Ancient Oxygen-Rich Rocks Confound Evolutionary Timescale

ICR ^ | April 8, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ancient Oxygen-Rich Rocks Confound Evolutionary Timescale

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Many origin of life researchers have for decades argued that the early earth must have had a “reducing” atmosphere, meaning that it had very little oxygen. This argument has no direct evidence to support it other than the knowledge that oxygen destroys the delicate molecules that comprise cells today. If the first living cells evolved, they would have needed an atmosphere with little or no oxygen. But new research supports the idea that the earth’s surface was always oxygenated...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Moonman62]

You spelled “creation” wrong in the keywords.

[dirtboy]

. This argument has no direct evidence to support it other than the knowledge that oxygen destroys the delicate molecules that comprise cells today.

That statement makes utterly no sense whatsoever. Oxygen is required for animal cells to function.

[GodGunsGuts]

Fixed. Thank you :o)

[dirtboy]

From link for footnote 2:

In fact, the researchers suggest that to have sufficient oxygen at depth, 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.

Another classic having it both ways on your part. This indicates that cyanobacteria were around much earlier than thought - 3.5 billion years. So are you going to finally give up your Young Earth position, or will you, as always, cherry-pick one aspect of the story while ignoring the parts inconvenient to your beliefts? That ain't science.

[GodGunsGuts]

Fixed. Thank you :o)

[Devils Avocado]

... I don’t understand. The title seems to imply that this finding contradicts those who believe in natural evolution. But if there was always, in fact, an oxygen-rich environment, this seems to confirm the contention of those who believe in an ancient earth, as life would have had more time to evolve.

[GodGunsGuts]

The author is not trying to have it both ways. He clearly states that the Bible predicts oxygen producing organisms right from the beginning, whereas origin of life Evos predict a reducing atmosphere. Finding an oxygen rich environment in such ancient rocks (from the Evo point of view) is a direct challenge to the Evo timescale, but is no problem for creation science, as it predicts it.

[dirtboy]

The author is not trying to have it both ways.

No, YOU are trying to have it both ways. You cheerfully latch onto the science here that shows oxygen was present in quantity in the atmosphere 3.6 billion years ago, while rejecting wholesale the science that estimates the age of the rocks in question at 3.6 billion years. Classic cherry-picking.

[null and void]

That’s gonna leave a mark...

[PC99]

If the Precambrian was indeed oxygen-rich (which there is tons of evidence oherwise), all that proves is that the Precambrian was oxygen-rich. It doesn’t go one millimeter towards proving the Genesis fairy tale.

[GodGunsGuts]

I beg to differ. Biblical creation predicts an oxygen rich environment right from the beginning, whereas origin of life Evos predict a reducing atmosphere in the beginning, otherwise, as they well recognize, life could not have got started under their theory.

[stormer]

Is it really necessary to point out that one of the components of water is oxygen and that bacteria can utilize it in the absence of an oxygenated atmosphere?

[stormer]

Is it really necessary to point out that one of the components of water is oxygen and that bacteria can utilize it in the absence of an oxygenated atmosphere?

[stormer]

Twice?

[pabianice]

The Gao’uld did it.

[tacticalogic]

I beg to differ. Biblical creation predicts an oxygen rich environment right from the beginning, whereas origin of life Evos predict a reducing atmosphere in the beginning, otherwise, as they well recognize, life could not have got started under their theory.

This theorizes an O2 rich environment at 3.6 billion years. Doesn't that still leave you with about a billion years to account for?

[OldGuard1]

I beg to differ. Biblical creation predicts an oxygen rich environment right from the beginning, whereas origin of life Evos predict a reducing atmosphere in the beginning, otherwise, as they well recognize, life could not have got started under their theory.

And, since the hallmark of a scientific theory is its ability to predict experimental results, that's minus one for evolution, and plus one for creation. Yet again.

[DManA]

Setting aside the origins question, this will cause scientist to rethink a lot of things. I believe the classic theory is there was a great dying when the oxygen levels, a by product of metabolism and poisonous to early life, got past a certain threshold.