Mars had an oxygen-rich atmosphere four billion years ago

Guardian UK ^ | Wednesday 19 June 2013 13.00 EDT

[Perdogg]

Mars had an oxygen-rich atmosphere more than a billion years before the Earth, say scientists. An examination of meteorites and rocks on the planet suggests that oxygen was affecting the Martian surface four billion years ago.

On Earth, oxygen did not build up to appreciable quantities in the atmosphere for at least another 1.5bn years

[njslim]

Mars does not have a magnetic field like earth

Over the eons charged particles from solar wind stripped off the atmosphere

[Moonman62]

The weak magnetosphere around Venus means the solar wind is interacting directly with the outer atmosphere of the planet. Here, ions of hydrogen and oxygen are being created by the dissociation of neutral molecules from ultraviolet radiation. The solar wind then supplies energy that gives some of these ions sufficient velocity to escape the planet's gravity field. This erosion process results in a steady loss of low-mass hydrogen, helium, and oxygen ions, while higher-mass molecules, such as carbon dioxide, are more likely to be retained. Atmospheric erosion by the solar wind probably led to the loss of most of the planet's water during the first billion years after it formed.

[null and void]

You do know that carbon 14 is generated in the upper atmosphere at a known rate, and decays over time at a known rate, don’t you?

You also do know that carbon 14 dating is based on the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12, and if you suck (or bury) a whole bunch of carbon out of the system, the ratio of the remainder doesn’t change in the slightest.

That vast amounts of carbon were buried doesn’t change anything with regards to carbon 14 dating, any more than shooting 99% of the population at random would change the ratio of surviving males and females.

I assume you also know that tree ring dating, which uses the width of growth rings, which in turn varies year by year depending on weather and climate, and produces year-related patterns as distinctive as fingerprints, shows unbroken overlapping patterns of rings going back tens of thousands of years, don’t you?

[null and void]

Mars does not have a magnetic field like earth

Neither does Venus, and it is a LOT closer to the furnace.

Over the eons charged particles from solar wind stripped off the atmosphere

And still, Venus has a stiflingly thick atmosphere.

[null and void]

Yet there is still plenty of hydrogen in the sulfuric acid atmosphere? H₂SO₄?

Go figure!

Off on a long trip, BBL

[Toddsterpatriot]

The carbon dating is skewed b/c Noah’s Flood would have buried all the land animals and plants on Earth.

Did it bury all the nitrogen too? Zoinks!

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Back then it was called Barsoom.

[Moonman62]

Sulfuric acid is made from other trace compounds and elements in the atmosphere. There isn't much of it.

Sulfuric acid is produced in the upper atmosphere by the sun's photochemical action on carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and water vapour. Ultraviolet photons of wavelengths less than 169 nm can photodissociate carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and atomic oxygen. Atomic oxygen is highly reactive; when it reacts with sulfur dioxide, a trace component of the Venusian atmosphere, the result is sulfur trioxide, which can combine with water vapour, another trace component of Venus's atmosphere, to yield sulfuric acid.

And the atmosphere is still losing water from what little it has.

[NCDave]

BIG LOL!!!!! :)

[Hegewisch Dupa]

That was a beautiful and thoughtful response to some true nonsense - bless you! You do understand

[MHGinTN]

Why thank you. As Yoda would say, “Try we must. Share we shall.”

[Friendofgeorge]

Really imo there is no upside to debating how old the earth etc is with anybody/

I just offered my opinion in this thread, been there done that

[chuckles]

That was an immature response from someone on FR. You should know better. Children give answers like that. The Bible covers what God wants us to know. You won't find Ronald Reagan in there, but we all know he was here and very important. There are literally billions of people and things not listed in the Bible, but we don't have a need to know about every person not listed. It is important to know Pharaoh, Moses, Daniel, Mary, and scores of others. I'm sure Australians know what a Platypus was without it being spelled out in the Bible.

Jesus created everything and would probably have told us that we weren't alone as His children. As far as I know, there is no verifiable proof of any off Earth life. People believe in ghosts, zombies, and space aliens but can't bring themselves to accept God. The Bible is for that purpose. If you don't believe, then it's not written to you and you can believe in what you want.

[MHGinTN]

I certainly hope that you will read the linked article (in post #18) from Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He is a Bible scholar as well as an astrophysicist.

[dragnet2]

Are you related to bozo, chuckles?

[dragnet2]

If there is space aliens, they are either demons or angels, otherwise I believe it is just wishful thinking by non believers to prove the Bible a mistake. All other opinions are people wanting money to study nothing. A whole industry( which I support,BTW) NASA needs money for pure research. I love science, but what is going on today is more religion than science. Their religion DEMANDS that there MUST be life elsewhere and that will prove there is no God. It has nothing to do with establishing facts, but furthering unprovable myths that change every few years.

The article was about Mars having a past oxygen-rich atmosphere, yet you come on here alleging these are fanatical scientist demanding we believe something...I didn't see anything like that in the article. Nobody in the article was trying to prove there is no God. Those are your words.

However, I did see you demanding everything you said regarding life in the universe is the absolute truth.

In reality, you haven't a clue.

Amazing...

[dragnet2]

In fact the article went on to say:

The link between oxygen and life on Mars is less certain. Oxygen could have been produced biologically, or by a chemical reaction in the atmosphere.

[BrandtMichaels]

No, so sorry but I do not subscribe to your limited view of carbon 12 vs 14 ratios not being affected by removal of vast amounts of carbon. I may have stated it akwards [or somewhat backwards] but the flood is a major consequence for carbon dating.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ223.html#wp4866524

http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/

Tree ring data has been shown to be unreliable as the rings do not represent one year - rather simply another growth cycle - sometimes several growth cycles within 1 year.

[Hot Tabasco]

Everything in face is falling...

Same here but it's not just my face.......

[BrandtMichaels]

Too bad people who subscribe to long ages don’t check the scientific assumptions before proceeding with same as fact...

http://voices.yahoo.com/have-scientists-discovered-flaws-carbon-dating-7009058.html