Summations Only

but you see life could not have formed in the same environment we have today. It is too volatile the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere by itself is enough to disrupt the chemical reactions needed for abiogenesis. That is why many models state that earths early atmosphere had much less oxygen in it, but there is no other evidence to suggest what amount of oxygen was in the air 4 billion years ago. photosynthesis is a very common chemical reaction now but how common was it 4 billion years ago. I agree with you that chemical reaction happen the same way today as they always have but common chemical reactions change depending on when a where one looks. Were the chemical reactions needed for abiogenesis ever common? From my understanding of entropy simple chemicals such as amino acids don't usually form into more complex compounds like proteins, ribosomes, dna and rna by themselves. in fact the exact opposite is a common chemical reaction, complex parts break down to more simple ones.

The origins of preCambrian Iron formations are believed to because of the origin of free oxygen in the atmosphere. Iron's reaction with the Oxygen caused it to precipitate out of solution.The Wikipedia article: Banded iron formation

quote:

---

Banded iron formations (also known as banded ironstone formations or BIFs) are distinctive units of sedimentary rock that are almost always of Precambrian age. A typical BIF consists of repeated, thin layers of iron oxides, either magnetite (Fe₃O₄) or hematite (Fe₂O₃), alternating with bands of iron-poor shale and chert. Some of the oldest known rock formations, formed over 3,700 million years ago, include banded iron layers.

---

and

quote:

---

The formations are abundant around the time of the great oxygenation event,[2] 2,400 million years ago (mya or Ma), and become less common after 1,800 mya.

---

and

quote:

---

The conventional concept is that the banded iron layers were formed in sea water as the result of oxygen released by photosynthetic cyanobacteria (bluegreen algae), combining with dissolved iron in Earth's oceans to form insoluble iron oxides, which precipitated out, forming a thin layer on the substrate, which may have been anoxic mud (forming shale and chert). Each band is similar to a varve, to the extent that the banding is assumed to result from cyclic variations in available oxygen.

---

Caption for above at cited article: "2.1 billion year old banded iron formation"I believe the 2.1 bya event is by far the most significant Iron formation event. That is the age of the great Iron formations in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. I believe there is also 2.1 bya Iron formation in Wyoming.There is other evidence such as tidal deposit sands and silts, and stromalites that indicate this Iron formation formed in shoreline environments.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Add photo and material below photo.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Make formula numbers subtext.

Well, again I will leave most errors for others to correct, but I simply could not pass this by. Wow.As you may or may not be aware, photosynthesis is a process used by plants and some other organisms to convert energy from the sun to food. Think about that for a moment.Your problem is that we don't know how much photosynthesis was going on 4 billion years ago and, thus, we don't know what the conditions on Earth were before life began.Think about that just a bit more. If you don't see the glaring problem here, I'm quite certain you're not ready to talk to anyone about anything remotely related to science.

For me abiogenesis falls into the same category as ID. neither one has the scientific evidence to support it. Where is the evidence? Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation of life but by the 19 hundreds there was enough scientific observation to form the law of biogenesis and disprove the spontaneous generation of life. Back then we knew that life did not come from non living objects so why do we believe it today?I believe the unanswerable question of "Where did life come from?" will remain that way. the best anyone could do is make a decision to put their faith in a scientist or a religion but be honest you do not know one way or the other. the scientist doesn't know for he has no substantial evidence. the religion doesn't know either. its all based on faith so maybe both should not be taught in school.

I've asked you twice, now. Exactly what is it that you think that they are teaching in school that you disagree with? Please provide evidence to support your claim.

Thank you but I know what photosynthesis is. I was trying to prove a point that common chemical reactions today were not always common. if you would have read prior posts than you would know that someone told me life began from common normal chemical reaction.However you did understand my point when you said, "we don't know what the conditions on earth were before life." since we don't know what things were like we can only speculate, and when someone tells me the only method for life to begin is thru common normal chemical reactions i have to disagree furthermore i would like to point out that they don't know exactly what a common normal reaction was 4 billion years ago.

But all you did was demonstrate your utter ignorance of the subject. Now, if you were trying to prove that you don't know much about conditions on Earth billions of years ago, your statement would have marvelous evidence to support your contention. However, proving that others don't know much about pre-biotic conditions by invoking a process that by definition requires life is not only unless in supporting your contention, but it actually undermines anything else you might say about the topic. I didn't say we don't know what conditions on the Earth were before life, you did. I'm perfectly aware that there is a great deal that we know about conditions on the Earth before life. You are the one wallowing in that particular vat of ignorance.

Man i need some support here. Am I the only believer? it seems that way. I don't have time to reply to every one unless i spend more time than I plan to in this forum. Please don't believe that you out witted or stumped me if i don't reply even if it is the case. I want you to believe I just didn't have time to get to it.

How do you know what it was like. were you there?

Thank you this is good information. This supports the early earth atmosphere model that i was talking about. stating that oxygen did not enter the atmosphere until bacteria released O2 as waist. but how do we know there was no O2 in the air before that? I was taught that there wasn't in school, but how can we know?I was taught that mars was formed similarly to earth. before mars cooled down the magma flowed beneath its crust this motion around a solid core created electromagnetism that protected its atmosphere from being blown into space by solar radiation. I can see that the surface of mars is oxidized meaning to me that its atmosphere must of had oxygen in it. if earth and mars were created similarly and mars had oxygen in its atmosphere then earth should have had it as well. If this is so, why do some scientists teach that oxygen originated into the atmosphere by organisms? and again how do they know it?here is an interesting tangent i just though of. If the way oxygen entered earths atmosphere was thru photosynthetic organisms, maybe the same happened on mars

This question seems like it is supposed to lead me to a certain kind of response but i never said that i disagreed with what is being taught.I didn't actually mean that abiogenesis should not be taught. i merely wanted show that, ID is not being taught in schools because of lack of scientific evidence. and that if we applied that same judgement on abiogenesis than it would not be taught either.and dude why are you so mean? please stop with the name calling and IQ judgments. you can write a post without it. Maybe just infer it i might not even catch on.

Well, this sort of thing has a connection with things we can actually observe. There is, for example, evidence for what the early atmosphere was like. When there are similar observations in favor of the creationists' magic poofing hypothesis for the origin of life, we can put that in textbooks too.

There is no rush. This is not like a chat room - there is no penalty for taking a day or a week to reply.
The main thing that will attract criticism is poorly thought-out responses.So - take your time.
A single good post is worth a dozen one-liners.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

How about easing up on the new guy with the current dog piling? Maybe a welcome to EvC would be nice. Seven of you guys against the new guy with 12 posts? No welcome? Just one big dog pile? Come on.

Hi swensenpower. Welcome to EvC. Nice to have you here.