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?

[nygreenguy]

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.

So what? It wasnt until 3.5 billion year ago the earth was "settled" enough to allow for life. By that time, most thing were pretty calm.

Also, what are "turbulent, pops and bangs"? Those terms dont really make sense to me.

[Shermana]

From what I've been reading, the Sun has been shrinking and 50,000 years ago, life would NOT have been possible.

At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist.

(Debunk the facts, not the source)

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... s_ev_4.htm

[Ragna]

From what I've been reading, the Sun has been shrinking and 50,000 years ago, life would NOT have been possible.

At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist.

(Debunk the facts, not the source)

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... s_ev_4.htm

You have read it, and it says so. But what is the "rate of shrinkage", is it something supported by astrophysicists, is it measurable, is it constant, do they have concerns about such an implied contradiction? How was it calculated? We have to question the source.

[nursebenjamin]

From what I've been reading, the Sun has been shrinking and 50,000 years ago, life would NOT have been possible.

The Sun is getting HOTTER and brighter as it ages. The Sun is shrinking in mass, but not in diameter - it's actually EXPANDING very slowly.[1]

You really should try to avoid the creationist blogs. On creationist sites, you'll find nothing but a bunch of liars misleading the uneducated. How about picking up a science textbook for a change?

At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist.

(Debunk the facts, not the source)

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... s_ev_4.htm

The original source for this claim is an abstract presented at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in 1979, "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1836-1953" by John Eddy & Aram Boornazian. The reference given by your source is an article by Gloria Lubkin in the news section of Physics Today; Gloria Lubkin was reporting on the presentation. It didn't take long for this article to hit the creationist press. But you will note that there is no reference to Eddy & Boornazian; that's because they never published the paper, and later retracted their own results, a minor point that seems to have escaped the creationist gaze all these years.[2][3]

[nygreenguy]

(Debunk the facts, not the source)

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... s_ev_4.htm

you do not get to make the rules of logic and debate. If a source is not credible, then it is like you are posting nothing. Your argument is moot.

The purpose of posting sources is because most people are not professionals. We rely on professionals to interpret the facts.

Anyone can make a website that says anything. why would anyone waste their time trying to counter argue something which can say anything? And how would anyone know the difference? If you want to make a point, why do you resort to such obviously poor sources? If your point is correct, the data should be readily available in a CREDIBLE format.

[Shermana]

And you get to make the rules? Where do the rules say this source isn't credible?

So you're saying if a Creationist site says the Sky is blue, it can't be counted.

Nice way to get around the actual issue of the sun being too hot 50,000 years ago, I appreciate the blatant dodgery.

[100%atheist]

And you get to make the rules? Where do the rules say this source isn't credible?

So you're saying if a Creationist site says the Sky is blue, it can't be counted.

Nice way to get around the actual issue of the sun being too hot 50,000 years ago, I appreciate the blatant dodgery.

Websites that make potentially valid scientific claims normally provide links to scientific sources (aka peer-reviewed publications). All other websites are not worth consideration in discussions of scientific questions.

[nursebenjamin]

And you get to make the rules? Where do the rules say this source isn't credible?

Not all evidence carries the same force. The better quality your evidence, the weightier your evidence would be. Quoting from a prestigious university would carry more weight than quoting from a high school senior's homework posted on his personal website.

Also, if you present evidence from commonly accepted sources, then it would give your evidence more strength. Even better is to present evidence that is from your opponent's side. So, if you are a non-Christian and you present evidence from a Christian website, it would be strong evidence.

The rules dont specifically say that creationist sites are not credible. However, crap lifted from such sites does not carry much weight among those who are fairly scientifically literate.

Nice way to get around the actual issue of the sun being too hot 50,000 years ago, I appreciate the blatant dodery.

Excuse me I actually addressed your argument. Nice blatant doddery of the topic there buddy. The original source for this quote is an abstract from an article that was never published and, in fact, was retracted by the authors more than thirty years ago!

[Shermana]

Okay, so you're allowed to call a source "Crap" without actually debunking it. I see. I didn't know that it was in the rules to do so.

Now They retracted their own results? Show this..

I'm assuming you don't think the Sun goes in cycles.

Show conclusive proof that the Sun didn't have a "hot cycle" 50,000 years ago and is only getting brighter.

[100%atheist]

Okay, so you're allowed to call a source "Crap" without actually debunking it. I see. I didn't know that it was in the rules to do so.

Now They retracted their own results? Show this...

This is because there is NO SOURCE! ](*,) Stop using blogs and pseudo-scientific websites in scientific discussions!