere
* volcanic minerals
* hydrocarbons
* salts
* Hydrogen out-gassing
* Greenhouse gases
* Volcanic Haze
-
CONCLUSION:

Genesis is so far off from the actual formation of our planet that it can't even logically be in the same ballpark as the observable scientific facts of how our planet was actually formed. This includes how our stars and the rest of the Universe actually came into existence. Today we have once again proven how much Sarfati and his ilk lie in order to try and support their biblical belief in creationism. This is a blatant omitting of volcanic activity, gasses, and geological activity, and shows how far these people will go to brainwash the public into their ideology.