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]

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.

What are you talking about? If you're using using cyanobacteria to disprove something, stromatolites being cyanobacteria is something we both agree on. Do you realize how incoherent your criticisms get? This is not an argument I'm using. Don't attempt a smokescreen, it will not work.

Since cyanobacteria do exist, and we are arguing how they could survive, your claim that "they would die out" does not hold as long as there's a possibility for their survival. This possibility exists, and has been pointed out repeatedly throughout several pages. It was quite high. Your claim, therefore, is false.

A logical case presented is all that there's needed to dismiss your claim, unless this case is impossible, which it is not - rocks and water are mostly certain. You have not proven it's impossible for them to survive, we have argued that it's possible and there's no flaw in our plausible scenarios at which you have pointed out legitimately. Your criticisms simply don't stand.

And, well, your evidence is none. Nothing is, certainly, not accepted. For any of your several claims. Time to retract the list I put?

[100%atheist]

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.

And we are still waiting for your evidence supporting your claim that if Cyanobacteria could not survive the UV then the Sun could not exist in the time when Cyanobacteria lived.
Again, in your own words, prove it or retract it.

Best.

100%

P.S.: I understand that for someone like you who does not know the difference between radiation and radioactivity it is extremely (almost impossibly) difficult to discuss modern biology and cosmology topics. Just admit that you cannot support your claims and let's talk about something else that you supposedly know better. ... something like the meaning of soul,.. I don't know.

[Shermana]

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?

[Ragna]

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.

I would just like to point out that you also confused eukaryotes with prokaryotes, something very significant for a person who tries to discuss biology. And you keep calling them BG-algae... even though it's misleading.

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.

Rocks, water, pigments, caves, metals, chemistry.

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.

It's logical that they can. You're the one making a claim that "they can't survive ever" even though they can in certain places and with several structures. You also attempted to compare them to plants, even though that only reveals misunderstanding. I provided earlier with an example of what a bacteria can do so that you finish with this confusion of the two kinds of life forms.

An alga's nucleus' DNA is more related to a human's than to a cyanobacterya's. That's a big difference. Not "plant-like" at all. Actually, plants are "cyanobacteria-like", and you get the order wrong.

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

Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence for the Big Bang. It has nothing to do with the Sun.

[Shermana]

"Rocks, water, pigments, caves, metals, chemistry. "

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

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

[nursebenjamin]

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.

No one threw out your sources. Your source just doesnt support your claims. Ive pointed out several times why your link doesnt support your claims, and each time you have failed to acknowledge or discuss the points raised in my posts.

<<and you base your claim on an Isotope dating method>>
Ive mentioned geologic eras, but my argument is not based solely on an Isotope dating method. Anyhow, radiometric dating is well established science; and this is the science subforum. If you dont want to discuss science, then go back to the mythology and theology subforums.

<<lay off.>>
No, this is a debate forum, and I enjoy debating. Its just courteous for debate participants to acknowledge points raised and to retract claims that can not be supported by evidence.

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

Im not sure who this quote is attributed to.

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

(A) Are you denying the fact that stromatolites exist?
(B) My evidence is not simply the existence of stromatolites. If this is what you think, then you have either a reading comprehension problem, or a reading problem. Please go back and reread our responses to your posts.

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).

This is a strawman argument. No one here ever claimed that cyanobacteria/Stromatolites can or has to survive 1000% the UV. That you continue to make statements such as this means that either you (A) havent read our posts; (B) havent comprehended our posts; (C) are having trouble fitting the facts into your belief system; or (D) are intentionally using a fallacy to obscure your incorrect logic and reasoning.

My argument, and the argument of others 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 for at least 500 million ozone-free years, 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.
(e) Even if, hypothetically, cyanobacteria could not survive before there was an ozone layer, this does not prove your claim that grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees existed before there was a sun.

Nowhere will you find someone arguing that cyanobacteria can resist 1000% the UV.

That's where the stalemate is.

