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?

[Abraxas]

Apparently this bold part in that article didn't register.

y a few more meters, she begins to go from day to night. She can see blue light to her sides, and white light above, but below her the view is dark. As she moves downward, the UV, green, and violet wavelengths disappear, and the light becomes an intense, almost laser-like, pure blue. At 200 meters deep, the diver would cross from the surface realm (called the epipelagic zone), where there is enough sunlight for photosynthesis, to the twilight realm (called the mesopelagic zone), where enough sunlight penetrates for vision, but not for photosynthesis.

And the UV still penetrates at 200m apparently.

Hasty generalization fallacy. Just because it can penetrate 200 meters of water in some conditions does not mean it can in all, most, or many. Per the map from NASA, many coastal areas block it between 0-4 meters.

At current Ozone levels.

You have yet to establish the relevancy of ozone to water's absorption of UV.

The threat of UV radiation
Marine photosynthesis is confined to the tiny fraction of the ocean where sunlight penetrates—at most, the upper 200 meters. UV light also penetrates into this region, which may have increasingly profound consequences. UV radiation can cause damage to organisms on both land and sea. Recently, scientists have discovered that ultraviolet radiation can harm organisms deeper down than previously thought

.
Now again, if MOST SOURCES say that Cyanobacteria grew near the surface, no matter what conflicting links are presented, it appears the UV would destroy it, so regardless, nothing near the surface as MOST SOURCES state would live.

Again, just because it can penetrate 200 meters of water in some conditions does not mean it can in all, most, or many. Per the map from NASA, many coastal areas block it between 0-4 meters.

[100%atheist]

Shermana,

Let me ask you a question. Where are you going with all this. Assume UV light penetrates in water so deep that cyanobacteria cannot survive. So? What's your conclusion? (not about how stupid and bad all Atheists are, but the conclusion related to the OP)

Thanks.

100%

[Shermana]

Did you put a source on that map? I guess those places where it reaches over 200m are so rare they made the lowest depth at 20m on that map. Interestingly, in the NASA simulation I cited (maybe on another thread) it said at 2/3 Ozone loss, plants would mostly not survive, especially at the beach.

100%, assuming that, find me a single site that says the Ozone was NOT made from Cyanobacteria, and then explain, how if its proven they couldn't exist without an Ozone to begin with, what you think is the alternate explanation how the Ozone formed.

[100%atheist]

how if its proven they couldn't exist without an Ozone to begin with

I think you agree with me that it is not the absence of an Ozone layer that kills them, but the presence of the UV light. Is this correct?
Then, please elaborate on your hypothesis. So, what if its proven that cyanobacteria could not exist in the UV light reaching them? What is your take on this and why? Please support your claims by evidence and/or references.

Thank you.

100%

[Shermana]

The lack of Ozone would prevent them from surviving, so yes, absence of ozone would be similar to absence of air bag in a high end collision or absence of oxygen tank in a scuba suit, but in this case, absence of ability to withstand intense radiation and get photosynthesized at the same time. The Ozone makes it so radioactive death doesn't occur.

If this "hypothesis" was perceived as true true, then the model of the Sun existing before Cyanobacteria, as well as the major scientific establishment believing that Cyanobacteria produced the Ozone layer and existed at first near the shorelines, would be thrown a monkey wrench and come to a grinding halt and realize their designs are flawed.

As it stands, the "hypothesis" that Cyanobacteria formed the Ozone layer has no shred of proof that it could exist in near-surface conditions at where it is stated to have grown before the Ozone layer, even under rocks.

[100%atheist]

The lack of Ozone would prevent them from surviving, so yes, absence of ozone would be similar to absence of air bag in a high end collision or absence of oxygen tank in a scuba suit, but in this case, absence of ability to withstand intense radiation and get photosynthesized at the same time. The Ozone makes it so radioactive death doesn't occur.

I take it as 'yes', noting though that you have absolutely no clue of what "radioactivity" means.

If this "hypothesis" was perceived as true true, then the model of the Sun existing before Cyanobacteria, as well as the major scientific establishment believing that Cyanobacteria produced the Ozone layer and existed at first near the shorelines, would be thrown a monkey wrench and come to a grinding halt and realize their designs are flawed.

From this place, please elaborate on your first claim about the Sun. Please demonstrate how the inability of Cyanobacteria to survive with no Ozone blocking the UV light leads to the nonexistence of the Sun before Cyanobacteria. Also, your statement suggests that Cyanobacteria existed some long time ago. So, please specify the time when as you claim the Sun has not been in place yet.

Thank you.

100%

[Shermana]

"noting though that you have absolutely no clue of what "radioactivity" means."

Why is this noted? What part about my statement about the Ozone preventing radioactive death is wrong? The Ozone reduces the intensity by 90%. All models without the Ozone would assume at about 1000% or more the intensity.

The inability of them to survive would at the very least require an entirely new model of what created the Ozone layer, since almost every source I've read (every, not almost) says that Cyanobacteria LIVING NEAR THE SURFACE (ie low depths and not at the far depths), created the Ozone layer.

At the very least, this would shatter the current model and require whole new textbooks, would it not? and how would they explain it formed otherwise?

[100%atheist]

"noting though that you have absolutely no clue of what "radioactivity" means."

Why is this noted? What part about my statement about the Ozone preventing radioactive death is wrong? The Ozone reduces the intensity by 90%. All models without the Ozone would assume at about 1000% or more the intensity.

Radioactivity is the ability of the atoms of some substances to decay emitting gamma-radiation. Gamma radiation has the wavelengths thousands and thousands times shorter than the UV radiation and it has absolutely no relationship to the visible or UV light.

[100%atheist]

The inability of them to survive would at the very least require an entirely new model of what created the Ozone layer, since almost every source I've read (every, not almost) says that Cyanobacteria LIVING NEAR THE SURFACE (ie low depths and not at the far depths), created the Ozone layer.

At the very least, this would shatter the current model and require whole new textbooks, would it not? and how would they explain it formed otherwise?

I don't know.

Now please elaborate on your claim that I asked you about.

Thank you.

100%

[Wyvern]

Did you put a source on that map? I guess those places where it reaches over 200m are so rare they made the lowest depth at 20m on that map. Interestingly, in the NASA simulation I cited (maybe on another thread) it said at 2/3 Ozone loss, plants would mostly not survive, especially at the beach.

100%, assuming that, find me a single site that says the Ozone was NOT made from Cyanobacteria, and then explain, how if its proven they couldn't exist without an Ozone to begin with, what you think is the alternate explanation how the Ozone formed.

Please stop conflating plants with cyanobacteria. Claiming plants would mostly die from an increased UV load is not disputed nor is it relevant to the conversation. Making a claim about plant mortality has no impact on cyanobacteria mortality. You are claiming cyanobacteria absolutely positively could not exist on the Earth prior to the formation of the ozone layer, provide evidence to back up this claim. So far the only evidence you have given is regarding plants not cyanobacteria.