Order of creation

[Ragna]

Go ahead and create one.

Let's debate the order of creation. I made a claim:

I say that Genesis, by itself, is not reliable, independently of which scientific theory is true. It's a mythical book, it has to be checked externally to see if it has some bearing on reality or none. Disproving evolution is not such a check, since aliens could be manipulating mutations via remote control and there could very well be no god in this scenario. Also, all of our modern science has disproved most of the creation myth (there's no water above the sky, the stars came first, then Sun then Earth, etc.).

Shermana claims that Genesis is in fact accurate because cyanobacteria cannot survive without an ozone layer. In her own words:

Well if you're not gonna debate Cyanobacteria, then kindly retract your claim that Genesis would be 0% reliable. Say that it's possibly reliable involving the order of plants first, sun second.

Are you aware that Genesis states plants first, sun second? That might clear up the confusion.

None of these arguments are non-sequitur.

It's just that when facts and evidence are presented that prove the countrary wrong, the goalposts get changed every time it seems.

Basically, there could be no such thing as plants before an ozone layer. Impossible.

Thus, Genesis Creationism is by default correct.

That would be evidence of "God".

If you don't accept this argument as valid, that's your problem.

Questions for debate:

1. Is this argument valid, constituting evidence?

2. Which came first, plants or the Sun?

3. Can cyanobacteria survive without an ozone layer?

4. Does this prove Genesis being accurate?

[Wyvern]

You see, there had to be a beginning to everything - there was matter before evolution, there was matter before the Big Bang, there had to be a beginning of everything. Otherwise you are simply suggesting that SOMETHING came from NOTHING. In other words, at some point, the first piece of matter had to have been created. It is against scientific fact to suggest that something came from nothing.

Actually you are suggesting something came from nothing, but not just any old thing but the most complex intelligent lifeform in all of existance i.e. god.

[Ragna]

You all have it wrong! You must think about what your saying.

You can debate whether the Sun or the planets were created first, when stars first got there, this junk about protons - fine. Do that if you want.

I'm sorry you consider it junk, but why comment in a thread about it then?

But in fact, when it comes to everything we know about the universe, it is clear that is impossible to leave God out of the equation. By doing that, you are in fact insulting science.

Have you not considered "first cause"?

You see, there had to be a beginning to everything - there was matter before evolution, there was matter before the Big Bang, there had to be a beginning of everything. Otherwise you are simply suggesting that SOMETHING came from NOTHING. In other words, at some point, the first piece of matter had to have been created. It is against scientific fact to suggest that something came from nothing.

Forget the theories about the origins of life itself! Consider this: If life stemmed from the backs of crystals, as some scientists suggest, or some other source, that source had to come from somewhere, and that source from somewhere as well. Eventually, you get to a point where there was a first cause.

Something simply cannot emerge from nothing. Try to explain the origin of the first proton without suggesting there is a God or an Intelligent Designer to first create it. Simple logic tells us that you can't! There was a beginning to the beginning. How can this clear problem be solved without God in the equation?

If you can answer that question, you'll be rich in no time. Good luck. Forget the rest of this silly debate: it starts with this basic problem (and it is impossible to solve without God).

I'm stunned that you have a ... Kalam cosmological argument.

Yes, we have a problem that we have something instead of nothing. You have a problem that you have a God instead of nothing. You say we don't appeal to Hawking or whatever (which I didn't plan doing anyway), and you say that God doesn't need a beginning because you say so.

That's compelling, yes.

If we have to avoid infinite regress, I don't see why a being here is the most plausible option.

I suggest you create another thread on this since you apparently don't have anything to say about the order of creation.

[100%atheist]

By the way, the question "God created something from what?" is an invalid question. If He is God, the all-powerful, science need not be applied here. As God, HE CAN create something from nothing. Why? Because He is God.

This is called special pleading logical fallacy.

[nygreenguy]

You all have it wrong! You must think about what your saying.

You can debate whether the Sun or the planets were created first, when stars first got there, this junk about protons - fine. Do that if you want.

But in fact, when it comes to everything we know about the universe, it is clear that is impossible to leave God out of the equation. By doing that, you are in fact insulting science.

Have you not considered "first cause"?

You see, there had to be a beginning to everything - there was matter before evolution, there was matter before the Big Bang, there had to be a beginning of everything. Otherwise you are simply suggesting that SOMETHING came from NOTHING. In other words, at some point, the first piece of matter had to have been created. It is against scientific fact to suggest that something came from nothing.

Forget the theories about the origins of life itself! Consider this: If life stemmed from the backs of crystals, as some scientists suggest, or some other source, that source had to come from somewhere, and that source from somewhere as well. Eventually, you get to a point where there was a first cause.

Something simply cannot emerge from nothing. Try to explain the origin of the first proton without suggesting there is a God or an Intelligent Designer to first create it. Simple logic tells us that you can't! There was a beginning to the beginning. How can this clear problem be solved without God in the equation?

If you can answer that question, you'll be rich in no time. Good luck. Forget the rest of this silly debate: it starts with this basic problem (and it is impossible to solve without God).

As ive stated on this issue before, the "first cause" is a scenario fabricated to get out of the obviously hypocritical statement "everything has a cause". What it does is it takes god out of the equation and says everything but GOD must have a cause.

Well, why does god get this exemption?

