Pt. 6 - Genesis and Scientific Evidence
- From: Helllllppp <edwardtbabinski@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:51:43 -0800 (PST)
Here is my only real question at present... one article stated that
Stromatolites (formed by activity of bacteria) on early rocks... well,
this was interesting.
Pub Med is about as "peer reviewed" as you can find on the web, and no
sir -- Talk origins wouldn't be stupid enough to try arguing with
them, since Pub Med is one of their own favorite sources for
reference.
How are they absolutely certain that Stromatolites were formed by
"photosynthesizing bacteria"? That's what one book here, (a non-
scientist) -- a scientific journalist wrote. But when I see that claim
being made, I call to mind "never reference materials that fail to be
peer reviewed".
PUB MED: "...is likely to have worked in tandem with existing non-
photosynthetic organisms increasing the likelihood of stromatolite
formation. "
Is likely to have? That's sort of inconclusive ....and followed with a
statement on the existing non-photosynthetic organisms..."
You see, this is their proof there was a sun near the earth 4 billion
years ago?
Light-Dependant Biostabilisation of Sediments by Stromatolite
Assemblages
David M. Paterson,1* Rebecca J. Aspden,1 Pieter T. Visscher,2 Mireille
Consalvey,3 Miriam S. Andres,4 Alan W. Decho,5 John Stolz,6 and R.
Pamela Reid4
~ pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2526175
"This suggests that early biofilms formations which pre-dated the
evolution of photosynthesis might be more transient and delicate than
later forms, in keeping with the slow development of stability in the
dark incubation in the present study. However, the metabolic process
carried out by non-photosynthetic bacteria may still have been
influential on the formation of carbonates and evaporites [13], [23]–
[26]. The advent of photosynthesis and the capacity of biofilms to
produce organic molecules is likely to have worked in tandem with
existing non-photosynthetic organisms increasing the likelihood of
stromatolite formation. The role of the varied organic molecules
associated with biofilms, microbial mats and stromatolites is
continuingly being investigated and expanded [18], [19]."
-----------------------------
"Is likely to have? That's sort of inconclusive ....and followed with
a statement on the existing non-photosynthetic organisms..."
Are they saying that in an extinct ecoysystem (dating back 4 and 3 and
2 billion years) there was no other possibility than photosynthesis
(exclusively from sunlight) for those bacteria to form stromatolites?
ROTFLMAO (thank you Lord Jesus):
"Discovery of green sulfur bacteria living near hydrothermal vents has
major implications for where photosynthesis happens and where life may
reside
A team of researchers, including a photosynthesis expert from ASU, has
found evidence of photosynthesis taking place deep within the Pacific
Ocean. The team found a bacterium that is the first photosynthetic
organism that doesn’t live off sunlight but from the dim light coming
from hydrothermal vents nearly 2,400 meters (7,875 feet) deep in the
ocean."
Researchers find photosynthesis deep within ocean Jun 21, 2005 ...
Researchers find photosynthesis deep within ocean ... One is what it
means to life on Earth; the other is what it means about where to
look ...
www.asu.edu/feature/includes/summer05/readmore/photosyn.html
WHY THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION?
ASK "WHY". 3.5 billion years of bacteria and even single cell
organisms, stagnating, doesn't feed the bulldog. It flies in the face
of evolution theory itself. The planet should have been crawling with
life, 3.5 billion years ago.
EVOLUTION: When Did Photosynthesis Emerge on Earth? -- Des Marais ...
Life began early in Earth's history, but it was the emergence of
photosynthesis that allowed its proliferation across the planet,
because it freed life from ...
~ sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/289/5485/1703
--------------------------
"Are they saying that in an extinct ecoysystem..."
1. Proof of Photosynthesis happening in deep ocean .. where sunlight
doesn't reach. Yes... proof for it.
2. Pub Med verifies the non-photosynthetic process pre-dates the
photosynthetic.
Further, if you have a planet with no sunlight, it can proliferate an
entire ecosystem that is independent of sunlight, including as Genesis
says (in one translation) "tender grass" ... but they know, they
speculate body plans of these earliest life forms, were so delicate
they didn't leave many fossils.
When sunlight was introduced, you can guarantee it killed off the
majority of life forms that were in existence. That's how extinctions
occur. Some big shift in the earth's atmosphere... change the entire
fossil record. Some of those earliest life forms resemble nothing
known in our photosynthetic world. Of course they wouldn't.
Science doesn't know what they were. I think they were likely non-
photosynthetic plants... or organisms living around Earth's own
photosynthetic capacity. Early in Earth's geological record, the earth
was molten rock -- volcanic activity was covering it, very much like
what's going on around the Hot Springs deep in the ocean (where they
discovered at least one bacteria that does photosynthesis, directly
from the earth's own energy -- and not sunlight).
Perhaps those Hot Springs are just a small peep into earth's earliest
record of how and when life began.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Pseudoscience is for morons
- Next by Date: Re: Evolutionist say the darndest things!
- Previous by thread: Pt. 5 - Genesis and Scientific Evidence
- Next by thread: Pt. 7 - STARTING AN ARGUMENT
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
