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]

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

Why? UV radiation does penetrate below the waters surface. This is a correct statement. The surface of a body of water reflect only 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. I'm not sure why this is so confusing to you. If water did not interact with UV light, then it would not be warmed by the sun.

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

Huh??? Anyhow, we’ve supplied sufficient evidence to show that cyanobacteria could survive below the surface of water despite the lack of an ozone layer. Please now respond to Ragna’s post #29.

[Shermana]

You must have misunderstood.

I said, that most sources say it evolved by the surface, not at deep depths.

Prove this statement is incorrect, or prove that most sources are incorrect.

And as it stands, nothing has been proven that it can exist even with all these things you claim would absorb it, nothing, you quoted nothing that proves it, so don't act as if it's disproven.

Prove at what depth the UV loses its effect completely, and that it would allow Cyanobacteria to exist. With numbers.

[Abraxas]

You must have misunderstood.

I said, that most sources say it evolved by the surface, not at deep depths.

Prove this statement is incorrect, or prove that most sources are incorrect.

And as it stands, nothing has been proven that it can exist even with all these things you claim would absorb it, nothing, you quoted nothing that proves it, so don't act as if it's disproven.

Prove at what depth the UV loses its effect completely, and that it would allow Cyanobacteria to exist. With numbers.

It has been proven. Look at that map again and observe that in a lot of the coastal waters the depth of UV penetration is between 0-4 meters. Off the west coast of Africa, off the north coast of North America, off the southern coast of South America being the easiest examples to spot. The depth UV loses its effect varies by water content, this has been proven beyond reproach at this point. None of this even takes into account things like coastal caves which would filter roughly 100% of UV before it even hits the water.

Your argument is lost, you don't get points for persistance.

[nursebenjamin]

[Shermana]

Okay, so no proof, no numbers, got it. And as I said, this is regarding surface-area development which most sources say. And the example of locations in the ocean doesn't really account for the fact that there'd be about 10x the UV without the Ozone.

These factors must not be ignored.

Especially the fact that most sources believe it grew near the surface.

Even if you manage to prove that in a Pre-Ozone environment, these locations in the ocean would absorb the UV sufficiently (which there is no proof of, only in a post-Ozone model), you'd have to write to these organizations saying it developed near the surface and tell them that there was already BGA growing in the depths first, and rewrite everything.

[Shermana]

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2472

Light in the ocean is like light in no other place on Earth. It is a world that is visibly different from our familiar terrestrial world, and one that marine animals, plants, and microbes are adapted to in extraordinary ways. Light behaves very differently when it moves from air into water. It moves through the expansive depths of an ocean that is devoid of solid surfaces. These and other factors combine to create an environment that has no equivalent on land.

A scuba diver in the open ocean discovers she is immersed not only in water, but also in an ethereal blue light. Seawater absorbs light much more strongly than air does, but visible light is made up of a rainbow of different wavelengths, each perceived by us as a different color. Blue light penetrates farther into seawater (giving the ocean its distinctive color). At the same time seawater absorbs red, orange, and yellow wavelengths, removing these colors. Only a few meters below the sea surface, if our diver looked into a mirror, she would see that her red lips appeared black.

In calm weather, the diver can look upward to see the entire hemisphere of the sky compressed into a circle over her head—a phenomenon called Snell’s window, caused by the bending of light as it enters water. Rough weather and waves shatter this window. The waves act like lenses to focus light, creating a scintillating visual field whose brightness increases and decreases by a factor of a hundred as each wave passes by, making it impossible for eyes to adjust.

If our diver wore ultraviolet (UV)-viewing goggles, almost half the light she would see looking down and horizontally would be UV. Light passing through water also becomes polarized, which means its wave motion vibrates in only one direction, or plane. (This also happens to the light reflected as glare from the sea surface or a wet road.) If our diver wore sunglasses that blocked vertically polarized light and looked to her side, her view would be dark; but if she looked up or down, her view would be full of light. The polarized sunglasses would block light vibrating in the horizontal plane, while allowing light vibrating in the vertical plane to pass through.

The threat of UV radiation
Marine photosynthesis is confined to the tiny fraction of the ocean where sunlight penetrates—at most, the upper 200 meters. UV light also penetrates into this region, which may have increasingly profound consequences. UV radiation can cause damage to organisms on both land and sea. Recently, scientists have discovered that ultraviolet radiation can harm organisms deeper down than previously thought.

Decreasing ozone levels in the atmosphere, including the ozone hole over Antarctica, may exacerbate the problem, because ozone blocks UV radiation from reaching Earth. Higher levels of UV can kill phytoplankton, slow their growth, or disrupt the delicate balance of species that interact in ocean ecosystems.

Marine organisms have evolved ways to protect themselves from UV, including UV-absorbing pigments, the ability to repair DNA damaged by UV, and developing behavior to avoid UV by staying in deeper water. However, the recent ozone changes may be occurring too fast for organisms to adapt. Given the fundamental role of phytoplankton in Earth’s biology, chemistry, and climate, these changes may affect us all.

