The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Shermana]

Post a link saying chemoautotrophs can't account for any significant contribution to the ozone layer. Make sure to include quotes from the links.

The Atmosphere is another thing. I believe the "Light" of Gen 1:1 is Cosmic Background Radiation, this would not be as much of a problem in creating the Ozone with the Atmosphere created by extremeophile Autotrophs.

I accept that the autotrophs may have accounted for the formation of the "Sky" on Day 2, Gen 1:8.

So with the intiial "Light source" of CBR, on this I can accept that the C-autotraph, then atmosphere, then BG Algae order of events works, but not with the Sun as the light source, then the UV is too destructive even with the initial atmosphere.

 

[Shermana]

Please link to this NASA study.... and make sure they talk about chemoautotroph extrmeophiles.

wa:do

I apologize, I misread the NASA study it simply states that the intensity increases up to TEN THOUSAND times at the shorter wave lengths at 2/3 the Ozone gone.

Simulation Shows World Without Ozone Layer : News

 

[painted wolf]

Actually it says this

The intensity of UV radiation at Earth's surface doubles; at certain shorter wavelengths, intensity rises by as much as 10,000 times. Skin cancer-causing radiation soars.

Double.... at the surface, not in the oceans. And, to make your case worse, shorter wavelengths are absorbed by water even better than mid length ones.

And this is bad for humans, but bacteria and aechaea are able to protect themselves from harmful radiation better... the chemoautotrophs at the bottom of the ocean would be fine.
Happily pumping out oxygen.

They even do so living in the mud (shielded from UV) and chemoautotrophs even live miles down in solid rock. A little light won't kill them all.

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

If it's double at the surface, why wouldn't it be double in the water? If certain wave lengths are 10,000x higher, why wouldn't some be less extreme (though still extreme) like 10x instead that are less absorbable?

 

[painted wolf]

Ps... thought I should clear up... those shorter wavelengths of UV are blocked by ordinary air.

UVC is actually what produces Ozone from Oxygen... which is pretty ironic right there. So really any oxygen in the system (and if you have water you have oxygen) starts the formation of Ozone right off the bat.
Add the extra oxygen produced by deep sea chemoautotrophs feeding on sea vents and you get a little more Ozone.... just enough to protect those early photosynthetic bacteria like cyanobactera and blamo! Ozone a-plenty.

And what's more, you have the first real challenge for life... too much Oxygen. This stuff is deadly reactive in a cell. Especially in anerobic cells like our early chemoautotrophs (which is why today they thrive mostly in anoxic or nearly anoxic environments)

wa:do

And light doesn't travel though water as easy as it does air... which is why it's pitch black only a couple hundred feet down.

 

[painted wolf]

If it's double at the surface, why wouldn't it be double in the water? If certain wave lengths are 10,000x higher, why wouldn't some be less extreme (though still extreme) like 10x instead that are less absorbable?

See above... but yeah, water isn't air and light doesn't travel well through water. It is completely absorbed within a couple hundred feet.

The shorter the wavelengh the light is, the easier it is to block. Hence we don't worry about X-rays or gamma rays which are even shorter than UV.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

You asked for the criteria.
Objective

1. of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality
2. agreed upon by all parties present (or nearly all); based on consensually observed facts  
3. not influenced by irrational emotions or prejudices

Empirical

1. Pertaining to or based on experience.
2. Pertaining to, derived from, or testable by observations made using the physical senses or using instruments which extend the senses.
3. (philosophy of science) Verifiable by means of scientific experimentation.

Evidence

1. Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.

...that leads to the...

Obvious

1. Easily discovered, seen, or understood; self-explanatory.

Conclusion

1. A decision reached after careful thought.
2. In a syllogism, the proposition that follows as a necessary consequence of the premises.

...of Creationism.

Got it?



(Wiktionary)

So let the reader note, that you cannot provide a coherent definition of what you would consider empirical evidence of Creation.

Let me ask once again, for the third time, what would you consider to be the criteria for such empirical evidence of design. Don't just repeat yourself again, actually answer, what you would call something that can be labeled as proof of Creationism, then we can accomodate and I can provide data from Cellular microbiology that conforms to your criteria.

But if you keep trumpeting the same thing, that's just showing you have no idea what you're looking for and trying to act as if you do.

You have got to be kidding me...

Fine, provide your data from Cellular microbiology that provides objective empirical evidence that leads to the obvious conclusion of Creationism.

 

[idav]

Fine, provide your data from Cellular microbiology that provides objective empirical evidence that leads to the obvious conclusion of Creationism.

We were created by Intel in the future. They don't have evidence yet.

 

[Jose Fly]

The thing is, Shermana has posted all this crap on other forums before and gotten schooled in exactly the same ways. So in typical creationist form, he simply packed up his act, brought it here, and started all over as if no one on the other forum had ever said a word to him.

His entire point is that the earth was created before the sun and the cosmic background radiation provided "light" to the earth until the sun was created.

So that should give you an idea of the sort of loony you're dealing with.

 

[Shermana]

You have got to be kidding me...

Fine, provide your data from Cellular microbiology that provides objective empirical evidence that leads to the obvious conclusion of Creationism.

You really don't want to say what you consider the criteria, probably because you can't think of any.

Anyways, until you can actually think of what you're looking for in the Criteria department, let me refer you to some reading material.

