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?

[Ragna]

Okay, so we have proof that these things can exist "in the vaccuum" for countless millenia under the 1000% UV, I must have missed this evidence in the links.

I'm not surprised, you seem not to read 90% of what is posted against your claims. Like the post by Nursebenjamin above.

The fact that you didn't mention the fact that the CBGR would be much more intense and "evidence of a HOT Big Bang" back in the day probably has to do with why you call this a smokescreen.

Can you prove that HOT Big Bang means a change in the wavelength? A person who had to ask for explanation of why water blocks certain wavelengths? Otherwise it's a smokescreen because it would be circular logic: you assume that (that it's visible light) which you seek to prove (that it's visible light). You are using scientific words but you're not using scientific reasonings, so it's void.

The "Distraction" you speak of is the supposed evidence of Stromatolites existing before the Ozone.

I'm arguing the possibility of cyanobacteria existing before ozone, so it's implicit that I'm debating cyanobacteria existing before ozone. If you can't prove it's impossible, the step to saying it didn't happen is an unsound logical conclusion.

[Shermana]

You miss sarcasm too, there's no proof that they could withstand such extremes, not even extremophiles, for such a long time.

I cannot prove anything about CBGR except that its unanimous that the CBGR has greatly cooled since the "Bang."

You act as if my link has been completely dismissed, about how scientists are now determining that UV goes far deeper into water than previously thought, but that was just dismissed as "Crap" earlier by NB.

If you want to believe it's 'proven' that they could have existed before the Ozone, without any direct evidence except theories, that's fine, but don't call it direct evidence.

[nursebenjamin]

None of which is proven would withstand 1000% the UV, that's the stalemate.

Proving this is easy, but requires some complicate math that goes over my head. However, I do know that doubling the thickness of shielding will square the shielding effect.[7] This means that if one centimeter of a material blocks UV-B radiation, than 2cm will effectively blocks up to 400% of that radiation. Three centimeters will effectively blocks up to ?1600% of that radiation.

From an earlier post of mine, we know that Cyanobacteria produce 10-mm-thick surface mats containing filaments encased in amorphous silica matrices up to 5 m thick. Relative radiation absorbance of these silica matrices was UV-C > UV-B > UV-A > PAR, suggesting the silica provides a significant UV shield to the cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria also occur in cryptoendolithic communities 1"10 mm below siliceous sinter surfaces, and in siliceous stromatolites, where viable cyanobacteria are found at least 10 mm below the sinter surface. UV-B was dramatically attenuated within 1 mm of the sinter surface, whereas UV-C (a frequency range absent today but present in the early Precambrian) was attenuated even more efficiently. PAR was attenuated the least, and minimum PAR levels required for photosynthesis penetrated 5"10 mm into the sinter.[5]

That paper goes on to state that These [mineral] deposits also would have strongly attenuated Archean and early Precambrian levels of UV and thus, by analogy, cyanobacteria of early Precambrian shallow aquatic environments, inhabiting silicified biofilms and silica stromatolites, would have similarly been afforded protection against high-intensity UV radiation.

There. Done. I just proved that Cyanobacteria can withstand UV radiation at 1000% the current levels.

By the way, you still have not sourced your claim that Archean levels of UV are 1000% of the current levels or acknowledged the fact that billions of years ago, less UV radiation reached the surface of the earth (the sun was dimmer, and there was more volcanic activity.)

As for Cosmic Background Radiation, it could fit with "Let there be light".

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is thermal radiation that can only be seen with a radio telescope. This is because cosmic background radiation is from the radio region of the electromagnetic spectrum. I dont think that anyone could confuse radio frequencies with visible light.
[center][/center]

[Ragna]

You miss sarcasm too, there's no proof that they could withstand such extremes, not even extremophiles, for such a long time.

You're inventing now as well how much time they spent there? Have you made all the maths for the amount of time all cyanobacteria in the world back then needed to form the ozone layer, substracted the time they were protected, or when the Sun had a fainter day? When volcanos blocked the atmosphere?

