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?

[Shermana]

Let me get this straight, first you say my source is crap, now you say I have no source at all, which anyone can easily disprove by looking back. This is just strange. Are you seriously saying that I didn't list sources AFTER you call them crap? I don't understand. For example, you may have missed this one from earlier:

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2472


Edit: Wrong answersingenesis.org article, will repost.

Cyanobacteria fossils date to at least 2.8 Ga, and possibly 3.5 Ga.

According to questionable isotope dating methods that are not necessarily concrete evidence. Basically your argument is: Isotope dating has found them in a wide range of 700,000,000 year span (of error, since its POSSIBLY), so that means they MUST have survived the 1000% UV. That's not proof. But getting into Isotope issues is for another thread.

(D) Cyanobacteria lived in colonies known as stromatolites. These colonies have a biofilm that allows visible light to pass through, but protects the organisms from harmful UV radiation.

At 1000% UV? We'd have to see proof that they would survive under pre-Ozone conditions, that's the thing. Just because you claim they existed before then doesn't prove it.

[Wyvern]

Shermana I think you need to understand that the Earth back then has very little in common with what it is now.

From Wikipedia:

Origin of the oceans and atmosphereBecause the Earth lacked an atmosphere immediately after the giant impact, cooling must have occurred quickly. Within 150 million years, a solid crust with a basaltic composition must have formed. The felsic continental crust of today did not yet exist. Within the Earth, further differentiation could only begin when the mantle had at least partly solidified again. Nevertheless, during the early Archaean (about 3.0 Ga) the mantle was still much hotter than today, probably around 1600°C. This means the fraction of partially molten material was still much larger than today.

Steam escaped from the crust, and more gases were released by volcanoes, completing the second atmosphere. Additional water was imported by bolide collisions, probably from asteroids ejected from the outer asteroid belt under the influence of Jupiter's gravity.

The large amount of water on Earth can never have been produced by volcanism and degassing alone. It is assumed the water was derived from impacting comets that contained ice.[24]:130-132 Though most comets are today in orbits farther away from the Sun than Neptune, computer simulations show they were originally far more common in the inner parts of the solar system. However, most of the water on Earth was probably derived from small impacting protoplanets, objects comparable with today's small icy moons of the outer planets.[25] Impacts of these objects could have enriched the terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, the Earth and Mars) with water, carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, nitrogen and other volatiles. If all water on Earth was derived from comets alone, millions of comet impacts would be required to support this theory. Computer simulations illustrate that this is not an unreasonable number.[24]:131

As the planet cooled, clouds formed. Rain created the oceans. Recent evidence suggests the oceans may have begun forming by 4.2 Ga,[26] or as early as 4.4 Ga.[4] In any event, by the start of the Archaean eon the Earth was already covered with oceans. The new atmosphere probably contained water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and smaller amounts of other gases.[27] As the output of the Sun was only 70% of the current amount, significant amounts of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere most likely prevented the surface water from freezing.[28] Free oxygen would have been bound by hydrogen or minerals on the surface. Volcanic activity was intense and, without an ozone layer to hinder its entry, ultraviolet radiation flooded the surface.

As you can see your assumption of the suns output being the same as now is incorrect as is your assumption of the makeup of the early atmosphere.

[nursebenjamin]

I am not an expert in paleogeology, so I have a perhaps stupid question.

Why is it necessary that oxygen (and then ozone) is formed as a result of photosynthesis? If you have water, heat, and electricity in the atmosphere, isn't it sufficient to form at least some oxygen?

This is just a generic question to everyone who might know.

Oxygen is highly reactive and forms compounds with nearly all other elements. Earlier organisms probably did produce oxygen as a waste byproduct of metabolism. This free oxygen would have quickly been removed from the atmosphere by reacting with minerals, most notably iron that was dissolved in the oceans.

Banded iron formations are a distinctive type of rock that is found in old (Precambrian) sedimentary rocks. These formations[image] are abundant about 2.4 billion years ago, and atmospheric oxygen level began to rise about 2.3 billion years ago. Oxygen was not able to remain free in the atmosphere until after most iron became already bound to oxygen. Some banded iron formations are as old as 3.5 billion years, meaning that tiny amounts of oxygen was being released into the atmosphere at that time – probably by methane- and sulfate-munching organisms.

Sunlight is an abundant resource, so the evolution of photosynthesis would have been a milestone that allowed Proterozoic organisms to grow and reproduce much more rapidly. Oxygen is simply a waste byproduct of photosynthesis.

Edit for clarity.

[100%atheist]

I am not an expert in paleogeology, so I have a perhaps stupid question.

Why is it necessary that oxygen (and then ozone) is formed as a result of photosynthesis? If you have water, heat, and electricity in the atmosphere, isn't it sufficient to form at least some oxygen?

This is just a generic question to everyone who might know.

