Order of creation

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Ragna
Guru
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:26 am
Location: Spain

Order of creation

Post #1

Post by Ragna »

Shermana wrote:Go ahead and create one.
Let's debate the order of creation. I made a claim:
Ragna wrote: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:
Shermana wrote: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?

User avatar
Ragna
Guru
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:26 am
Location: Spain

Post #31

Post by Ragna »

Shermana wrote: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.


I think the post is pretty clear. That you don't want to read an entire article which is linked might be understood, but asking what you have asked for a single post within this thread is a bit excessive.

All within than post is a response. The ending part makes a great summary of the relevance and conclusion:
Furrowed Brow wrote:Whilst it is interesting to chase down the exact details like at exactly what depth the sun no longer affects cynobacteria the request task masks the more obvious point that the case is demonstrated as to how the little critters would survive without an ozone layer. At this point the onus is on Shermana to demonstrate why cynobacteria cannot survive without an ozone layer given

1/ rocks to hide under
2/ water to hide in
3/ UV protective pigments

Are we done with cynobacteria now?


I have emphasized with bold letters the relevant part, just in case. This is proof that cyanobacteria can dwell and vie in the presence of high UV radiation, because the hypothesis "cyanobacteria die out without an ozone layer" is not plausible having all the described above.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"
Been thanked: 5 times

Post #32

Post by Shermana »

Rocks to hide under, okay so you say that the Ozone was formed by BG Algae hiding under rocks....as if the rocks did in fact block all the UV altogether, okay, where's proof the rocks would absorb it in the water?

"Water to hide in", apparently from what I read, the first Cyanobaceria are said to have existed near the shore, is this incorrect? Either way, the NASA simulation is on my side saying all plants would be nearly dead even as is.

UV Protective pigments would protect them under modern Ozone conditions, but can you prove that these pigments did in fact make them survive?

passivelurker
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:11 pm

Post #33

Post by passivelurker »

Shermana wrote:UV Protective pigments would protect them under modern Ozone conditions, but can you prove that these pigments did in fact make them survive?
you seem to be rejecting a lot of evidence laid before you that weakens your "ace in the hole" argument of cyanobacteria.

as an objective viewer, I say it's time to give it up and move onto your next argument.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"
Been thanked: 5 times

Post #34

Post by Shermana »

What evidence specifically am I rejecting? Please show specifically. And your claim to being an "objective" viewer I personally doubt. So please prove evidence that proves Cyanobacteria could survive the UV, even under the rocks with this protective pigment, where is the proof that this protective-pigment, especially in the face of the NASA study I refer to, can withstand such intense UV at over 10x the level as with an Ozone, and especially in considering most sources seem to say it evolved near the shore, or objectively retract your claim.

User avatar
100%atheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:27 pm

Post #35

Post by 100%atheist »

Shermana wrote:What evidence specifically am I rejecting? Please show specifically. And your claim to being an "objective" viewer I personally doubt. So please prove evidence that proves Cyanobacteria could survive the UV, even under the rocks with this protective pigment, where is the proof that this protective-pigment, especially in the face of the NASA study I refer to, can withstand such intense UV at over 10x the level as with an Ozone, and especially in considering most sources seem to say it evolved near the shore, or objectively retract your claim.
Shermana,

I provided you the evidence that even a thin layer of water of a few centimeters will block most of UV light based on the spectral dependence of the absorption coefficient of water. What else do you need?

100%

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"
Been thanked: 5 times

Post #36

Post by Shermana »

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_age ... ation.html
Besides direct sunlight, UV radiation exposure can occur via indirect routes. The following factors must be remembered in this regard:

* Reflections from snow, sand and concrete increases the UV intensity.
* A light cloud cover does not necessarily block UV in the sunlight.
* Water reflects only a small amount of UV. The rest can penetrate below the water's surface.

User avatar
nursebenjamin
Sage
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #37

Post by nursebenjamin »

Shermana wrote: Water reflects only a small amount of UV. The rest can penetrate below the water's surface.
"UV-B exposure decreases rapidly at increasing depths in the water column. In other words, water and the impurities in it strongly absorb and scatter incoming UV-B radiation. ..."

[center]Image[/center]
Ultraviolet B (UV-B) radiation reaches different depths in ocean water depending on water chemistry, the density of phytoplankton, and the presence of sediment and other particulates. The map above indicates the average depth UV-B penetrates into ocean water. At the depth indicated, only 10 percent of the UV-B radiation that was present at the water’s surface remains. The rest was absorbed or scattered back towards the ocean surface. (Image courtesy Vasilkov et al., JGR-Oceans, 2001) [Source]

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"
Been thanked: 5 times

Post #38

Post by Shermana »

Well we have conflicting reports I see.

User avatar
nursebenjamin
Sage
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #39

Post by nursebenjamin »

Shermana wrote:Well we have conflicting reports I see.
No we don't. Reflects, absorbs and scatters are all verbs with different meaning.

The surface of a body of water may only reflect a small amount of UV light, but water molecules, salts, sediment, and other impurities in the water also interact with UV light. UV light decreases rapidly at increasing depths in the water column.
Last edited by nursebenjamin on Tue May 03, 2011 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"
Been thanked: 5 times

Post #40

Post by Shermana »

Well write to them and tell them to take this part out "The rest can penetrate below the water's surface."

And either way, are there any sources that say the Cyanobacteria did NOT form by the surface at low depth to begin with?

Post Reply