I cannot prove anything about CBGR except that its unanimous that the CBGR has greatly cooled since the "Bang."

You act as if my link has been completely dismissed, about how scientists are now determining that UV goes far deeper into water than previously thought, but that was just dismissed as "Crap" earlier by NB.

It's irrelevant. You have not shown anywhere that water is not safe; much less metal, pigments, caves and rocks. If they could only develop deeper, they would have developed deeper. We're not arguing specifics. Saying it's impossible is still as unsupported, because it remains possible.

If you want to believe it's 'proven' that they could have existed before the Ozone, without any direct evidence except theories, that's fine, but don't call it direct evidence.

I'm not calling it anything. You have made a claim that "it's impossible that cyanobacteria existed before an ozone layer". It's false, because they could, and we have defended it through different cases.

[100%atheist]

What do you mean I don't know the difference between radiation and radioactivity. Quote where you get this impression. Things like this are what I'm dealing with, rather than the actual facts.

The fact is, you think that just because there are Stromatolites, that they HAVE to have resisted 1000% the UV (and my source for that is the NASA study which says that at 2/3 Ozone gone, there will be a 660% increase in UV).

That's where the stalemate is.

Calling my criticisms incoherent doesn't disprove them either. You say the possibility exists. Prove that this possibility exists.

You want me to retract the claim that the BG Algae can't survive at 1000% UV? Why don't you prove that it can first.

Also, as to what came before the Sun, I am reading more into this Cosmic Background Radiation, what do you suppose that was?

Shermana,

As you can see, I am not making much claims in this thread. I think I didn't even make any claims about Cyanobacteria because my knowledge of this subject is very limited.

As to your lack of knowledge of what radioactivity is, you made a statement in your post #55:
"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. "

Ozone has nothing to do with radioactivity, which is the property of the atoms of some heavy elements and isotopes to decay emitting high-energy (short wavelength) radiation, called gamma-radiation, that has nothing to do with UV radiation except that both are electromagnetic waves.

[nursebenjamin]

You act as if my link has been completely dismissed, about how scientists are now determining that UV goes far deeper into water than previously thought, but that was just dismissed as "Crap" earlier by NB.

Sherman, please stop lying. I never called your scuba diver article crap. I happened to enjoy that article. Now, do you know if the article was talking about UV-A or UV-B light? There is a difference, ya know

You made the claim that, according to your sources, Cyanobacteria could not survive near the surface of a body of water. It is these un-sourced sources (probably creationism blogs) that I called crap. Lying is uncivil, and I believe that lying is also against one of your Ten Commandments.

If you want to believe it's 'proven' that they could have existed before the Ozone, without any direct evidence except theories, that's fine, but don't call it direct evidence.

FYI, scientific theories are explanations; evidence comes from observable facts. It is a fact that cyanobacteria lived before there were quantities of atmospheric oxygen and an ozone layer. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere began to increase until about 2.3 Ga. But cyanobacteria containing chorophyll and carrying out oxygenic photosynthesis appeared by 2.8 Ga.[1]

[Shermana]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsro ... orss-nnews

Here is the NASA simulation that says 2/3 Ozone gone = 650% increase in UV.

Even if the Sun was 30% dimmer back in the day, that would account to about a 700% increase in UV regardless.

And excuse me, I must have confused calling my source crap with that one as opposed to the other sources in other threads I've posted regarding this. Accusing me of LYING is another story, and that is not only against the rules of this board ("making false statements" you can try instead) but a misunderstanding is not lying. And considering that the argument was about depth at which UV goes into the water, I'm sure the reader might understand how I could not see what were you calling "crap".


And again, CBGR is said to have "Greatly cooled" since the "Hot Bang", in their original form, it would have been different.

Edit: Regarding the "Math", would this shielding rate be the same proportion without the Ozone? Would a 700% increase in UV require 21 feet of dirt instead of 3?