Amazon.com: Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (9780061472787): Stephen C. Meyer: Books This one you can read fully, page 492-3 has some good stuff.

 

[camanintx]

Please provide evidence that Extremophiles produced oxygen, thanks.

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere: Scientific American

 

[tumbleweed41]

You have got to be kidding me...

Fine, provide your data from Cellular microbiology that provides objective empirical evidence that leads to the obvious conclusion of Creationism.

You really don't want to say what you consider the criteria, probably because you can't think of any.

Anyways, until you can actually think of what you're looking for in the Criteria department, let me refer you to some reading material.

Amazon.com: Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (9780061472787): Stephen C. Meyer: Books This one you can read fully, page 492-3 has some good stuff.

No, no, no...you still don't understand, do you?
A book written by a philosopher and ID advocate with no education in cellular microbiology is NOT objective empirical evidence.

As Stephen Matheson, cell biologist a Calvin College wrote upon reading the above mentioned book, "Meyer makes a basic error on page 66 while describing the early evidence that DNA is the genetic material. He's describing the classic experiments of Avery, MacLeod and McCarty on Pneumococcus bacteria that can be transformed from one strain into another. The phenomenon of transformation had been discovered by Frederick Griffith in the 1920s. ... Now, if you're not a biologist, you might think the error is trivial, purely semantic, a typing glitch induced by the proximity of the word 'virulent.' And that last part is probably right. But this biologist finds the error more significant, and I suspect others would agree. The difference, I think, is that I can't imagine mistaking a virus for a bacterium; it's like mistaking a pencil for a sequoia."
Quintessence of Dust: Signature in the Cell: Chapter 3

 

[Shermana]

What does that have to do with the specifics I mentioned on page 492? If I was allowed to write off data by a single semantic issue, this would be far easier.

So he confused a Virus with a Bacterium, please show how this renders all the other data invalid.

If only I was allowed to write off entire books because of such things.

I can understand if you don't want to discuss the actual specifics and details because it's beyond your understanding, but trying to write the whole thing off like that is....well, let the reader decide.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What does that have to do with the specifics I mentioned on page 492? If I was allowed to write off data by a single semantic issue, this would be far easier.

So he confused a Virus with a Bacterium, please show how this renders all the other data invalid.

If only I was allowed to write off entire books because of such things.

I can understand if you don't want to discuss the actual specifics and details because it's beyond your understanding, but trying to write the whole thing off like that is....well, let the reader decide.

The virus/bacterium was just an example of what you get when a lay-man tries to write about something he has no education or background in.

Now, if you want to bring some cellular microbiology evidence to the table, at least attempt to find some peer reviewed research done by someone who is an actual expert in the field.

 

[Shermana]

Or he could have used the word "Virulent" completely right and Mr. Matheson is trying to nitpick whatever he can. I'd like to see any other complaints, and I'd like to see why his critique is in any way justified. The word "Virulent" can apply to more than viruses. Why gee...it applies to Bacteriology. I can understand things like this happen though, Painted Wolf learned the other day that "Microspeciation" can apply to living creatures for example.

I'd seriously like to have Mr. Matheson comment on this issue of the uses of the word "Virulent" and whether there truly is an error at stake.

"
–adjective 1. actively poisonous; intensely noxious: a virulent insect bite.

2. Medicine/Medical . highly infective; malignant or deadly.

3. Bacteriology . causing clinical symptoms.

 

[painted wolf]

It's a symptom of a larger ignorance of basic biology.

Here is an ID perspective on some of the flaws of the book: Signature in the Cell | The BioLogos Forum

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

If only I was allowed to write off entire books because of such things.

why change now

your a pro at writing off valid information, volumes and volumes without a proper education in science do you denounce proffessionals

 

[Shermana]

why change now

your a pro at writing off valid information, volumes and volumes without a proper education in science do you denounce proffessionals

What direct information have I written off? If by theories and speculation, you're right, I write those off if they have absolutely no empirical evidence. Similar genetic mutations and retroviruses are nothing other than proof of similarity of cellular structures among similar animals and viruses.

 

[Shermana]

It's a symptom of a larger ignorance of basic biology.

Here is an ID perspective on some of the flaws of the book: Signature in the Cell | The BioLogos Forum

wa:do

That is if he actually used the word "Virulent" incorrectly. I wonder if Mr. Matheson knows this.

I gave a quick skim to your critique, I can see why you didn't quote from it.

however, some elegant experiments were taking place at the University of Manchester that showed there is a way, a very feasible way that both building blocks could have been produced through natural processes.1

Let's see what that key reference is exactly...

 

[painted wolf]

That is if he actually used the word "Virulent" incorrectly. I wonder if Mr. Matheson knows this.

I gave a quick skim to your critique, I can see why you didn't quote from it.

I didn't quote from it because I wanted you to actually read it.

but if you insist:

If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public. With all due respect for the very fine people associated with the ID movement, many of whom I have met personally and whose sincerity I greatly appreciate, our hopes and dreams need to be much bigger than this. The science of origins is not the failure it is purported to be. It is just science moving along as science does—one step at a time. Let it be.

Let's see what that key reference is exactly...

He provides a link at the end of the article ... I can only assume you didn't make it that far.
The Origin of Life on Earth: Scientific American

wa:do