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]

I think I've been wrong about this 1000% number. Says the NASA Simulation....

By the end of the model run in 2065, global ozone drops to 110 DU, a 67 percent drop from the 1970s. Year-round polar values hover between 50 and 100 DU (down from 300-500 in 1960). The intensity of UV radiation at Earth's surface doubles; at certain shorter wavelengths, intensity rises by as much as 10,000 times. Skin cancer-causing radiation soars.

So at 67% gone, it's 10,000x, not 10x the intensity. So the calculations have to overcome 1,000,000% the Intensity rather than 1000%. My mistake. But that's according to these DU values. Calculating that the sun was 30% dimmer according to that link, the value becomes somewhere between 700%-700,000% accordingly, with variations in places on the Earth.

[100%atheist]

I think I've been wrong about this 1000% number. Says the NASA Simulation....

By the end of the model run in 2065, global ozone drops to 110 DU, a 67 percent drop from the 1970s. Year-round polar values hover between 50 and 100 DU (down from 300-500 in 1960). The intensity of UV radiation at Earth's surface doubles; at certain shorter wavelengths, intensity rises by as much as 10,000 times. Skin cancer-causing radiation soars.

So at 67% gone, it's 10,000x, not 10x the intensity. So the calculations have to overcome 1,000,000% the Intensity rather than 1000%. My mistake. But that's according to these DU values. Calculating that the sun was 30% dimmer according to that link, the value becomes somewhere between 700%-700,000% accordingly, with variations in places on the Earth.

Shermana,
Do you understand what does the "intensity at certain wavelengths" mean? If not, I would really like to try to educate you.
100%

P.S.: Think about looking at a daylight-lit object through a red light filter and with a naked eye. The intensity of light at ~600 nm may change by several thousand times.

[100%atheist]

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.

Oh stop it please.

The intensity of light is I = I0 x exp(- A * L)
where I0, the intensity of light entering a material. A is the absorption coefficient of the material, and L is the thickness of the material.

The absorption coefficient of water (and all materials) depends on the wavelength of light and on the impurities in water.

Get the absorption coefficient for "dirt" for the wavelength you want and the rest is simple.

[Shermana]

Well which certain "Shorter" wave lengths are they referring to exactly, Indigo?

[100%atheist]

Well which certain "Shorter" wave lengths are they referring to exactly, Indigo?

Unfortunately, one usually cannot say how much more light is arriving to a surface if it is said that the intensity is increased by xx at a certain wavelength. In order to evaluate the power (the power density is what actually causes radiation damage [NOT radioactive death!!! :]) which is delivered to the surface, one needs to integrate the entire spectrum, or some part of the spectrum if we are considering a certain band of radiation such as UV light.

It is therefore pointless to make any conclusions about the intensity of UV light based on a somewhat misleading statement that at some wavelength the intensity increases by 'blah' percents.

[Wyvern]

Well which certain "Shorter" wave lengths are they referring to exactly, Indigo?

Considering this is coming from your own article it is your responsibility to identify the exact wavelengths being discussed. Until you can verify that it is UV-B being discussed you can not assume that is the wavelengths increasing 10kx. In fact according to your article a 67% drop in the ozone level results in merely a doubling of UV levels not the 1000-10000x increase. As it turns out your argument according to your article is that cyanobacteria can not exist with a doubling of the ozone.

Why would an article mention UV levels specifically doubling and then say certain shorter wavelengths and then you come along and assume these shorter wavelengths is UV even though UV is specifically mentioned in the article?

[100%atheist]

Well which certain "Shorter" wave lengths are they referring to exactly, Indigo?

Considering this is coming from your own article it is your responsibility to identify the exact wavelengths being discussed. Until you can verify that it is UV-B being discussed you can not assume that is the wavelengths increasing 10kx. In fact according to your article a 67% drop in the ozone level results in merely a doubling of UV levels not the 1000-10000x increase. As it turns out your argument according to your article is that cyanobacteria can not exist with a doubling of the ozone.

Why would an article mention UV levels specifically doubling and then say certain shorter wavelengths and then you come along and assume these shorter wavelengths is UV even though UV is specifically mentioned in the article?

I actually can argue that those "shorter wavelengths" refers to UV because the study was on visible/UV light. But again, if you have an increase in intensity at certain wavelengths it tells NOTHING about the increase in power (or a fraction of power) as a result of the intensity increase at a given frequency.

Shermana just needs better education, don't be too hard on him.

[nursebenjamin]

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.

My argument has never really been that cyanobacteria can survive at high UV levels. My argument is that there's conclusive evidence supporting the fact that cyanobacteria did exist prior to the oxygenation of the atmospheric and the formation of the an ozone layer, and that this organism evolved to survive in that environment.

I dont know how much UV light was reaching the surface of Earth 2-3 billion years ago, and no one here has offered any evidence that UV levels were high.

We know that the Great Oxygenation Event began about ~2.4 billion years ago. Evidence for this are the abundant banded iron formations found in sedimentary rocks, and from estimations of atmospheric oxygen from this period.[9]

There are conclusive fossils of cyanobacteria dating to at least 2.8 billion years ago, and possibly earlier. Ive not seen any peer-review articles suggesting that cyanobacteria could not have survived in this pre-oxygen environment.

But you are correct, if it is found that Cyanobacteria could not survive in this ozone-free early earth atmosphere, that doesnt mean that Genesis, or any other creation myth, is correct by default.

