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]

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.

The last time you made even the slightest mention of this argument was three pages and three days ago. So as I said by all indications you have abandoned that line of reasoning. Instead you have stopped discussing it in favor of your new claim that the UV at the time would have been powerful enough to dissociate all of the water on Earth and that the CMBR was strong enough allow photosynthesis. Just wondering have you ever heard of Occams razor?

[Shermana]

Why would you conclude that I've abandoned it because I stopped discussing it? 100%Atheist made an accurate and decisive description that none of the evidence against my case was solid. I have used Occam's razor in many arguments. I think you're under the impression that because I discuss another subject and focus on it after one its been agreed on that none of the counter-claims are solid, that I've given up on it. What else should I say?

[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.

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.

Which points specifically did I stop addressing? I thought 100%Atheist settled the issue that none of it countered anything.

Oh yeah, I started a whole new thread on Isotope dating specifically because of this issue too.

The whole evidence you have is "Dating techniques prove they existed, therefore they must have survived".

Well, that doesn't really fly.

[nygreenguy]

Oh yeah, I started a whole new thread on Isotope dating specifically because of this issue too.

The whole evidence you have is "Dating techniques prove they existed, therefore they must have survived".

Well, that doesn't really fly.

Actually it does. Evidence can not lie.

[100%atheist]

As 100% said ....

Shermana,

I am surprised that I became so authoritative person on the question of Cyanobacteria. I have mentioned several times that I am not discussing Cyanobacteria because my knowledge of this subject is very limited.

My brief (very brief) search of the literature on the subject resulted in a few articles that concluded that a lot of work has to be done to explain who Cyanobacteria could survive high UV levels. Notice that the question is not could it survive or not, but how did it survive. I am not an expert on this field and my interest is to extract from you the logic path by which you have arrived to the conclusion that if Cyanobacteria could not survive the UV light then the Sun did not exist in that time. For this reason, I allowed us to assume Cyanobacteria could not survive the UV light. .... and then we somehow went on to Cosmic Radiation and water dissociation....

[Curious]

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.

Hello JohnPaul. I think you got the wrong end of the stick, no doubt due to my poor explanation. What I mean is that it is not inconceivable that there is a possibility( or even likelihood) that parts of the universe condensed/accreted/formed at different times. Let me just say here that there is no proof that light from the sun is a prerequisite for the formation of complex systems that could ultimately support biological organisms. Light is not needed to support life on earth at all. The only thing needed to support life is an environment that has a modicum of stability and an energy supply. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that life can be manufactured but I am saying that "life" does not need your approval.

[McCulloch]

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.

And here is the bit that the ancients seemed completely unaware of. The sun is one of the stars. There is no hint of this fact in any of the ancient writings attributed to the creator of the stars. The sun's primary difference from the other stars is it proximity to our planet. Now the ancients did have an idea that there are many stars, but not just how many. So, given that there is a vast number of stars, many with planets, is it really that remarkable that at least one is at the right distance to provide energy suitable for life?

[Curious]

And here is the bit that the ancients seemed completely unaware of. The sun is one of the stars. There is no hint of this fact in any of the ancient writings attributed to the creator of the stars. The sun's primary difference from the other stars is it proximity to our planet. Now the ancients did have an idea that there are many stars, but not just how many. So, given that there is a vast number of stars, many with planets, is it really that remarkable that at least one is at the right distance to provide energy suitable for life?

The crazy thing is that we are able to discuss this between ourselves!

[100%atheist]

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.

Hello JohnPaul. I think you got the wrong end of the stick, no doubt due to my poor explanation. What I mean is that it is not inconceivable that there is a possibility( or even likelihood) that parts of the universe condensed/accreted/formed at different times. Let me just say here that there is no proof that light from the sun is a prerequisite for the formation of complex systems that could ultimately support biological organisms. Light is not needed to support life on earth at all. The only thing needed to support life is an environment that has a modicum of stability and an energy supply. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that life can be manufactured but I am saying that "life" does not need your approval.

This actually gives me an idea how to defend some of Shermana's arguments in a broader sense.... Shermana, please do not use this my post to support anything you said before.

We know organisms that require the source of heat only (no light) in order to survive. Even without Sun, the core of our planet is pretty hot providing enough heat for such organisms to survive and evolve. This means that life (not plants!) could in principle survive deep under the surface without light and heat coming to the surface of the planet. Does it make sense to hypothesize life on say Uranus in liquid water lakes several miles underground???

[JohnPaul]

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.

And here is the bit that the ancients seemed completely unaware of. The sun is one of the stars. There is no hint of this fact in any of the ancient writings attributed to the creator of the stars. The sun's primary difference from the other stars is it proximity to our planet. Now the ancients did have an idea that there are many stars, but not just how many. So, given that there is a vast number of stars, many with planets, is it really that remarkable that at least one is at the right distance to provide energy suitable for life?

I agree completely! I was trying to limit my argument strictly to the words of the Bible. That is a little like trying to make a literary analysis of the TV show "Star Trek" and pretend that the faster-than-light "warp drive" can exist without violating Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or at least raising some very strange implications of time-contraction not allowed for in the show!

I also agree that an energy source for life could possibly come from the internal heat of the earth, but plants as we know them would still need light.