Nothing to do with that subversive garbage.
Saging for off-topic in advance:
An Early Oxidizing Atmosphere
Not only this, but we are now aware that elemental oxygen is formed by the free dissociation of water molecules under ultra-violet radiation; without the ozone layer filtering out wave-lengths below 3000 Angstroms, this dissociation would result in a (relatively) large amount of elemental oxygen - enough, according to J.H. Carver1 to form an ozone layer at 0.01 PAL.
The point being that there is more evidence of an oxidizing atmosphere than there is against it. All current models of abiogenesis eliminate oxygen from the environment.
Indeed, J.C.G. Walker, in his "Evolution of the Atmosphere" said that the "strongest evidence for a reducing (no oxygen) atmosphere is that we know that chemical Evolution took place!"'
Not THAT is circular reasoning!
But neo-myth, double-think and otherwise is normal for Darwinians who pretend to be the arbiters of empirical truth.
>Foreword to The Mystery of Life’s Origin written by Dr. Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University (Book by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen)
>…In this brief summary of the reasons for my growing doubts that life on earth could have begun spontaneously by purely chemical and physical means, there isthe problem of the origin of genetic (i.e. biologically relevant) information in biopolymers :
No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides. Evidence for some degree of spontaneous sequence ordering has been published, but there is no indication whatsoever that the non-randomness is biologically significant. Until such evidence is forthcoming, I certainly cannot claim that the possibility of a Naturalistic origin of life has been demonstrated.
>The authors have addressed nearly all the problems enumerated above and several other important ones as well. They believe, and I now concur, that there is a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life.
>I suspect that part of the answer is that many scientists would hesitate to accept the authors' conclusion that it is fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems. Perhaps these scientists fear that acceptance of this conclusion would open the door to the possibility (or the necessity) of a supernatural origin of life.
I haven't even gotten into the issues of ATP Synthase and the colossal complexity of the human brain.
So you can either dig your head in the sand and keep worshiping that cartoon frog idol, or you can take a day to research the things you actually believe in instead of pretending to be enlightened while regurgitating the same bilge you've been fed by the world since before you realized what was meant by "Holla Forums is always right".