<<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.>>
Thats has also one of my points, and has gone repeatedly unaddressed by Shermana.

<<Cyanobacteria might be not the first oxygen producing organism.>>
This is likely, but also irrelevant to the OP. Moreover, the 2.8 million year old fossils of cyanobacteria could produce oxygen.

[D]oubling the thickness of shielding will square the shielding effect.

Oh stop it please.

The intensity of light is I = I0 x exp(- A * L)

Same thing, I think. But, does the thickness of the material even matter for non-ionizing radiation?

[100%atheist]

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.

My argument has never really been that cyanobacteria can survive at high UV levels. My argument is that there's conclusive evidence supporting the fact that cyanobacteria did exist prior to the oxygenation of the atmospheric and the formation of the an ozone layer, and that this organism evolved to survive in that environment.

I dont know how much UV light was reaching the surface of Earth 2-3 billion years ago, and no one here has offered any evidence that UV levels were high.

We know that the Great Oxygenation Event began about ~2.4 billion years ago. Evidence for this are the abundant banded iron formations found in sedimentary rocks, and from estimations of atmospheric oxygen from this period.[9]

There are conclusive fossils of cyanobacteria dating to at least 2.8 billion years ago, and possibly earlier. Ive not seen any peer-review articles suggesting that cyanobacteria could not have survived in this pre-oxygen environment.

But you are correct, if it is found that Cyanobacteria could not survive in this ozone-free early earth atmosphere, that doesnt mean that Genesis, or any other creation myth, is correct by default.

<<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.>>
Thats has also one of my points, and has gone repeatedly unaddressed by Shermana.

<<Cyanobacteria might be not the first oxygen producing organism.>>
This is likely, but also irrelevant to the OP. Moreover, the 2.8 million year old fossils of cyanobacteria could produce oxygen.

Maybe there is some strong evidence that Cyanobacteria did survive UV of the early Earth. OF COURSE, if it lived in that time, it did survive the conditions of that time. What we don't know for sure however is how it survived. A different level of UV? In shallow waters of the ocean? Under rocks? There is also a nonzero possibility that oxygen was produced by other organism (not Cyanobacteria). However, my interest is in where does Shermana go with his argument about Cyanobacteria in relation to the topic of the original post. It looks that he turned his back on this topic and on requests to present any evidence/support for his claims. This is sad that he has so little self-respect and self-confidence that he refuses to retract his claims.

[D]oubling the thickness of shielding will square the shielding effect.

Oh stop it please.

The intensity of light is I = I0 x exp(- A * L)

Same thing, I think. But, does the thickness of the material even matter for non-ionizing radiation?

No-no. You said quadratic before. The dependence is actually exponential that is not at all the same as quadratic. It is similar to quadratic for very thin layers, but the deviation will quickly progress with increasing the thickness. Let's be accurate in such relatively simple things.

Of course thickness matters for all types of interactions of light with materials. Think of visible light and a semi-transparent material. As thickness increases, less light goes through the layer; however notice there will be no ionization involved in propagation of light through the semi-transparent layer.

[Shermana]

"This is sad that he has so little self-respect and self-confidence that he refuses to retract his claims.

"

1. Again, this kind of comment is 100% against the rules. Making comments about my self-respect and self-confidence only proves the intent of the opposition that its about trying to make personal attacks. Refrain yourself.

2. If there's no evidence that Cyanobacteria could survive before an Ozone layer, and there's no direct evidence they did survive (if using the Isotope tests for "evidence", get into the details of why they HAD to have existed), and it basically boils down to "They HAD to have existed thus they existed before the sun", then I see no reason to retract. As it stands, my claim that the Sun would have killed everything and nulls the theory about life today will not be retracted until its proven that such life could exist. Otherwise, inductive reasoning clearly points to the fact that there's an error in the standard model here.

3. If it's proven that the current model of Cyanobacteria producing the Ozone layer is WRONG then Science will have to take a whole new look into the development.

4. Microcosmic Background Radiatoin could have easily been "hot" enough back in the day to provide light.

5. My claim is not retracted since it kind of proves that under conditions as we know it, Cyanobacteria could NOT have existed to produce the Ozone layer, so the issue of the sun and its development for plants is thus thrown into a loop until direct evidence is provided that the Cyanobacteria evolved. For example, you claim that

There is also a nonzero possibility that oxygen was produced by other organism (not Cyanobacteria)

, but you see, if that were true, then every single Science textbook would have to be rewritten. At the very least ,we have exposed a major flaw in the current model, which completely depends on these Isotope dating methods to prove the CB existed before the sun, and there lies the ONLY "evidence" for this theory....and again, I offered to make another thread about Isotope dating accuracy.

6. Again, stay away from comments about self-respect and self-confidence if you want to look impartial.

7. In conclusion, unless its proven how they survived and that they did in FACT 100% survive, my claim stands, that life could not exist of any kind before the Ozone layer, thus the current model is at the very least flawed. If you don't want to inductively make the leap that this disproves the idea of a sun existing before the Ozone layer, you're welcome to, but I see no reason to retract it since my claim is fully supported, and the only evidence against it is the CLAIM that Cyanobacteria did exist at the time before the Ozone layer, which as you said earlier, doesn't seem to so solid of a case.

8. If you have a problem with me not retracting a claim that you claim I don't have evidence for, please click on that ! button and make your complaint. Until then, evidence points to the idea that NOTHING could live with a sun in place first, thus, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that it DID.