>>It may as well be proof that the atmosphere was anoxic, simply because all available oxygen was bound in such compounds. And then, is such anoxic atmosphere necessarily reducing? Though, chemistry is one of the sciences where my knowledge is thin (it extended to doing my developers and fixers by recipe, not buying ready mixes for my photo lab, but not much further).
>
>Recently scientists from NASA put out a theory on why they believe early atmosphere, about 2 billion years ago, had abundant amount of free oxygen. They said it was mainly due to rapid loss of hydrogen to the exposed outer spacee. However, they also say before this occured, there were "simple" cells already on earth. This point has been one of the arguement that many scientists have offered, but was largely ignored by the main stream science community, according to the article.
>
>http://www.andweb.demon.co.uk/environment/oxygen.html.
>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa6b38a607a.htm
>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

Dean, what is most interesting when reading the pro-creationist points of view is this:

Pro-creationists argue that there are unanswered questions and unknown details in evolutionist and various cosmology theories. Both sides accept this, after all, these theories are measuring and explaining events that happened as much as 14 billion years ago! It’s not like remembering what you did last week.

However, pro-creationists seem to think that pointing out that there are some questions in one theory somehow, magically, is proof of their own theory! The only “proof” offered by creationists is the argument “because God said so in the bible”.

Why don’t the creationists demand the same level of proof and explanation from the theory of creationism as they do from evolution, the big bang, or other scientific theories?