An Evolution Catch 22?

Some people are flat out rude and there's no reason to be that rude to you.

Note also: Hydrolysis would prevent origin/development of life in bodies of water. = no life

Then why are there amino acids around the white smoker vents on the mid-Atlantic ridge.

If Earth's original atmosphere had oxygen, organic and inorganic materials on the surface would be oxidized, and evolving organisms would have no protection against the process = no life (hence the assumption by the Miller-Urey experiment that no oxygen was present).

Only life as you want it. Life "could" evolve in oxygen, but it is inconvenient for your paradigm. Life has evolved and flourished in the most extreme conditions. Where did the bacteria that thrive on the uranium rods in nuclear reactors come from.

Radiometric dating (Carbon-Nitrogen, Uranium-Lead...) have dated rocks known to be 70 years old as being 4 billion years old.

Rocks CANNOT be 70 years old, maybe that particular formation is only 70 years, but the rocks aren't.

Carbon dating is "said" to date organisms beyond 100,000 years

No one who has read more than fundie captions KNOWS that carbon dating only goes back at most 30,000 years reliably and not at all beyond 50,000 years. You need to read something more than fundie captions.

Oddly enough, the oldest rocks we have tested upon were shown to be formed under conditions in an oxygen rich environment.

And of course you do not list the supporting evidence.

it must first be constructed by proper amino acid interactions... Oh wait, it just magically appears?

And how does life in your scenario begin, oh it magically appears.

Hydrolysis is not the splitting of a water molecule. It is the rupture of chemical bonds via water.

Check the chemical composition of the white smokers and get back to us.

I've stated scientific inquiry and fact.

You have stated scientific inquiry and supposition and opinion with no more knowledge of the ancient past than the people whom you denigrate.

"If Earth's original atmosphere had oxygen, organic and inorganic materials on the surface would be oxidized,"

It did not have oxygen. Free oxygen is produced by photosynthesis.

"and evolving organisms would have no protection against the process = no life (hence the assumption by the Miller-Urey experiment that no oxygen was present)."

Actually they have rock samples from that epoch, and there is no evidence that there was free oxygen

"If the Earth had no oxygen, then how were organisms protected by ultraviolet rays

without an ozone? = no life (odd too that organisms "evolved" to use oxygen in cellular respiration)"

RNA-only organisms are transparent to UV.

DNA organisms with ring-shaped DNA, can tolerate lots of UV irradiation.

Organisms with four complete sets of DNA in each cell, can tolerate lots of UV irradiation.

Organisms that properly handle telomerase, can tolerate some significant UV irradiation.

But more appropriate to your misunderstanding, the life we are interested in, the stuff that eventually made oxygen, lived in the depths of the ocean.

[EDIT: "You're making too many assumptions."

No, we are basing our interpretation on the data your God left imprinted in the rocks. He wrote a book the size of a planet. It would be a shame to ignore it, based on a book written by Man.

]

Not being an organic chemist, I do not really know, but I think that there was little oxygen in the Earth's early atmosphere and that the emerging life was protected from ultraviolet rays by the organic soup in which they formed. If you want a proper answer you should ask in the science section.

You seem to have forgotten the chemosynthetic organisms... stupid much?

EDIT: Also you seem to be pulling things out of nowhere without any understanding of what you're even speaking about. I suggest you stop making yourself look stupid.

EDIT: Why would I have to assume chemosynthetic organisms exist when we have them documented and studied? Again, your stupidity is appalling. Or perhaps you're just an exceptionally clever troll.

Exodus 20:16

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

Well done - you've just sinned.

Lies is ALL creationists have. Is their god the father of lies?

No, you are stating a known lie - because lies is all you creationists have. You research it - and post in scientific journals.

Actually it is creationists who call their god a liar - there is so much evidence for evolution, that only a decietful god would make it appear so, if it were not true - so either YOU are lying, repeating know lies, or your god is a liar. There is no other choice.

And, to repeat - Exodus 20:16.

Life emerged before O2 the first oxygen producting life emerged 1.8 billion years ago (cyanobacteria) before that the atmosphere was mostly Co2 and methane

There's a species of bacteria, older than normal bacteria (I forget what they're called, bio was a while ago) and could survive in conditions like in molten rock. They could have survived, and produced CO2 allowing for an atmosphere and plant life to emerge.

If the room with the chair in it contains oxygen, then the chair would burn because the chair would have no protection against this process = you can't sit down.

If the room with the chair in it doesn't contain oxygen, then how would you breathe? = you can't sit down.

You are ignoring multiple factors in play in early earth models in order to build up your Catch 22.

P.S.

Evolution =/= Abiogenesis

Get your theories in biology straight.

Debating evolution with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. They just knock the pieces over, crap all over the board and then fly back to their flock to proclaim victory"

And your presenting this on Yahoo Answers and not in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal for a reason:

You've no idea what you're talking about.

EDIT: That's the sad thing. You think you have a case when you actually don't. You've mistaken the freedom of speech for meaning that your senseless, idiotic babbling actually has any worth.