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?

[Curious]

No, I am saying that radiation is only one of the mechanisms of heat dissipation. Clue for you: think of phonons.

So you agree that light is emitted.

If what you say is true, Einstein got his Nobel prize for nothing.

Really? Why exactly?

Hitting a nail with a hammer does NOT lead to light emission, sorry.
You need an electron transition between energy levels in order to emit photons (let's leave Bremsstrahlung radiation aside for now). You can't do it with a hummer, it's simply not enough energy (per atom per second). The energy that you supply will be dissipated through elastic and plastic deformations of the nail and the material under the nail. Yes, this is where your energy will go. Surprised?

Hit a nail with a hammer and actually do some experimental physics. Infrared radiation IS emitted.

Yes, that's what the Big Bang theory predicts.

So are you for or against my position in this debate? You seem to agree with me in principle.

[Goat]

No, I am saying that radiation is only one of the mechanisms of heat dissipation. Clue for you: think of phonons.

So you agree that light is emitted.

If what you say is true, Einstein got his Nobel prize for nothing.

Really? Why exactly?

Hitting a nail with a hammer does NOT lead to light emission, sorry.
You need an electron transition between energy levels in order to emit photons (let's leave Bremsstrahlung radiation aside for now). You can't do it with a hummer, it's simply not enough energy (per atom per second). The energy that you supply will be dissipated through elastic and plastic deformations of the nail and the material under the nail. Yes, this is where your energy will go. Surprised?

Hit a nail with a hammer and actually do some experimental physics. Infrared radiation IS emitted.

Yes, that's what the Big Bang theory predicts.

So are you for or against my position in this debate? You seem to agree with me in principle.

Have you gone outside at night, and seen how much light we can see outside? Do you think that is enough to grow plants?

If you don't, there, what evidence , outside of ancient tales , that there would be enough light for plants?

[Shermana]

Cosmic Background Radiation would have been mighty hot and light-producing back in the day before it cooled down.

[100%atheist]

Cosmic Background Radiation would have been mighty hot and light-producing back in the day before it cooled down.

Before it cooled down, there could be no planets nor stars.

[100%atheist]

No, I am saying that radiation is only one of the mechanisms of heat dissipation. Clue for you: think of phonons.

So you agree that light is emitted.

The light is emitted, but not "liberated". I just had a feeling that "liberated photons" could mean for some people that photons are "trapped", which is inaccurate at best.

If what you say is true, Einstein got his Nobel prize for nothing.

Really? Why exactly?

Here I mean photoelectric effect. It basically explains why the increase in the intensity of light does not lead to the increase in photoelectric voltage. You are implying that in the converse effect the number of emitted photon will always be proportional to the mechanical (or electrical) energy that you supply, which is inaccurate and in many cases wrong.

Hitting a nail with a hammer does NOT lead to light emission, sorry.
You need an electron transition between energy levels in order to emit photons (let's leave Bremsstrahlung radiation aside for now). You can't do it with a hummer, it's simply not enough energy (per atom per second). The energy that you supply will be dissipated through elastic and plastic deformations of the nail and the material under the nail. Yes, this is where your energy will go. Surprised?

Hit a nail with a hammer and actually do some experimental physics. Infrared radiation IS emitted.

Thank you, I am doing experimental physics for many years and I can ensure you that it is unlikely you observe much of the changes in infrared radiation. In principle, if you have an ideal metal and increases its temperature by doing mechanical work on it, you will change the spectrum of the infrared radiation (which is the blackbody radiation spectrum). I am not sure about the total number of photons generated.
Most of the heat that you can feel when you do mechanical work is coming to your body due to conductive (not radiative) heating.

Yes, that's what the Big Bang theory predicts.

So are you for or against my position in this debate? You seem to agree with me in principle.

What is your position in this debate? I have nothing against the Big Bang, in principle.

[Curious]

Have you gone outside at night, and seen how much light we can see outside? Do you think that is enough to grow plants?

If you don't, there, what evidence , outside of ancient tales , that there would be enough light for plants?

Of course, there is less ambient light now, but the early solar system was far more turbulent than it is now, with a lot more pops and bangs.

[Goat]

Have you gone outside at night, and seen how much light we can see outside? Do you think that is enough to grow plants?

If you don't, there, what evidence , outside of ancient tales , that there would be enough light for plants?

Of course, there is less ambient light now, but the early solar system was far more turbulent than it is now, with a lot more pops and bangs.

Yes, it was.

What evidence do you have that it would be enough to grow plants? Please show your work.. or point me to a peer reviewed astrophysics article.

[Curious]

The light is emitted, but not "liberated". I just had a feeling that "liberated photons" could mean for some people that photons are "trapped", which is inaccurate at best.

I am so glad we agree.

Here I mean photoelectric effect. It basically explains why the increase in the intensity of light does not lead to the increase in photoelectric voltage. You are implying that in the converse effect the number of emitted photon will always be proportional to the mechanical (or electrical) energy that you supply, which is inaccurate and in many cases wrong.

Where did I do that? I can't remember mentioning anything of the k

Thank you, I am doing experimental physics for many years and I can ensure you that it is unlikely you observe much of the changes in infrared radiation. In principle, if you have an ideal metal and increases its temperature by doing mechanical work on it, you will change the spectrum of the infrared radiation (which is the blackbody radiation spectrum). I am not sure about the total number of photons generated.
Most of the heat that you can feel when you do mechanical work is coming to your body due to conductive (not radiative) heating.

Seriously, do an experiment and see.

What is your position in this debate? I have nothing against the Big Bang, in principle.

But do you agree with it?

[100%atheist]

In principle, if you have an ideal metal and increases its temperature by doing mechanical work on it, you will change the spectrum of the infrared radiation (which is the blackbody radiation spectrum). I am not sure about the total number of photons generated.
Most of the heat that you can feel when you do mechanical work is coming to your body due to conductive (not radiative) heating.

Seriously, do an experiment and see.

Seriously, please tell me what effects are you talking about?

[100%atheist]

Here I mean photoelectric effect. It basically explains why the increase in the intensity of light does not lead to the increase in photoelectric voltage. You are implying that in the converse effect the number of emitted photon will always be proportional to the mechanical (or electrical) energy that you supply, which is inaccurate and in many cases wrong.

Where did I do that? I can't remember mentioning anything of the k

I've got it from your light-from-the-nail example. If you didn't mean a continuous dependence of light on supplied energy, then I apologize though most people on this forum would probably be confused.


Maybe we are just looking at the same problem from two different ends.

What is your position in this debate? I have nothing against the Big Bang, in principle.

But do you agree with it?

For Jesus Christ sake! How can I disagree with the mainstream science theory if it is not my research field!