There is no stalemate. You have made claims; I responded. I make claims; you avoid my arguments. The ball is completely in your court.

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

I already have in post 76. Cyanobacteria produce a biofilm that is very effective at shielding harmful UV light.

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.

No, I want you to acknowledge the following:
(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 for at least 500 million ozone-free years, in colonies known as stromatolites. These colonies, still around today, have a biofilm that allows visible light to pass through, but protects the organisms from harmful UV radiation.
(e) Even if, hypothetically, cyanobacteria could not survive before there was an ozone layer, this does not prove your claim that grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees existed before there was a sun.

<< Why don't you prove that it can first.>>
If you send me $5000 bucks, Id be happy to fly to Australia, visit some cyanobacteria colonies at Sharks Bay, and do this experiment.

Or we can listen to scientists who have already researched this, and have found that the minerals in the biofilm of cyanobacteria effectively blocks UV-B and UV-C radiation.

[Ragna]

"Rocks, water, pigments, caves, metals, chemistry. "

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

We know it's possible to survive by these and other mechanisms because it's possible, no more and no less, and no matter how far you want to deny it. Please check the example I gave. You seem to have forgotten extremophiles (some of which survive in the vacuum).

Once again, you can't force nature to fit your beliefs and unsupported claims.

As for rocks, water, caves and metal: yes, they can withstand radiation... they block it, it's pure physics. Have you ever wondered why it's dark in caves and down in the sea? It blocks visible light as well as any other electromagnetic wave.

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

Nice smokescreen. You say it could, I say it couldn't. It's irrelevant whatever you call that. Me and Nygreenguy have already addressed that only sunlight can serve photosynthesis. Cosmic Background Radiation is weak, non-visible radiation at around 3K as far as I remember (yes, -270 C). That can't work.

[Shermana]

You know its possible to survive based on modern Ozone conditions. I don't see why you call my answer to the question of Genesis 1 "Let there be light" a smokescreen. I see you don't even include your own "Old Earth" side's logic that the original CBGR has significantly "cooled" since "15 billion years ago" nor that its evidence of a "Hot Big Bang".

And saying they can withstand radiation is one thing, saying they can prevent Stromatolites from dying before the Ozone is where the evidence is quite lacking. All data is for current-Ozone levels. Your data would have to account for a 1000% increase in UV.

u can't force nature to fit your beliefs and unsupported claims.

I'm force fitting the 1000% increase in UV, and you "force fit" the notion that they must have survived based on Isotope dating of a wide 700 million year span.

[Ragna]

You know its possible to survive based on modern Ozone conditions.

That's plainly false. I specifically included in my last reply the words "in the vacuum". Life can withstand the hardest conditions, and in this case, they didn't even need to be as hard as vacuum (with the several available protections). You are forcing an impossible case to call it pointlessly impossible when a possible one exists.

I don't see why you call my answer to the question of Genesis 1 "Let there be light" a smokescreen.

I also addressed this. Because it doesn't count as anything to make photosynthesis available, therefore it can't help the notion that the Sun came after plants/Earth.

I see you don't even include your own "Old Earth" side's logic that the original CBGR has significantly "cooled" since "15 billion years ago" nor that its evidence of a "Hot Big Bang".

I haven't mentioned any of these.

And saying they can withstand radiation is one thing, saying they can prevent Stromatolites from dying before the Ozone is where the evidence is quite lacking. All data is for current-Ozone levels. Your data would have to account for a 1000% increase in UV.

My "data" is simply a logical case including analogies; the burden of proof is for you if you claim it would be lethal, and you're the one comparing modern to old cyanobacteria and putting the worse possible conditions which weren't necessarily the ones they had, because they weren't unprotected.

I'm force fitting the 1000% increase in UV, and you "force fit" the notion that they must have survived based on Isotope dating of a wide 700 million year span.

I have presented my logic and it didn't mention anything about the age of the Earth. Yet another distraction?

[Shermana]

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.

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.

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