Into the darker depths
As our diver continues to descend only a few more meters, she begins to go from day to night. She can see blue light to her sides, and white light above, but below her the view is dark. As she moves downward, the UV, green, and violet wavelengths disappear, and the light becomes an intense, almost laser-like, pure blue. At 200 meters deep, the diver would cross from the surface realm (called the epipelagic zone), where there is enough sunlight for photosynthesis, to the twilight realm (called the mesopelagic zone), where enough sunlight penetrates for vision, but not for photosynthesis.

By now, our descending diver would notice nearly continuous blue flashes around her—bioluminescent light produced by animals in the midwater zone, in response to the disturbance in the water that she caused. Below 850 meters, though, the diver would no longer be able to see anything, even looking up. Human eyes aren’t sensitive enough to detect the minute amounts of sunlight that haven’t been absorbed by the water. At 1,000 meters, even the most visually sensitive deep-sea animals can longer see the sun. The region below this is known as the aphotic (no-light) zone, but this is only true for sunlight, as bioluminescence is common.

[nursebenjamin]

... And the example of locations in the ocean doesn't really account for the fact that there'd be about 10x the UV without the Ozone. ...

Except for the fact that a meter under the surface of ocean in certain parts of the world today, UV is reduced 10x. You are beating a dead horse now. Not sure why this is so confusing to you.

[100%atheist]

You must have misunderstood.

I said, that most sources say it evolved by the surface, not at deep depths.

Prove this statement is incorrect, or prove that most sources are incorrect.

And as it stands, nothing has been proven that it can exist even with all these things you claim would absorb it, nothing, you quoted nothing that proves it, so don't act as if it's disproven.

Prove at what depth the UV loses its effect completely, and that it would allow Cyanobacteria to exist. With numbers.

It has been proven. Look at that map again and observe that in a lot of the coastal waters the depth of UV penetration is between 0-4 meters. Off the west coast of Africa, off the north coast of North America, off the southern coast of South America being the easiest examples to spot. The depth UV loses its effect varies by water content, this has been proven beyond reproach at this point. None of this even takes into account things like coastal caves which would filter roughly 100% of UV before it even hits the water.

Your argument is lost, you don't get points for persistance.

People-people,

If the UV light penetrates through deep water and solid rocks killing everything on its way including plants like [whatever]bacteria, this clearly proves the Genesis story.
Gotcha.

100%

[Abraxas]

Okay, so no proof, no numbers, got it.

0-4 meters are not numbers?

And as I said, this is regarding surface-area development which most sources say.

If you are now claiming they all developed on the surface instead of beneath, it, why have four full pages plus been spent discussing whether being underwater reduces UV?

And the example of locations in the ocean doesn't really account for the fact that there'd be about 10x the UV without the Ozone.

Do you have any evidence that more UV would change the absorbtion rate of the water? Also, that 10x figure was speculative, not a measured amount. It was a simulated effect for a model, per the NASA article.

These factors must not be ignored.

They can be until you demonstrate the relevance.

Especially the fact that most sources believe it grew near the surface.

This is where a number is missing. How near is near?

Even if you manage to prove that in a Pre-Ozone environment, these locations in the ocean would absorb the UV sufficiently (which there is no proof of, only in a post-Ozone model),

Not relevant. Unless you can demonstrate the chemical the water is under changes the rate at which it absorbs, reflects, and diffuses UV, this is a dead and badly beaten red herring.

you'd have to write to these organizations saying it developed near the surface and tell them that there was already BGA growing in the depths first, and rewrite everything.

What does this have to do with anything?

[Shermana]

Apparently this bold part in that article didn't register.

y a few more meters, she begins to go from day to night. She can see blue light to her sides, and white light above, but below her the view is dark. As she moves downward, the UV, green, and violet wavelengths disappear, and the light becomes an intense, almost laser-like, pure blue. At 200 meters deep, the diver would cross from the surface realm (called the epipelagic zone), where there is enough sunlight for photosynthesis, to the twilight realm (called the mesopelagic zone), where enough sunlight penetrates for vision, but not for photosynthesis.

And the UV still penetrates at 200m apparently. At current Ozone levels.

The threat of UV radiation
Marine photosynthesis is confined to the tiny fraction of the ocean where sunlight penetrates—at most, the upper 200 meters. UV light also penetrates into this region, which may have increasingly profound consequences. UV radiation can cause damage to organisms on both land and sea. Recently, scientists have discovered that ultraviolet radiation can harm organisms deeper down than previously thought

.
Now again, if MOST SOURCES say that Cyanobacteria grew near the surface, no matter what conflicting links are presented, it appears the UV would destroy it, so regardless, nothing near the surface as MOST SOURCES state would live.