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?

[100%atheist]

What part about "Male" in my profile don't you understand. Seriously, everyone thinks the "A" suffix is automatically feminine.

Sorry.

Anyways, I imagine whatever "light" was in 1:1 was providing the heat. What that Light was, is another subject which I'm not researched enough to discuss, and can only say it may be related to Active Galactic Nuclei (Quasars) and their Supermassive Blackhole power generation.

All these suggestions seem to be imaginary rather than real. But let me add that radiation is only one way out of several ways to transfer heat. God certainly could supply heat just by saying "Heat!" aloud, and here heat is. No need for radiation, convection, or conduction.

[nygreenguy]

Anyways, I imagine whatever "light" was in 1:1 was providing the heat. What that Light was, is another subject which I'm not researched enough to discuss, and can only say it may be related to Active Galactic Nuclei (Quasars) and their Supermassive Blackhole power generation.

Plants can only use a very narrow part of the light spectrum, all of which is in the visible spectrum.

The requirements are around 400-500nm and 600-700nm. Anything outside of this is useless.

Now, there is a reason plants dont grow at night, even with all the stars going, there isnt enough energy to make photosynthesis work.

So, basically, what you propose is impossible.

[nursebenjamin]

I imagine whatever "light" was in 1:1 was providing the heat. What that Light was, is another subject which I'm not researched enough to discuss, and can only say it may be related to Active Galactic Nuclei (Quasars) and their Supermassive Blackhole power generation.

Some of the most distant objects in the Universe (quasars) kept grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees from dying in temperatures near absolution zero???

This is the science subforum. Do you have anything other than an active imagination to support these silly claims?

All these suggestions seem to be imaginary rather than real. But let me add that radiation is only one way out of several ways to transfer heat. God certainly could supply heat just by saying "Heat!" aloud, and here heat is. No need for radiation, convection, or conduction.

God did not say, Let there be heat.[2] We wouldnt want to deviate from and distort Genesis 1, would we?

[Ragna]

What part about "Male" in my profile don't you understand. Seriously, everyone thinks the "A" suffix is automatically feminine.

You're quite right, I have had that impression too! In fact, in my language, the "-a" suffix is almost automatically feminine. Curiously enough, though, my nickname also ends in "-a".

Anyways, I imagine whatever "light" was in 1:1 was providing the heat. What that Light was, is another subject which I'm not researched enough to discuss, and can only say it may be related to Active Galactic Nuclei (Quasars) and their Supermassive Blackhole power generation.

Actually, photosynthesis needs especially sunlight. It's not any coincidence that plants use sunlight or that we only see (what we call) the visible part of the spectrum. Our cells have evolved to detect the light we're the most exposed to. Similarly, plants have, since the very first moment of their existence, used sunlight. Other radiations don't work, that's the reason why plants don't produce oxygen to mere starlight.

[100%atheist]

All these suggestions seem to be imaginary rather than real. But let me add that radiation is only one way out of several ways to transfer heat. God certainly could supply heat just by saying "Heat!" aloud, and here heat is. No need for radiation, convection, or conduction.

God did not say, Let there be heat.[2] We wouldnt want to deviate from and distort Genesis 1, would we?

I don't really see where I distorted the Bible (maybe just a tiny bit).

In part 1.3, God created light, which we now know as photons. So the radiative mechanism for heat transfer is described in the Bible as created before stars.
But in 1.1, there are already objects created, namely the earth and heavens. Photons (light) are thus simply the waves that can go between the heavens and the earth.

[nursebenjamin]

I don't really see where I distorted the Bible (maybe just a tiny bit).

In part 1.3, God created light, which we now know as photons. So the radiative mechanism for heat transfer is described in the Bible as created before stars.
But in 1.1, there are already objects created, namely the earth and heavens. Photons (light) are thus simply the waves that can go between the heavens and the earth.

Yeah but we know that water could not have been present in the early universe. Elements heavier than helium were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. So how could God move upon the face of the waters in Genesis 1:2 when He didnt hang the stars on the firmament until Genesis 1:17?[3]

God needed to hang the stars on the firmament first, then wait millions of years for nuclear fusion to create oxygen and for the stars to supernova. After oxygen bound with some hydrogen, only then could the face of God move upon the waters. The biggest problem that I have with all this, is how did God hang the stars on the firmament? The same way that I hang a string of lights on a Christmas tree?

[passivelurker]

I would very much like Shermana to reply to his refuted claims of cyanobacteria being unable to survive under intense UV. Is he just giving up on it and considering it debunked?

[Shermana]

I would very much like Shermana to reply to his refuted claims of cyanobacteria being unable to survive under intense UV. Is he just giving up on it and considering it debunked?

Where was it refuted? Please show exactly where it was refuted and proved that Cyanobacteria could survive please, thanks.

[Ragna]

I would very much like Shermana to reply to his refuted claims of cyanobacteria being unable to survive under intense UV. Is he just giving up on it and considering it debunked?

Where was it refuted? Please show exactly where it was refuted and proved that Cyanobacteria could survive please, thanks.

This post (#16) did a good job unweaving your (unsupported) hypothesis.

Can you please provide evidence for all your claims as we do for ours?

To begin with:

1) The Earth existed before the Sun. (Debunked by astrophysics)

2) Plants existed before th Sun. (Debunked by photosynthesis)

3) Plants could use "other light" that was not sunlight. (Debunked by photosynthesis)

4) Genesis is accurate. Please address my question of Genesis 1:7. (Debunked by the real world)

And of course, since you're not exempt of providing evidence for any claim, what evidence led you to think that

5) Cyanobacteria would die out without the ozone layer they created.

before it was proven wrong?

[Shermana]

Please show where in that post specifically it proved that Cyanobacteria could survive, I am not ready to say what kind of light in Genesis 1:1, this is only about one subject at a time.

So please show where Cyanobacteria could actually survive, with the quote itself. Thanks, and then from there, we can discuss possibilities of a primary light source after we determine they'd be able to survive in the UV for a fact. Thanks.

Quote specifically the parts that prove it for sure.