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]

First I'm going to analyze the original post here quoted and clear several things up:

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.

Here I detect the first, fatal flaw. Either you're making a logical non sequitur between using cyanobacteria and plants as examples, or you have deeply confused two entirely different kinds of organisms.

Cyanobacteria form part of the domain Bacteria, and as such are prokaryote organisms - without a nucleus.

Plants (strictu senso), green plants, Viridiplantae are a kingdom within the domain Eukaryota, so they're eukaryotes.

This is a non-trivial difference

Also, there could be no plants without a Sun, either, since the Earth was formed after the Sun. This is well-known in astrophysics and geology. This article does a good job at it.

As well, plants are autotroph photosynthetic organisms which need the Sun to make their own organic matter, without it, they'd die out. This is well-known in biology, check the chemical process.

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

I'm sorry that I like adequately responding in the adequate sections, it's some weird mania I have.

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

This is true. But it's as true that this is a strawman or a non sequitur, since plants are not cyanobacteria. More on this later.

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.

I think a post I did already covers this:

There's not a dichotomy between "current scientific theory" and "creationism". For Biblical creationism to be true, we would need another world (one with a sea above the atmosphere, to begin with). Therefore, creationism is not a scientific position.

Now with the debate:

Questions for debate:

1. Is this argument valid, constituting evidence?

It's simply fallacious reasoning and bare statements, so it's not proof (and it presents no evidence to back up anything, either).

2. Which came first, plants or the Sun?

See this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_ ... #Formation

The Sun came first and then matter formed the planets which revolve around it. This is the commonly accepted scientific knowledge about it.

Life on Earth is more or less as old as 3.8 billion years. Cyanobacteria are pretty old, and once the oxygen catastrophe happened, aerobic life could freely evolve. The ozone layer could arise spontaneously after there was free O₂ in the atmosphere via ozone-oxygen cycle.

Since prokaryotes predate eukaryotes and largely multicellular eukaryotes, when the plants firstly appeared about 520 m.a. ago, there was already an ozone layer available.

3. Can cyanobacteria survive without an ozone layer?

I don't know whether they can now, but before there was an ozone layer they most probably could.

Evolution of early reproductive proteins and enzymes is attributed in modern models of evolutionary theory to ultraviolet light. UVB light causes thymine base pairs next to each other in genetic sequences to bond together into thymine dimers, a disruption in the strand that reproductive enzymes cannot copy (see picture above). This leads to frameshifting during genetic replication and protein synthesis, usually killing the organism. As early prokaryotes began to approach the surface of the ancient oceans, before the protective ozone layer had formed, blocking out most wavelengths of UV light, they almost invariably died out. The few that survived had developed enzymes that verified the genetic material and broke up thymine dimer bonds, known as base excision repair enzymes. Many enzymes and proteins involved in modern mitosis and meiosis are similar to excision repair enzymes, and are believed to be evolved modifications of the enzymes originally used to overcome UV light.[56]

Firstly, life started in very simple forms; the firsts forms ought to be much more simpler than even modern prokaryotic cells. There are organisms today (extremophiles) which can withstand the most extreme conditions, and so there's no reason to think that the ancient environment was necessarily lethal to primitive cyanobacteria which lived deep in the ocean (and all this assuming the UV radiation emitted was in fact the same back then, which I don't know).

4. Does this prove Genesis being accurate?

At all, as I've already pointed out, an entire new world would be needed for Genesis to be accurate (see Gen 1:7). And anyway nothing else than proving Genesis accurate proves Genesis accurate. A criticism like this does not stand, since it simply consists in inaccurate and raw assertions about astrophysics and biology.

Now I demand biological and geological support that the Earth formed before its star. A millennia-old book is not.

[nygreenguy]

3. Can cyanobacteria survive without an ozone layer?

Absolutely.

[Murad]

Cyanobacteria can live in environments of high turbidity or depth. (If the UV is reflected/abosrbed by sea sediments)


Genesis claims vegetation was created before the sun. Plants have chlorophyll and they need the sun to survive.

Although there is no contradiction, it is totally illogical.

[Shermana]

3. Can cyanobacteria survive without an ozone layer?

Absolutely.

Please back that statement up with a link.

And I don't know why Ocean depth of "deep waters" would have any absorbant effect on the UV, please explain how.

Also, Plants supposedly originate from Cyanobacteria, thus even though one is a...bacteria, the point being is that they both have the same photosynthetic properties, and plants are supposedly of Algae origin. Hope that clears up, Blue Green Algae in layman's terms, I call it a "plant" in regards to the overall Genesis creation story. To get technical, it is not a "plant" in Botanical terms.

