The Absolute Power of Christianity!

so did the earth always have oxygen?

Yes, the earth always had Oxygen, but it was mostly combined with other elements to from water, CO2, etc., until plant life came along and began converting CO2 to O2.

Nitrogen makes up the bulk of today’s atmosphere and likely has been around since the beginning. Water vapor (H2O), probably from volcanic emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO2), also emitted by volcanic eruptions, which were plentiful at that time. And methane (CH4), generated inside the Earth and possibly also by methane-producing microbes that thrived on and in the seafloor, as they do today.

Carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane played an important role in Earth’s subsequent development. Four billion years ago, the Sun was 30 percent dimmer, and therefore colder, than it is today. Under such conditions, Earth’s water should have been frozen, yet clearly it wasn’t. The water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane acted as greenhouse gases, trapping heat and insulating the early Earth during a critical period in its development.

Of oxygen, meanwhile, the early atmosphere held barely a trace. What did exist likely formed when solar radiation split airborne molecules of water (H2O) into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). Hydrogen, a lightweight gas, would have risen above the atmosphere and slowly been lost to space. The heavier oxygen gas, left behind, would have quickly reacted with atmospheric gases such as methane or with minerals on Earth’s surface and been drawn out of the atmosphere and back into the crust and mantle. Oxygen could only begin to accumulate in the atmosphere if it was being produced faster than it was being removed–in other words, if something else was also producing it.

That something was life. Although the fossil evidence is sketchy, methane-producing microbes may have inhabited Earth as long ago as 3.8 billion years. By 2.7 billion years ago, a new kind of life had established itself: photosynthetic microbes called cyanobacteria, which were capable of using the Sun’s energy to convert carbon dioxide and water into food with oxygen gas as a waste product. They lived in shallow seas, protected from full exposure to the Sun’s harmful radiation.

...Or maybe some imaginary gray bearded guy up in the clouds spoke it into existence.

Zip

ok and where did the little cyanobacteria come from?

Um, here, follow this link:

www.google.com...

In the future, rather than asking the board questions like this, you can go to www.google.com and where it has the text input box, you can put in what you are looking for and hit "enter" or click "search."

Zip

Originally posted by Misfit
How do you propose to show proof of a God to a non-religious person, when the Bible as an evidence base is non existant to one not beliveing in the Bible?

By going to the source. I did not go to the Bible to find God. I found God and was directed to the Bible.

Originally posted by Misfit
That is what is being asked here, not to show proof within the Bible. If I showed you exerpts from any number of Pagan books (those held as true form within Pagan community) that Christianity has adopted Pagan religions to be its own, would you believe it?

I know that Christianity and Paganism both attempted fusion to meet their goals, no newsflash here. I think this sucks. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by Misfit
Why not? It says so in "our" books, so it must be true!

Misfit

Books are made of paper and words. You need something to validate those paper and words as a skeptic. I understand that. Some people can read a map, others have to get lost a few times before finding their way. I was one of the ones who took a wrong turn before picking up a map.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I would like you to give an answer even if it is multi-page, because if there was proof, there would be no skeptics. Why does proof need faith to be convincing? Proof is proof.

In the beginning there was proof, but that was not enough to put selfish desires aside. We showed a lack of love. Despite what we see, hear, taste, touch and feel, there is that one thing that is bigger than all this and that is - what we want. So, yes there was proof, yes a lot of us did believe, and yes we had a greater desire for ourselves. This was the problem. This is the problem. This is why we lost our proof and have to go the extra mile and utilize faith as a reach for our goal. We have to show that we can overcome self, extend love further than what we can see, hear, taste, touch and feel. Only by doing that can we bridge the separation.

Proof is proof of what has been proven. Faith can be built upon that proof of the things not yet proven. Faith can also be so strong to stand on it's own without proof. That to me is a magnificent thing because it knows no marring of age, bitterness and pain.

Examples of proof denied:
Adam & Eve
Israelites following Moses
Jonah
Pharisees
Peter
Rich man who asked to follow Jesus but unwilling to give up wealth

There's bunches of others throughout the Book. I'll send you my copy if you want to go through it.