Also, regarding Halfing, the years they supposedly exist goes from 2.8to 3.5g in estimation does it not?

[nursebenjamin]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsro ... orss-nnews

Here is the NASA simulation that says 2/3 Ozone gone = 650% increase in UV.

This link states that "DNA-mutating UV radiation is up 650 percent, with likely harmful effects on plants, animals and human skin cancer rates." The article doesn't say anything about the ability of organisms to evolve under conditions of increased UV radiation.

Even if the Sun was 30% dimmer back in the day, that would account to about a 700% increase in UV regardless.

And what about all of the light-scattering particles that were in the atmosphere due to increased volcanic activity? Was there more cloud cover back then? Clouds would also scatter UV radiation, and less would reach Earth's surface. Remember, the oceans were full of dissolved iron as well. I bet that this iron provided some UV shielding effect as well.

And excuse me, I must have confused calling my source crap with that one as opposed to the other sources in other threads I've posted regarding this. Accusing me of LYING is another story, and that is not only against the rules of this board ("making false statements" you can try instead) but a misunderstanding is not lying. And considering that the argument was about depth at which UV goes into the water, I'm sure the reader might understand how I could not see what were you calling "crap".

I explained to you exactly what I was referring to what I used to "crap" word. There is no misunderstanding going on here. Anyhow, pages ago I said that we should drop the "crap" business and I apologized.

And again, CBGR is said to have "Greatly cooled" since the "Hot Bang", in their original form, it would have been different.

CMBR is off topic (a distraction).

[100%atheist]

...

Nursebenjamin, Ragna,

Acknowledging your strong determination to support the claim of the ability of Cyanobacteria survive at high UV light levels, my brief look at this issue shows that is no consensus yet on whether these bacteria can actually survive high UV levels. I looked through some recent peer-reviewed review articles, and they state that there is a lot more work need to be done before one can make conclusions about UV survival mechanisms and the very possibility of survival.

What does it change in respect to the OP, if it is found out that Cyanobacteria could not survive in the ozone-free early earth atmosphere? Shermana thinks that this somehow proves that there was no Sun at that time, though he obviously fails to present any piece of thought on how he arrived to his groundbreaking conclusion. I think that it is rather irrelevant to the OP question because the UV radiation could be much more effectively blocked by the early-earth atmosphere, or because (as I showed by a reference to a recent study of oxygen producing organisms) Cyanobacteria might be not the first oxygen producing organism.

[nursebenjamin]

Edit: Regarding the "Math", would this shielding rate be the same proportion without the Ozone? Would a 700% increase in UV require 21 feet of dirt instead of 3?

I may have done my math wrong. And that example of using 3ft of dirt is for gamma rays. For gamma rays, 3.6 inches would reduce gamma exposure by 50%. Ten times this distance (the halving-thickness) would effectively block all gamma radiation. Ten times 3.6 inches is 3 feet. Another way to say this is doubling the thickness of shielding will square the shielding effect.

I think that the halving-thickness rule is only for ionizing/penetrating radiation. Most UV light is actually non-ionized (meaning it doesnt penetrate solid objects). Im pretty sure that a solid object of any thickness would stop UV, except for some very short UV-C wavelengths. And these wavelengths would be stopped by incredible thin materials.

The ozone is simply one type of UV shield. It completely blocks UV-C and significantly reduces UV-B. It probably has a small effect on UV-A, but UV-A is harmless. The shield effect of one material would not change the ability of a second material to shield.

Also, regarding [] the years they supposedly exist goes from 2.8to 3.5g in estimation does it not?

There are fossilized stromatolites of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria dating to 2.8Ga.image Remember, stromatolites are just colonies of cyanobacteria that have a mineral shell.

Theres new evidence that cyanobacteria lived 3.5Ga, but Im not sure how strong this evidence is. I think that this older cyanobacteria were photosynthesizing, but the waste product was sulfur, not oxygen.[8]