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?

[nursebenjamin]

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. At current Ozone levels.

So what! You are probably not aware of this, but UV covers a large area of the electromagnetic spectrum. Wavelengths of 400 nm"315 nm are known as UV-A. UV-A is no more harmful than electromagnetic radiation given off by a blacklight, which is UV-A.

Earlier I posted a map of UV-B penetration through surface waters. Here it is again:
[center][/center]
Ultraviolet B (UV-B) radiation reaches different depths in ocean water depending on water chemistry, the density of phytoplankton, and the presence of sediment and other particulates. The map above indicates the average depth UV-B penetrates into ocean water. At the depth indicated, only 10 percent of the UV-B radiation that was present at the waters surface remains. The rest was absorbed or scattered back towards the ocean surface. (Image courtesy Vasilkov et al., JGR-Oceans, 2001) [Source]

UV-B exposure decreases rapidly at increasing depths in the water column. And remember, billions and billions of years ago, less UV radiation reached the surface of the earth (the sun was dimmer, and there was more volcanic activity.)

UV-C, wavelengths of 280 nm"100 nm, are known as the germicidal wavelengths. UV-C penetrates hardly anything, and into water not far at all. How far into water UV-C penetrates also is dependent on how much salts, sediment, and other impurities are in the water.

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

.

Whoop-ti-do. Decreasing ozone levels in the atmosphere will harm ecosystems that exist today. But billions of years ago, organisms would have evolved only in places where they would not have been killed by UV-B and UV-C light. Keep reading from that article you provided... A few sentences later it states Marine organisms have evolved ways to protect themselves from UV, including UV-absorbing pigments, the ability to repair DNA damaged by UV, and developing behavior to avoid UV by staying in deeper water.

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.

I cant help it if your sources are crap. The most common cyanobacterial structures in the fossil record are the mound-producing stromatolites (and oncolites.) How do you explain stromatolites surviving at or near the surface if it is not possible to do so?

And how do you explain the fact that cyanobacteria predate an atmosphere containing oxygen?[1] Oxygen levels in the atmosphere did not begin to increase until about 2.3 Ga. But cyanobacteria containing chorophyll and carrying out oxygenic photosynthesis appeared by 2.8 Ga.[ibid.] New evidence suggests that these photosynthesizing cyanobacteria could be as old as 3.5 Ga.

By the way, Ga is a measurement of time denoting the number of billion of years before the present.

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.

Theres that proof word again; remember, science deals with evidence. If there is no shred of proof then why is there evidence that cyanobacteria existed prior to the formation of the ozone layer? By the way, there is absolutely no evidence that grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees lived prior to the formation of the sun.

Theres isnt much more to be said on this subject, is there? Can you now provide evidence for your other claims as Ragna previously requested:

1) The Earth existed before the Sun. (Debunked by astrophysics)

2) Plants existed before th Sun. (Debunked by photosynthesis)

3) Plants could use "other light" that was not sunlight. (Debunked by photosynthesis)

4) Genesis is accurate. Please address my question of Genesis 1:7. (Debunked by the real world)

[Shermana]

Calling my sources "crap" I believe is against the rules.

If being able to ignore someone's sources without effectively disproving them and call them "crap" counts as debate, I'd like to see the part on the rules that states this.

Also, if you believe that Cyanobacteria did NOT form the Ozone layer, you are up against all other sources. Asking me how I explain Stromatolites doesn't explain how they came to be in the first place.

Your argument is: Since they are there, they MUST have endured 1000% UV , while dismissing my source as "crap".

Nice.

If there is no shred of proof then why is there evidence that cyanobacteria existed prior to the formation of the ozone layer?

You see, you need to PROVE that it existed before the Ozone layer and endured 1000% UV before you call it evidence.

Calling something "evidence" that's not proven, I think is against the rules.

[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.

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.

Where did I conflate plants with Cyanobacteria in this post? Do I have to say AGAIN that I use the word "plants" because of Genesis? Do you really think making an issue about my use of "plants" and CyanoBACTERIA (let me repeat that BACTERIA part) makes a difference in the argument? I'm not conflating them, I know the difference between them, but am using it for Genesis reference sake.

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.

I've said this multiple times, but you keep harping on it like I never did, why is that?

So far, the "evidence" that Stromatolites existed before the Ozone layer....is kinda not proven, and goes AGAINST what every source is saying that they FORMED the Ozone layer. So there's no actual proof that these Stromatolites existed prior to the Ozone with any kind of pigment that could protect from 1000% UV. You're saying simply because they exist, they MUST have done so. That's a nice THEORY but it is not EVIDENCE.

Don't act like it's Evidence unless you can prove these Stromotolites DEFINITELY could endure 1000% UV.

So if I make the claim that BG Algae cannot exist without an Ozone layer, you show the proof that it CAN. There's a reason no one wants to show any direct evidence of these pigments being able to withstand 1000% the UV. Unless we see any, MY POINT IS PROVEN

[Wyvern]

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.

That's just it though cyanobacteria have no plant like stuctures and yes here you are conflating the two yet again. Please tell me what plant like structures cyanobacteria have?

I've said this multiple times, but you keep harping on it like I never did, why is that?

Because you keep saying cyanobacteria are plants or plantlike which is not true Just because both can photosythesize does not make them similar.

So far, the "evidence" that Stromatolites existed before the Ozone layer....is kinda not proven, and goes AGAINST what every source is saying that they FORMED the Ozone layer.