If you want to better yourself and you want more for yourself and whatnot, then you have a chance to do so right now. Do not count on becoming something better when you die, because when you die, YOU WILL BE DEAD.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
If you want to better yourself and you want more for yourself and whatnot, then you have a chance to do so right now. Do not count on becoming something better when you die, because when you die, YOU WILL BE DEAD.

Zip

If you are right, then so what. If you are wrong...then oops! I don't like "if" questions, I prefer to have the answer.

THERE IS NO "IF."

YOU DIE,

YOU'RE DEAD.

Zip

are you sure? a lot of religions even believe in an afterlife.

Examples of proof denied: Adam & Eve Israelites following Moses Jonah ...

do you know that this was proven wrong?

I mean I got something right here...
www.arkdiscovery.com...
english.sdaglobal.org...
and you cant say that they didnt find that, because they showed that on the history channel about 5 times already. along with noahs ark.
and they say if they do find noahs ark, it will change all science (meaning evolutional theory) they call evolution science because they think that associating it with science, it will become science. there is no science, in evolution. true science has no evolution is it because true science doesnt take sides.

Cyanobacteria are aquatic and photosynthetic, that is, they live in the water, and can manufacture their own food. Because they are bacteria, they are quite small and usually unicellular, though they often grow in colonies large enough to see. They have the distinction of being the oldest known fossils, more than 3.5 billion years old, in fact! It may surprise you then to know that the cyanobacteria are still around; they are one of the largest and most important groups of bacteria on earth.

this is from the link that ZIPPO gave me. how do they know that these bacteria have been around this long. I mean according to darwins theory, they had to die in order to keep the better species alive. and how does this author know that they are from 3.5 billion years ago? he doesnt.

but he is saying that your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandpa was a bacteria from 3.5 billion years ago. thats retarted no one has ever macro evolution. it doenst happen, just because you cant prove that it happened doesnt mean that it had to happen.

this is pure fantisy

Saint-
We need proof, faith is NOT enough. Everything should be assumed false until PROVEN true, should it not? People have done to many stupid things in the past by just believing everything they are told.

Expert999-
The above applies to you Expert999, because you don't even need a source to believe something. What Zipdot told you about how the Earth was formed(in other thread), or oxygen could be totally B.S. That was pretty basic stuff but I can hardly understand some of the physicists here on ATS on complicated, and a link usually helps me to understand.

Zipdot-

Originally posted by expert999
just answer the question, you dont need to show me links or anything.

just tell me where the earth came from...

I'm sure it was hard to pick between the two quotes for your signature, they're both just as funny.

well. Im not trying to be funny. I am simply trying to get an answer from his knowledge and how he can prove it.

I want to know how the big bang happened. what made all the matter in the universe condense in a hot region no larger than a period on a page.
that probably would have been a black hole if we ever saw one. and a crowded one too. who held that thing up anyways?

again ill share with you the law of conservation of angular momentum.
if an object is spinning and it breaks apart in a frictionless environment, than the pieces that break off will be spinning (rotation and orbit) in the same direction as the original object. this proves part of stellar evolution wrong. at least the theory of masses exploding and the remains becoming planets. now space is pretty much frictionless. there are few molecules out there, and where they are found are far and few between. so even of solar systems formed be explosion, everything would be rotating in the same direction.

www.talkorigins.org...

www.evcforum.net...

in the text book that this guy quotes, they say that the universe came from a big explosion that came from nothing. thats not science.

www3.telus.net...
www.calvaryag.org... _bang_hypothesis.htm
[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html]http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html[/ur l]

or are all of these wrong?

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Saint-
We need proof, faith is NOT enough.

I know I know, but I cannot just GIVE you the proof. It's gotta be something you're willing to pursue on yo own. Yeah, I'll help every which way to Mars to help you get it, but please don't sit there with your arms crossed hoping it'll fall into your lap. Relationships between mankind and God take work.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Everything should be assumed false until PROVEN true, should it not? People have done to many stupid things in the past by just believing everything they are told.

Guilty until proven innocent? Is that the way court systems work? Wow, I had it wrong all these years...