[100%atheist]

And "Because Hawking said so" is a stupid argument. He may be the leading scientist of the day, and no doubt he's an exceptionally brilliant man, but hey, so was the guy who thought the world was flat. The most credible scientist today may be the least credible in 500 years.

Hawking did not say so, but he developed several theories including the one that explains our universe as the universe without beginning and the end. In order to call such or any other scientific theories "stupid" you are welcome to invest your time and effort in examining then and refuting scientifically. You need to be a credible scientist in order to reject established scientific theories. Well, you also can be a theist, and then your explanation to everything is GodDidIt. But then, what is your point to participate in this forum?

[100%atheist]

Hawking writes: Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own."

If there was nothing, where was gravity? Gravity is, basically, an application of force on something. Earth's gravity is a force that pulls a body toward the center of the Earth.

I'm specifically talking about the point where there was truly nothing. At that point, gravity would have been pulling nothing, towards nothing! Resulting in nothing happening. Right? Not according to you. It farted out a universe. You believe this is possible, yet (probably) doubt how it would be possible for Jesus to be resurrected.

1) Gravity is the interaction between objects that have masses. The validity of the concept of gravity as well as other physics laws does not depend on the physical availability of matter, energy, etc. This is what Hawking meant , fyi.

2) If there were no matter, the would be no gravitational interactions, but the gravity as the law of science is ready to work whenever there are masses around.

3) You know virtual particles, don't you? It happens all the time. The virtual particles are being created and annihilated.

4) I have a big problem not only with resurrection of anybody, but with the reality concept of Jesus.

[Curious]

Heating something up certainly does produce light if it is hot enough, as in the glowing filament of a light bulb, but this is far too hot for any kind of life to exist. The chemical stability necessary for the organized structure of life simply cannot exist at such extreme temperatures.

You are missing the point. The sun is far too hot for life to exist on the surface but fortunately the light radiates to distances where temperatures would be more amenable. Light from a light bulb is frequently used to grow plants, it is not necessary to have the plant inside the light bulb.

The far lower temperature of boiling water is commonly used to sterilize things, although I believe some very strange life forms have been found in boiling water near volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean. Granted that these do exist in hot conditions without light, but their civilization is quite limited.

Strange indeed if they have developed a civilisation.

Atoms may emit photons, but they also absorb photons. The light which bathed the early universe only microseconds after the Big Bang (or creation, if you prefer) occured before it had cooled enough to allow the formation of atoms, stars, or anything else. Certainly you are not suggesting that the earth was around then?

No,I am not suggesting this at all. According to current ideas hydrogen nuclei( or protons to be pedantic) were able "trap" electrons at around 300,000 years. Galaxies are thought to have begun forming at about 600,000,000 years( some say 1 billion years). Our solar system is thought to be much younger, more than enough time for the universe to cool significantly.

The science-fiction concept of some kind of plasma "life" existing in the 10 million degree temperatures of the corona of the sun is best left for another thread.

I hope my previous comments make it clear that I am not suggesting this.

[Curious]

But heating something up produces light.

Not necessarily.

Are you seriously saying light is not produced by the excitation of atoms and that infra red detectors don't work?

Bombarding atoms with various wavelengths of energy liberates photons.

Incorrect. Photons cannot be "liberated". Only bombarding atoms with particles that energy exceeds very specific threshold energies will produce photons.

Photons, as elemental particles (or "waves" if you like or even "packets of energy") can and are liberated. I used the word various in my previous post to illustrate that not all photons are created equal, infra red for example having less energy than ultra violet. Hitting a nail with a hammer emits light as does rubbing your hands together or even breaking wind.

The early universe would be literally bathed in light even before the formation of the stars.

The early universe is called the early universe exactly because it was the universe before the formation of stars.

The point I was making was that there was light before the sun.

[100%atheist]

But heating something up produces light.

Not necessarily.

Are you seriously saying light is not produced by the excitation of atoms and that infra red detectors don't work?

No, I am saying that radiation is only one of the mechanisms of heat dissipation. Clue for you: think of phonons.

Bombarding atoms with various wavelengths of energy liberates photons.

Incorrect. Photons cannot be "liberated". Only bombarding atoms with particles that energy exceeds very specific threshold energies will produce photons.

Photons, as elemental particles (or "waves" if you like or even "packets of energy") can and are liberated. I used the word various in my previous post to illustrate that not all photons are created equal, infra red for example having less energy than ultra violet. Hitting a nail with a hammer emits light as does rubbing your hands together or even breaking wind.

If what you say is true, Einstein got his Nobel prize for nothing.

Hitting a nail with a hammer does NOT lead to light emission, sorry.
You need an electron transition between energy levels in order to emit photons (let's leave Bremsstrahlung radiation aside for now). You can't do it with a hummer, it's simply not enough energy (per atom per second). The energy that you supply will be dissipated through elastic and plastic deformations of the nail and the material under the nail. Yes, this is where your energy will go. Surprised?

The early universe would be literally bathed in light even before the formation of the stars.

The early universe is called the early universe exactly because it was the universe before the formation of stars.

The point I was making was that there was light before the sun.

Yes, that's what the Big Bang theory predicts.

[Shermana]

"If what you say is true, Einstein got his Nobel prize for nothing."

That's what people say about Compton when I mention the Compton effect. But that's another story.

There's also people who question Relativity for good reason.