Shermana wrote:"This is sad that he has so little self-respect and self-confidence that he refuses to retract his claims.
"
1. Again, this kind of comment is 100% against the rules. Making comments about my self-respect and self-confidence only proves the intent of the opposition that its about trying to make personal attacks. Refrain yourself.
I do not see a "personal attack" in what I said. Please send a message to a moderator if you want some moderator action.
Shermana wrote:
2. If there's no evidence that Cyanobacteria could survive before an Ozone layer, and there's no direct evidence they did survive (if using the Isotope tests for "evidence", get into the details of why they HAD to have existed), and it basically boils down to "They HAD to have existed thus they existed before the sun", then I see no reason to retract. As it stands, my claim that the Sun would have killed everything and nulls the theory about life today will not be retracted until its proven that such life could exist. Otherwise, inductive reasoning clearly points to the fact that there's an error in the standard model here.
a) None of the organisms including ourselves do not "had to have existed".
b) Cyanobacteria existed several billion years ago and it is capable of producing oxygen. These are the facts. Please say clearly if you agree or disagree with these facts.
c) I do not claim (and never did) that Cyanobacteria can survive under certain hypothetical conditions of high UV radiation that could be the result of the absence of an Ozone layer.
d) Let me rephrase what you are trying to say: If we stick with the facts that Cyanobacteria existed, it could not survive strong UV radiation, AND that the UV radiation at the early Earth times was at least as strong as we think it was, than the Sun did not exist. There are several problems with this logic.
d1) First, you assume that you know enough about UV radiation of the early Earth times. It is not necessarily the case. Please support this assumption.
d2) You dismiss the astrophysical evidence pointing out to the fact that the Sun existed before the Earth. Please demonstrate how is it possible.
e) Also, I gave a reference before (look in my earlier posts in this thread) to the possibility that oxygen was produced by organisms other that Cyanobacteria, which makes it possible that a protective Ozone layer was already in place when Cyanobacteria was living on the Earth.
Shermana wrote:
3. If it's proven that the current model of Cyanobacteria producing the Ozone layer is WRONG then Science will have to take a whole new look into the development.
Yes, of course. Do you have a problem with this? It is science, not religion.
Shermana wrote:
4. Microcosmic Background Radiatoin could have easily been "hot" enough back in the day to provide light.
I don't know what you are talking about. What is "microcosmic"?
Shermana wrote:
5. My claim is not retracted since it kind of proves that under conditions as we know it, Cyanobacteria could NOT have existed to produce the Ozone layer, so the issue of the sun and its development for plants is thus thrown into a loop until direct evidence is provided that the Cyanobacteria evolved. For example, you claim that
There is also a nonzero possibility that oxygen was produced by other organism (not Cyanobacteria)
, but you see, if that were true, then every single Science textbook would have to be rewritten.
I don't have a problem with the changes that will be done to science textbooks. Again, science is not religion.
As to your claim, your claim was that <
if Cyanobacteria could not survive UV radiation without an Ozone layer then from this somehow follows the non-existence of the Sun at the time when Cyanobacteria existed.> You have nothing so far to support this claim.
So please support or retract.
Shermana wrote:
At the very least ,we have exposed a major flaw in the current model, which completely depends on these Isotope dating methods to prove the CB existed before the sun, and there lies the ONLY "evidence" for this theory....and again, I offered to make another thread about Isotope dating accuracy.
I am not sure what you are talking about. Of course you can discuss the Isotope dating in another thread. Before going in such discussion though, I advise you to learn more about radioactivity. This is because my first question to you will be "what is an isotope?" If you answer this and several other follow up questions, I think you will be able to figure our the accuracy of isotope dating for your self.
Shermana wrote:
7. In conclusion, unless its proven how they survived and that they did in FACT 100% survive, my claim stands, that life could not exist of any kind before the Ozone layer, thus the current model is at the very least flawed. If you don't want to inductively make the leap that this disproves the idea of a sun existing before the Ozone layer, you're welcome to, but I see no reason to retract it since my claim is fully supported, and the only evidence against it is the CLAIM that Cyanobacteria did exist at the time before the Ozone layer, which as you said earlier, doesn't seem to so solid of a case.
Your claim was ABOUT SUN!!!! Can we consider your change of the claim as the retraction of your previous claim?
Shermana wrote:
8. If you have a problem with me not retracting a claim that you claim I don't have evidence for, please click on that ! button and make your complaint. Until then, evidence points to the idea that NOTHING could live with a sun in place first, thus, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that it DID.
Shermana, this is not what you claimed. Again, you claimed that if Cyanobacteria could not survive without an Ozone layer, there was no Sun in that time. And again, I do not know much about Cyanobacteria, and you are free to claim about Cyanobacteria whatever you want, but I ask you to provide support for your logic that jumps from Cyanobacteria to the existence of the Sun. Please support your claim or retract.