Oxygen is highly reactive and forms compounds with nearly all other elements. Earlier organisms probably did produce oxygen as a waste byproduct of metabolism. This free oxygen would have quickly been removed from the atmosphere by reacting with minerals, most notably iron that was dissolved in the oceans.

Banded iron formations are a distinctive type of rock that is found in old (Precambrian) sedimentary rocks. These formations[image] are abundant about 2.4 billion years ago, and atmospheric oxygen level began to rise about 2.3 billion years ago. Oxygen was not able to remain free in the atmosphere until after most iron became already bound to oxygen. Some banded iron formations are as old as 3.5 billion years, meaning that tiny amounts of oxygen was being released into the atmosphere at that time – probably by methane- and sulfate-munching organisms.

Sunlight is an abundant resource, so the evolution of photosynthesis would have been a milestone that allowed Proterozoic organisms to grow and reproduce much more rapidly.

I see what you are saying, but I would not call diatomic oxygen highly reactive. The problem of oxygen participating in oxidation reactions remains the same no matter what mechanism is used to produce oxygen in the first place.

[100%atheist]

Let me get this straight, first you say my source is crap, now you say I have no source at all, which anyone can easily disprove by looking back. This is just strange.

Shermana,

And I am still waiting for your sources or arguments that will support your claim that the inability of Cyanobacteria to survive without an Ozone layer leads to the conclusion that there was no Sun at that time.

Thank you.

100%

[nursebenjamin]

[nygreenguy]

Many early organisms also used metals like iron to protect themselves from radiation damage. There are all sort of mechanisms and behaviors organisms have to protect themselves.

[Ragna]

I said that the NASA STUDY I CITED said that PLANTS would not be able to live at 2/3 the Ozone gone, and that would PROBABLY INCLUDE other Photosynthesizing "plantlike" structures like CyanoBACTERIA. I was just citing the NASA simulation there. If the PLANTS WOULD DIE, then likely the BG ALGAE WOULD DIE TOO.

Shermana, everyone is the same here. None of your points is by default right. I'll try to make this as clear as possible.

This is what we have:

-Ozone layer formed by cyanobacteria.
-Cyanobacteria exist and similar organisms have existed for long.
-Radiation which damages certain life-forms.

Your claim: "Since plants would die out, cyanobacteria would too. Since this is a contradiction, Genesis is right(?)"

Wyvern has been trying to correct you for a reason, but I don't know how much of it you have understood yet.

Bacteria have nothing to do with eukaryotes. They're entirely different. We eukaryotes are new-come to this planet and life had gone on millions of years before.

The fact is that bacteria are a very different kind of life. They have more chemical variation than any eukaryote, they have been here before us and they will probably remain there when we're gone. "Blue-green alga" is a very misleading (and probably now obsolete) term because they're not algae and they aren't always blue-green. You seem to profit from the confusion this creates, but it's simply an error. Look at what bacteria can do that eukaryotes cannot. They're much smaller, variable and versatile:

The complete genetic code of the world’s most radiation resistant organism - the bacteria Deinococcus radiodurans - has been detailed by Department of Energy (DOE) funded researchers at The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR). This strain of pink bacteria can survive 1.5 million rads of gamma irradiation - 3,000 times the amount that would kill a human. That dose of radiation shreds the bacteria’s genome into hundreds of pieces. The organism’s ability to repair this DNA damage in a day and go on living offers researchers clues to the mechanisms of cellular repair. Advances in this area could improve the understanding of cancer, which can be caused by unrepaired DNA damage. Genetically engineering the microbe could lead to improved ways to clean up pollution and to new industrial processes.

Your claim is by default wrong because even if the sea surface had been lethal (which you haven't proven), they had water, caves and a lot of rocks, as well as millions of years to develop resistent pigments (which they most likely did, seeing the world today). After saying "I heard they developed near the shore" you seem to have forgotten completely about this. Well, they developed in a place they could have developed! This is basic logic. You cannot prove something wrong by stating an impossible case. The fact is that it's perfectly possible to survive in such a world; and they most likely did it, creating the ozone layer themselves.

None of your unsupported claims about this is right, nor has ever been. Please acknowledge that you have not supported it, instead asking for specifics prove-me-wrong when in fact any kind of logical case we can present debunks your own specific criticism. You can't even in principle prove what you claim to have proven in that way.

At this point I'm wondering if you have anything else than some myth to reject reasonable hypotheses? Because that's not something which counts as evidence, and it won't be accepted here.

[nursebenjamin]

@ Shermana, Are you going to acknowledge any points raised in this thread? Or are you running away? It is hard to have an honorable and meaningful debate when one side doesn’t acknowledge any points that have been raised.

[Shermana]

What points am I supposed to acknowledge? You throw out my sources, our sources conflict ,and you base your claim on an Isotope dating method which we don't agree with, lay off.

Because that's not something which counts as evidence, and it won't be accepted here.

Your evidence is the simply existence of Stromatolites. That's it. That's not accepted.