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?

[nursebenjamin]

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...

Arguments that were debunked over thirty years ago are "crap", in my opinion.

[Shermana]

So where is it proven that the Sun doesn't go through cycles and is ONLY getting hotter and couldn't have been so hot 50,000 years ago?

When they retracted their claims, what did they say exactly?

[100%atheist]

So where is it proven that the Sun doesn't go through cycles and is ONLY getting hotter and couldn't have been so hot 50,000 years ago?

When they retracted their claims, what did they say exactly?

How hot? Can you give a source to what you are talking about?

[nygreenguy]

Okay, so you're allowed to call a source "Crap" without actually debunking it.

Lets say you are on trial for murder for poisoning someone with a toxic plant. Now lets say the prosecutor gets some joker from the internet to just say stuff that makes it sound like you did it. It can be all jargony and technical sounding and do you really think the jury will know the guy is lying out his teeth? Sure, you could hire an actual professional with years of experience and credentials under his belt but will it do any good? Would you want the jury to pick who they believe more, with you KNOWING the joker was a total fake?

Now, there is a reason why we dont allow people like that to testify. Their opinions are worthless. They have no credibility. When someone post something without credibility, its the equivalent of posting nothing.

Now, I have no problem discussing such issues and sources, but to post something without any credibility and say "prove it wrong" simply isnt going to happen. In a debate, one doesnt have to counter a point made moot by a useless source, and the burden of proof would still fall on you to support the claim.

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

Asking someone to prove a negative? Should we ask you to prove first there was a hot cycle?

[nursebenjamin]

So where is it proven that the Sun doesn't go through cycles and is ONLY getting hotter and couldn't have been so hot 50,000 years ago?

STRAWMAN!!! Quit being so dishonest. No one ever said that the sun doesn't have cycles.

And the sun so hot as what? Here is one estimate of solar insulation over the past 1,000,000 years:
[center][/center]

When they retracted their claims, what did they say exactly?

I dont know what Eddy and Boornazian said 30 years ago, nor do I care. They retracted their paper and it was never published. This article from 1980 shows that Eddy & Boornazian got the data wrong.

[Shermana]

Can you please show the link to that source of the "Estimation?" I'd like to see how that article about the "Last 250" years applies to this. You can call me "Dishonest" if you want, but it seemed to me as if there was no account for cycles of the temperature in this view.

I suppose we could view 250 years of Solar activity to gauge the estimates of 50,000 years, but how exactly?

[100%atheist]

I suppose we could view 250 years of Solar activity to gauge the estimates of 50,000 years, but how exactly?

No, we actually can't. Suppose the temperature was rising all 250 years at a rate of 1 degree in 100 years. Would you conclude then that 50,000 years ago the earth was a snowball?

[Shermana]

I suppose we could view 250 years of Solar activity to gauge the estimates of 50,000 years, but how exactly?

No, we actually can't. Suppose the temperature was rising all 250 years at a rate of 1 degree in 100 years. Would you conclude then that 50,000 years ago the earth was a snowball?

Oh we can't? Okay, so what was the point of his link then?

[nursebenjamin]

Can you please show the link to that source of the "Estimation?" I'd like to see how that article about the "Last 250" years applies to this. You can call me "Dishonest" if you want, but it seemed to me as if there was no account for cycles of the temperature in this view.

The solar insulation portion of that graph is based on the solar insolation calculator developed by Jonathan Levine. He states that his insolation program is not available on-line, but to send him an e-mail if you would like a copy.[1] There is an address available on this link in your are interested in the calculator.

I suppose we could view 250 years of Solar activity to gauge the estimates of 50,000 years, but how exactly?

No, because as 100%Atheist explained, one cant presume that solar activity has been constant over the past 50,000 years. Two hundred and fifty years ago, solar activity could have been at a maximum or at a minimum of a cycle.

Heres another graph of solar activity over the past 1000 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbo ... labels.svg

Oh we can't? Okay, so what was the point of his link then?

I was trying to put your claim of a hot cycle 50,000 years ago into perspective.