If you demand proof that Earth formed before its star, do you demand proof that the Solar System formed on its own in the face of Entropy? Do you demand proof of the Sun being the origin of say....Jupiter? Where does all this Hydrogen and Helium come from even? Do you just accept that what's in the Nebula always existed without a cause?

[Furrowed Brow]

Hope that clears up, Blue Green Algae in layman's terms, I call it a "plant" in regards to the overall Genesis creation story. To get technical, it is not a "plant" in Botanical terms.

So techinically Genesis not right I guess.

Here are some loinks I have also given in another thread that talk about the survival of cyanobacteria in UV.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20005556

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 451.x/full

http://www.springerlink.com/content/lk3483k2615k503u/

[nygreenguy]

3. Can cyanobacteria survive without an ozone layer?

Absolutely.

Please back that statement up with a link.

someone did below, and I didn in the other thread. Many bacteria can survive high amounts of direct UV light. Especially those who evolved for it.

And I don't know why Ocean depth of "deep waters" would have any absorbant effect on the UV, please explain how.

Water reflects a large amount of UV and it also absorbs and scatters it once it hits the surface.

Near the coastlines, where there are a lot of dissolved materials, UV levels in the water can only penetrate a meter or two, if at all.

Also, Plants supposedly originate from Cyanobacteria, thus even though one is a...bacteria, the point being is that they both have the same photosynthetic properties, and plants are supposedly of Algae origin.

No, plants did not originate from cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria were incorporated into cells, becoming the first chloroplasts. Same with mitochondria.

Hope that clears up, Blue Green Algae in layman's terms, I call it a "plant" in regards to the overall Genesis creation story. To get technical, it is not a "plant" in Botanical terms.

This is acceptable. Many people like to call any photosynthetic organism a plant.

If you demand proof that Earth formed before its star, do you demand proof that the Solar System formed on its own in the face of Entropy?

Dare I ask? How is entropy an issue?

Do you demand proof of the Sun being the origin of say....Jupiter? Where does all this Hydrogen and Helium come from even? Do you just accept that what's in the Nebula always existed without a cause?

Nebulas have a cause. A supernova (and sometimes other cosmic events)

[Ragna]

And I don't know why Ocean depth of "deep waters" would have any absorbant effect on the UV, please explain how.

Water is composed of molecules, the deeper, the thicker the layer of molecules is, and so the less radiation can go through. Light is also a radiation, and you can perfectly perceive the deeper you go, the darker the ocean is.

Also, Plants supposedly originate from Cyanobacteria, thus even though one is a...bacteria, the point being is that they both have the same photosynthetic properties, and plants are supposedly of Algae origin. Hope that clears up, Blue Green Algae in layman's terms, I call it a "plant" in regards to the overall Genesis creation story. To get technical, it is not a "plant" in Botanical terms.

For your terminology to be legitimate, you have to show that the Genesis knows of the existence of non-macroscopic organisms and makes a eukaryote/prokaryote distinction. Even if cyanobacteria are called blue-green algae, they're not algae, they are still prokaryotes. As I pointed out, mixing these is a non-trivial error.

If you demand proof that Earth formed before its star, do you demand proof that the Solar System formed on its own in the face of Entropy? Do you demand proof of the Sun being the origin of say....Jupiter?

I demand proof that a star's planet can form independent from its star. And anyways, even if this was not enough, you would have to prove plants existing before the Sun. They do photosynthesis, so the Sun forcefully predates them.

Where does all this Hydrogen and Helium come from even? Do you just accept that what's in the Nebula always existed without a cause?

The nebula was formed by preexistent interstellar material, which collapsed and began the process of star formation. This material has passed through generations of other stars which exploded into supernovae, and this goes as far in the past as the Big Bang.

[nursebenjamin]

Also, Plants supposedly originate from Cyanobacteria, thus even though one is a...bacteria, the point being is that they both have the same photosynthetic properties, and plants are supposedly of Algae origin. Hope that clears up, Blue Green Algae in layman's terms, I call it a "plant" in regards to the overall Genesis creation story. To get technical, it is not a "plant" in Botanical terms.

So you admit that the authors of Genesis were kind of stupid when it comes to biology and science. Why is t so hard to also admit that perhaps these authors were completely ignorant as to how Earth formed and life evolved? That Genesis is a poetic creation story and was probably never meant to be taken literally?

[100%atheist]

3. Can cyanobacteria survive without an ozone layer?

Absolutely.

Please back that statement up with a link.

And I don't know why Ocean depth of "deep waters" would have any absorbant effect on the UV, please explain how.

Well... if you like you can read about this phenomena at multiple available sources, for instance here: http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/ha ... sequence=1
or you can believe me that UV electromagnetic radiation is effectively absorbed in the depth of meters to hundreds of meters depending on wavelength.