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?

[JohnPaul]

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.

I agree that life does not need my approval. I have tried expressing my very strong disapproval of weeds in my lawn, but they grow anyway!

Certainly different parts of the universe formed at different times, and the process is still continuing now. The universe is estimated to contain at least 40 thousand billion billion stars (only about 7000 visible with the naked eye), and some have already been observed to have planets around them.

I do not see how our own earth could have formed except as part of the same process that formed the sun and other planets in our solar system. There may be some question about the exact relative timing of events, but certainly by the time the earth had cooled down to the point where life was possible on it, the sun and the earth would have been in the same relative positions they are now.

It may be possible that some "brown dwarf" star somewhere without planets could cool down to the point where some kind of life might develop on the cooled star itself, without light, but most life as we know it on earth certainly needs a sun.

[Ragna]

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???

Who knows. Look at Europa, which presumably has liquid water under its ice layer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(mo ... trial_life

[Curious]

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.

But heating something up produces light. Bombarding atoms with various wavelengths of energy liberates photons. The early universe would be literally bathed in light even before the formation of the stars.

[JohnPaul]

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.

But heating something up produces light. Bombarding atoms with various wavelengths of energy liberates photons. The early universe would be literally bathed in light even before the formation of the stars.

Heating something up certainly does produce light if it is hot enough, as in the glowing filament of a light bulb, but this is far too hot for any kind of life to exist. The chemical stability necessary for the organized structure of life simply cannot exist at such extreme temperatures.

The far lower temperature of boiling water is commonly used to sterilize things, although I believe some very strange life forms have been found in boiling water near volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean. Granted that these do exist in hot conditions without light, but their civilization is quite limited.

Atoms may emit photons, but they also absorb photons. The light which bathed the early universe only microseconds after the Big Bang (or creation, if you prefer) occured before it had cooled enough to allow the formation of atoms, stars, or anything else. Certainly you are not suggesting that the earth was around then?

The science-fiction concept of some kind of plasma "life" existing in the 10 million degree temperatures of the corona of the sun is best left for another thread.

[100%atheist]

But heating something up produces light.

Not necessarily.

Bombarding atoms with various wavelengths of energy liberates photons.

Incorrect. Photons cannot be "liberated". Only bombarding atoms with particles that energy exceeds very specific threshold energies will produce photons.

The early universe would be literally bathed in light even before the formation of the stars.

The early universe is called the early universe exactly because it was the universe before the formation of stars.

[nygreenguy]

The far lower temperature of boiling water is commonly used to sterilize things, although I believe some very strange life forms have been found in boiling water near volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean. Granted that these do exist in hot conditions without light, but their civilization is quite limited.

These are considered to be the first types of life. Extremophiles show that life can develop, adapt and evolve in extreme condition.

[MrReality]

You all have it wrong! You must think about what your saying.

You can debate whether the Sun or the planets were created first, when stars first got there, this junk about protons - fine. Do that if you want.

But in fact, when it comes to everything we know about the universe, it is clear that is impossible to leave God out of the equation. By doing that, you are in fact insulting science.

Have you not considered "first cause"?

You see, there had to be a beginning to everything - there was matter before evolution, there was matter before the Big Bang, there had to be a beginning of everything. Otherwise you are simply suggesting that SOMETHING came from NOTHING. In other words, at some point, the first piece of matter had to have been created. It is against scientific fact to suggest that something came from nothing.

Forget the theories about the origins of life itself! Consider this: If life stemmed from the backs of crystals, as some scientists suggest, or some other source, that source had to come from somewhere, and that source from somewhere as well. Eventually, you get to a point where there was a first cause.

Something simply cannot emerge from nothing. Try to explain the origin of the first proton without suggesting there is a God or an Intelligent Designer to first create it. Simple logic tells us that you can't! There was a beginning to the beginning. How can this clear problem be solved without God in the equation?

If you can answer that question, you'll be rich in no time. Good luck. Forget the rest of this silly debate: it starts with this basic problem (and it is impossible to solve without God).

[100%atheist]

You see, there had to be a beginning to everything - there was matter before evolution, there was matter before the Big Bang, there had to be a beginning of everything.

Stop right here. Go read some books (not the Bible), and then come back with any possible support of your claim that "there was matter before the Big Bang".
The Nobel Prize will be waiting for you!

Brief note: at the Big Bang there was no matter [so how could it be before? ], and there is a good possibility (read Hawking) that the universe has no beginning (and no end).

[100%atheist]

Otherwise you are simply suggesting that SOMETHING came from NOTHING. In other words, at some point, the first piece of matter had to have been created. It is against scientific fact to suggest that something came from nothing.

1) FYI. Find a single claim of a scientist that something came from nothing. Quite a few theists however claim this nonsense who either lack education (and thus sincerely wrong) or distort facts.
2) And your god created everything from WHAT?

[MrReality]

My point is being misunderstood. Suggesting there was nothing before the Big Bang simply makes no logical sense. Even leave out God for a second. From nothing (point before Big Bang) emerges something (universe after Big Bang).

Hawking writes: Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own."

If there was nothing, where was gravity? Gravity is, basically, an application of force on something. Earth's gravity is a force that pulls a body toward the center of the Earth.

I'm specifically talking about the point where there was truly nothing. At that point, gravity would have been pulling nothing, towards nothing! Resulting in nothing happening. Right? Not according to you. It farted out a universe. You believe this is possible, yet (probably) doubt how it would be possible for Jesus to be resurrected.

By the way, the question "God created something from what?" is an invalid question. If He is God, the all-powerful, science need not be applied here. As God, HE CAN create something from nothing. Why? Because He is God.

And "Because Hawking said so" is a stupid argument. He may be the leading scientist of the day, and no doubt he's an exceptionally brilliant man, but hey, so was the guy who thought the world was flat. The most credible scientist today may be the least credible in 500 years.