Originally posted by saint4God
I know I know, but I cannot just GIVE you the proof. It's gotta be something you're willing to pursue on yo own. Yeah, I'll help every which way to Mars to help you get it, but please don't sit there with your arms crossed hoping it'll fall into your lap. Relationships between mankind and God take work.

Perhaps Im sounding a little negative, but what if we just believed anything and everything. If there was any proof at all of God I would believe but to date I have not found any so I will remain Agnostic. You may think I am not looking but if God wanted me to believe wouldn't he/she/it tell me?

Guilty until proven innocent? Is that the way court systems work? Wow, I had it wrong all these years...

That is the exact opposite of what I'm trying to say. Accusations must be assumed false until proven true. That sounds like innocent until proven guilty to me.

Expert999-
How can you say Evolution is wrong because it breaks any laws? I wonder how many laws the creation of the universe out of nothing breaks.

Originally posted by expert999
again ill share with you the law of conservation of angular momentum.
if an object is spinning and it breaks apart in a frictionless environment, than the pieces that break off will be spinning (rotation and orbit) in the same direction as the original object. this proves part of stellar evolution wrong. at least the theory of masses exploding and the remains becoming planets. now space is pretty much frictionless. there are few molecules out there, and where they are found are far and few between. so even of solar systems formed be explosion, everything would be rotating in the same direction.

www.talkorigins.org...

FROM YOUR OWN ANTI-CREATIONIST SOURCE,

The claim is based on so much ignorance and so many misunderstandings that it is hard to know where to begin.
The big bang was not an explosion. Space itself expanded (and is still expanding).
The big bang is quite a different subject from the formation of solar systems. Rotations within the universe are not expected to be related to any rotation of the cosmos. Galaxies probably arose from slightly denser regions of the early universe, which coalesced and combined due to gravitational and viscous interactions. Since these early density fluctuations were apparently random, we expect galaxies to have random orientations. Solar systems within galaxies have still different origins and additional random influences on their orientations.
Conservation of angular momentum doesn't require that everything spin the same way. It requires that a change in spin in one object be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in one or more other objects. Retrograde planets are not a violation of angular momentum because other bodies in the early solar system could account for the compensating spin.


If the big bang were an explosion, we would expect different spins. When something explodes, pieces fly out spinning in all directions.

... YOUR OWN ANTI-CREATIONIST SOURCE THAT YOU DID NOT BOTHER TO READ AT ALL.

Zip

hauns.com...

Originally posted by expert999
this is from the link that ZIPPO gave me. how do they know that these bacteria have been around this long. I mean according to darwins theory, they had to die in order to keep the better species alive.

Wrong. Cyanobacteria are better adapted for some environments than aerobe bacteria and hence are still around. And your little DNA link is the worst piece of garbage of pseudo science, but we don't need to worry, as soon as someone points out the errors, you will never ever address it but move on to the next piece of crap you found somewhere. You Sir are intellectually dishonest to the extreme, if not blatantly brainwashed.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Simon666]

I hope both sides can agree that both evolution and creation have some pretty big holes with no scientific explanations anywhere in sight. If not, I'll be happy to write out a rather lengthy list, just might take a little time.

I would like to point something out, though. Einstein once said relativity was to be applied to physics, not morality. I would propose the same thing for our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty applies to our justice system, not science. The whole reason for innocence to be assumed is because a human life is involved. This is the only nation where the individual is more important than the dirt we live on, and it is apparent in this. Theories are not human, and they do not feel feelings. As a result, innocent until proven guilty should not be applied. The merit of a scientific theory needs to be taken on a case by case basis -- a theory could be extremly sound but unable to be proven through experimentation so remains a theory. Many claim evolution is one of those theories. Other, less intellectually honest folk, say it has been proven, though, which is false as well.

Originally posted by expert999
again ill share with you the law of conservation of angular momentum.
if an object is spinning and it breaks apart in a frictionless environment, than the pieces that break off will be spinning (rotation and orbit) in the same direction as the original object.
so even of solar systems formed be explosion, everything would be rotating in the same direction.

What happens when two objects spinning in the same direction collide?

What happens if two nonspherically shaped objects that are spinning approach eachother in space even if they don't collide?

What happens if one of those objects is much more massive than the other?

Intentional ignorance with obvious intent is not going to win you any converts.