When did I mention stromatolites? Do you realize what you are saying? How is saying cyanobacteria formed the ozone layer going against them existing before the ozone layer formed?

So if I make the claim that BG Algae cannot exist without an Ozone layer, you show the proof that it CAN. There's a reason no one wants to show any direct evidence of these pigments being able to withstand 1000% the UV. Unless we see any, MY POINT IS PROVEN

We finally get to your basic misunderstanding of how this whole debate thing works. When you make a claim it is your job to provide evidence that your claim is true, not that any other idea is false and it certainly is not the job of the rest of us to disprove your unevidenced claim. If you don't want to provide evidence for your claims that's fine but don't expect anyone else to give it any credence.

[100%atheist]

MY POINT IS PROVEN

Shermana,

I still wait for the arguments supporting your claim that the inability of Cyanobacteria to survive without an Ozone layer proves the Sun did not exist in that time.

Let me rephrase my question in your own words: prove or retract.

Respectfully,

100%

[Shermana]

The claim that they can survive at 1000% UV has not been proven, or retracted. It has only been estimated without any proof that such pigments can survive such intensity. What I've proven is that there is no evidence of this happening, thus, my point is proven. Inductive reasoning is the very basis of my argument.

I've also asked for numbers involving what depth the original Cyanobacteria originated, since there is a level that Photosynthesis cannot occur at all, as well as in relation to the points I mentioned.

[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.

[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.

Actually, I just found something interesting.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 854893.htm

It seems that some organisms don't need sunlight to produce oxygen. RIP Cyanobacteria.

[Wyvern]

The claim that they can survive at 1000% UV has not been proven, or retracted.

You have not proven that the UV levels back then were as high as you claim, all you have is your own extrapolation of the estimate given by NASA. Why should your estimate be accepted without question but you refuse the same from others.

It has only been estimated without any proof that such pigments can survive such intensity. What I've proven is that there is no evidence of this happening, thus, my point is proven. Inductive reasoning is the very basis of my argument.

What you have ignored is that cyanobacteria has more than pigmentation to protect it from UV as well as ignoring that cyanobacteria also has methods of repairing any damage done by UV radiation that gets past its defenses. Your reasoning only works because you ignore or refuse to accept any evidence which runs counter to your idea.

I've also asked for numbers involving what depth the original Cyanobacteria originated, since there is a level that Photosynthesis cannot occur at all, as well as in relation to the points I mentioned.

As has been shown by a number of people here there are many places in the oceans where uv radiation only penetrates a few meters.

[nursebenjamin]

Calling my sources "crap" I believe is against the rules.

If being able to ignore someone's sources without effectively disproving them and call them "crap" counts as debate, I'd like to see the part on the rules that states this.

First of all, you have not backed up any of your claims with sources " this is specifically against the rules. I suspect that you are getting your information from sites such as www.answersingenesis.org; however, since you are not sourcing your information, this is just a guess. I am free to think that creation blogs are crap just as you are free to think that scientific journals are crap.

I am only ignoring your sources because you have failed to provide any relevant sources. Of the only two links that you have provided so far, one was of a scuba diver who finds UV light 200m underwater. I tried explaining to you that this UV light would be mostly UV-A and completely harmless. The other link that you provided specifically states that Marine organisms have evolved ways to protect themselves from UV, including UV-absorbing pigments, the ability to repair DNA damaged by UV, and developing behavior to avoid UV by staying in deeper water. Your links simply do not support your argument that cyanobacteria could not have evolved ways to survive prior to there being an ozone layer.

Again, please source your claim that cyanobacteria could not have survived without the ozone layer. Any source will do Ill even accept www.answersingenesis.org because I would love to read from where you are pulling these arguments.

Also, if you believe that Cyanobacteria did NOT form the Ozone layer, you are up against all other sources.

Im not sure why you think that this is my argument. Allow me to clarify: cyanobacteria were largely responsible for the appearance of large amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere.[2] These cyanobacteria lived in colonies known as stromatolites. The biomineralization of the stromatolite colonies would have protected the cyanobacteria from UV-B and UV-C radiation.

And now I'm really confused as to what you are arguing. If your sources provide evidence that cyanobacteria produced the oxygen that formed the ozone layer, then I agree completely with your sources.

Asking me how I explain Stromatolites doesn't explain how they came to be in the first place.

Ummm, Evolution explains how stromatolites came to be. I was asking for you to explain your claim that they could not have survived in the absence of an ozone layer. Stromatolites survived for more than 500 million years without there being oxygen in the atmosphere (or an ozone layer).

Your argument is: Since they are there, they MUST have endured 1000% UV

No it isnt. My argument is:

(A) Billions of years ago, less UV radiation reached the surface of the earth (the sun was dimmer, and there was more volcanic activity.)
(B) Harmful UV exposure decreases rapidly at increasing depths in the water column.
(C) Marine organisms evolved ways to protect themselves from UV, including UV-absorbing pigments, the ability to repair DNA damaged by UV, and developing behavior to avoid UV by staying in deeper water.
(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.

You see, you need to PROVE that it existed before the Ozone layer and endured 1000% UV before you call it evidence.

And theres that prove word again. You do realize that the word proof isnt used in science, right?

Cyanobacteria fossils date to at least 2.8 Ga, and possibly 3.5 Ga. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere did not begin to increase until about 2.3 Ga. You can look these dates up yourself in any encyclopedia or scientific literature if you wish; however, I provided a source for you in an earlier post.