Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
Well, I found the reference (Evolution of Oxygen and Ozone in Earth's Atmosphere), but.....
Two important loss processes for oxygen do operate: oxidation of reduced volcanic gases, primarily H2 and CO; and oxidation of crustal materials at Earth's surface, which may be written schematically as
The crustal loss rate is difficult to evaluate. It turns out not to be necessary to do so, however, since the H2 and CO outgassing from volcanoes appears [152] to be more than sufficient to overwhelm the production of O2 from H2O photolysis followed by hydrogen escape. |
As to the release of oxygen from other sources, this seems to be precluded by the nature of the discussion, "oxygen atmosphere is indicative of life", which is where I started. If the discussion proceeds as to non-biologic sources of oxygen then along with the photolysis of water we should add the production of oxygen by lightning. From the same source...
The lower limit on oxygen is a result of the production of O2 in lightning discharges, which can be estimated by assuming thermodynamic equilibrium at high temperatures.
Note that the mechanism and reactants are not mentioned.
There are many ways to interpret what I said, apparently. Your inference is not what I meant. I am reflecting the fact that Christ died for each person individually as well as for all. Politically, I believe in the rights of the individual. Would I kill 1000 to save one? Of course not. My God allowed one to die to save billions. I was not trying to say that six billion lives were worth one life, but rather, that one life is as valuable as six billion. That is, 3000 deaths from one catastrophy are actually 3000 tradgedy's, each one equal to any other. I don't see them as one event. I see them as 3000 seperate events, with individual groups of survivors.
However, if my wife was killed in a plane crash along with 300 others, I would only feel the one death. The others would not matter any more than someone in a different state dying in a car accident. So the death of 300, to each survivor, was the death of only the person they knew. Which, if every person on the plane left one survivor, then, for those actually directly affected by the crash, the death of 300 was really only the death of one. The other 299 fatalities would not be rolled into their individual tradgedy any more than the loss of people killed in car accidents that day would impact their lives.
You should also be aware that a professing Christian considers death a good thing. It is a changing of circumstances more profound and more positive than physical birth itself! It is hard on the survivors, though.
NO, he didn't.
See: Answers in Genesis, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"
It's the second one listed...
Technically, you are correct. But I can quantify that degree and say, with confidence, that it crosses the line between reasonable faith (do I trust my brakes enough to drive 70 mph on the freeway) and stupid faith (If I leave bill Clinton alone with my beautiful 23 year old daughter, can I trust him to not hit on her).
Believing in santa, the easter bunny, the gold tablets of maroni, et. al, requires BLIND faith. That is, there is no physical evidence whatsoever. When it comes to the religions regarding the origin of species (evolution and creationism), there is some degree of physical evidence for both. Neither requires blind faith, but both, like virtually all beliefs held by men, require a measure of faith.
Based on my research, and it is extensive on both sides (although I am sure it is inevitable that there are some here who retain more raw data in some areas of this subjet than I), it takes more dependence on faith, regarding the origin of life, to believe the mainline evolution theories than the mainline creation theories.
BTW, I keep highlighting the word "origin" because I have no doubt that evolution takes place - but I see it more as "rust." The machine, having been built and set into motion, is slowly wearing out.
With all due respect, I heartily disagree. Read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." He covers this concept quite nicely.
I don't believe that is so. If you have an original source for that please post the reference to it. Darwin did "clarify" a bit...
Chapter XV: Recapitulation and Conclusion
It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection. But as my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position- namely, at the close of the Introduction- the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.
Why use evidence so far removed from the source? A says B says C wrote that D did this. Go straight to C wrote that D did this.
Did Darwin repent? Did he become a believer in God, or a Christian? The answer to both questions is a resounding no. Creationists and Christians do themselves no favor by circulating, even if inadvertently through good intentions, stories such as these that ultimately are without foundation. When the truth finally does come out (and eventually it will!), it reflects poorly on those who propagate such falsehoods.
I'm not sure the conclusions expressed in the first sentence can be reached, but the link provides enough to "reasonably" exclude a deathbed conversion(or reaffirmation).
The whole thing is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether evolution is good science. If, however, what creationists call "Darwinism" were really some kind of cult, and if the cult leader renounced his doctrines, then it would all crumble. But Darwin's recanting -- even if he did such a thing -- would be no more significant than if Isaac Newton announced on his deathbed that: "Gravity is bunk!" All that such a statement would prove would be that poor ol' Newton was bonkers at the end. But gravity would still be here to stay. Ditto with evolution. [I know you understand this. Please don't respond by saying: "But Newton didn't die in bed."]
Absolutely. You mentioned that which I forgot. And Newton's are digested, preferably with lactose-free milk, not buried.
Only sissies go for Newtons. I'm an Oreo man.
Lexcorp, I respect your right to have an opinion, but I need to "out" your statement as opinion only. I have yet to witness a single raw fact that can only be explained logically, by your statment. It is a valid opinion, don't get me wrong. But there are equally valid explanations for the supposed evidences that support your statement.
If only God had put "accept" and "I do not accept" buttons on DNA strands, he could have saved us all this debate, but that would take away everyones fun. Besides, it causees us to search. And ultimately, we may not find what we're looking for, but we are sure finding a lot of other cool stuff.
Heavy metal poisoning from his (al)chemical experiments. Traces from his hair samples do indicate such. Yes, he was in bad mental shape at times.
In 1693 Newton suffered another nervous breakdown. He began to send angry letters to his personal friends, including the writer Samuel Pepys and the philosopher John Locke, accusing them of things that were completely imaginary. In the case of Locke, Newton charged him with trying to entangle him with women. Both friends became alarmed and feared Newton was going insane, but shortly after he seemed to recover again.From This Web Bio.. . .
Years after Newton's death it was proposed that much of his erratic behavior might have been caused by mercury poisoning. He used a great deal of mercury in his experiments in alchemy and at the time, no one recognized the dangers. Recent studies of a hair sample from Newton showed he had forty times the level of Mercury considered normal.
It's the work, not the man.
What, you reject a delicious fruit-filled cookie for some confectionary crap sandwiched between two crumbly wafers?
This could deserve a thread of its own....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.