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?

[Wyvern]

Evaporation = Boiling point is reached and molecules start colliding with each other as they move quickly.

Photodissociation = The breakdown of compounds via strong light.

So why didn't Ocean Evaporation create the Ozone?

It's simple really, for ozone to form it requires free oxygen in the atmosphere. Water regardless if it is in its liquid or gaseous state has its oxygen firmly bonded to two hydrogen atoms and thus provides none.

[100%atheist]

Evaporation = Boiling point is reached and molecules start colliding with each other as they move quickly.

Photodissociation = The breakdown of compounds via strong light.

So why didn't Ocean Evaporation create the Ozone?

Can you help me to find where I said that evaporated water creates Ozone?
If I did this mistake I apologize, but I can't find it....

[Shermana]

You did not say it, I misunderstood from Wyvern's post. Evaporated water cannot make Ozone, only Disassociated Oxygen, my error on that. Now do you have a link at least to back up your counter against those links that say such Disassociation would happen?

[100%atheist]

You did not say it, I misunderstood from Wyvern's post. Evaporated water cannot make Ozone, only Disassociated Oxygen, my error on that. Now do you have a link at least to back up your counter against those links that say such Disassociation would happen?

Grhmm... Shermana, I am not going to spend my time on debunking every personal opinion that you might find on the internet.

Nevertheless, for you to better understand the process, I gave some numbers above for the minimum energy of photons that you need to supply to break bonds in water. In fact, you need more energy to propel oxygen and hydrogen out of the liquid (away from each other), otherwise they will simply combine again in water molecules. For this reason, although dissociation of water is theoretically possible with 240 nm light, one needs at least 190 nm or even better 150 nm light to initiate feasible dissociation. And the sun light does not have much light (I would say there is basically no light) with such short wavelengths.

[nygreenguy]

You did not say it, I misunderstood from Wyvern's post. Evaporated water cannot make Ozone, only Disassociated Oxygen, my error on that. Now do you have a link at least to back up your counter against those links that say such Disassociation would happen?

Back to the topic of evidence...

If evidence is not posted from a reputable source (peer reviewed journal, a proper government agency, etc....) then it is not the burden of anyone to respond since the evidence fails to meet the proper criteria FOR evidence. Posting claims from shoddy sources is equivalent to posting nothing at all.

So, no one doubts photodissassociation happens, but its not on the magnitude of anything significant enough to remove the water from earth.

[Curious]

What's with the sun must come before plants argument.According to Genesis, light came before the earth had form and there was night and day . Unless you can prove that light cannot emanate from somewhere else (such as the cosmic background radiation), you cannot reasonably argue that the earth could not, under any circumstances,form before the sun, and that the earth and moon could not become locked in orbit after the condensation of the sun from the surrounding energy.

[JohnPaul]

What's with the sun must come before plants argument.According to Genesis, light came before the earth had form and there was night and day . Unless you can prove that light cannot emanate from somewhere else (such as the cosmic background radiation), you cannot reasonably argue that the earth could not, under any circumstances,form before the sun, and that the earth and moon could not become locked in orbit after the condensation of the sun from the surrounding energy.

Certainly, light can and does come from other sources than the sun. They are called stars! Stars are very intense generators of light, but they are located at such a great distance from earth that only a tiny bit of their light reaches the earth. If you have ever been outdoors on a moonless night, you may have noticed that starlight is a little too dim to support the growth of plants.

Not only is light from the sun necessary for plant life on earth, but the sun, located at exactly the right distance from earth, also provides the energy source and heat necessary to make the earth habitable for any kind of life.

[Wyvern]

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.

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.

First off it is Shermana that has by all indications abandoned the cyanobacteria argument. Secondly just because an old book states something does not make it true. Thirdly you seem to have fallen into the same mistake that Shermana did in not recognizing that cyanobacteria are not plants. Fourthly even if the scientific consensus of how the ozone layer formed was shown to be absolutely false that does not mean creation is correct in any way, it still needs to be scientifically proven to be considered scientifically true.

Fifth and finally this is not a place for you to advertise your junk, don't be surprised to find yourself banned in the morning.

[Shermana]

Where did I "abandon" the Cyanobacteria argument? As 100% said, nothing's conclusive that it could survive. Don't make conclusions on what I have or haven't abandoned.

[nursebenjamin]

Where did I "abandon" the Cyanobacteria argument? As 100% said, nothing's conclusive that it could survive. Don't make conclusions on what I have or haven't abandoned.

You abandoned the Cyanobacteria argument pages ago when you failed to address points raised, questions and whole posts.

Your claim is that it is 100% impossible for life to have existed before there was an ozone layer. You have failed to provide any evidence in support of this claim. You make assertions, but you don't support your assertions with evidence.

Moreover, there is evidence that oxygen began to accumulate in the atmosphere 2.3-2.4 billion years ago. There is also evidence that at this pint in time, life had been around for 100's of millions of years.