Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Elaborate.
No offense to Stoic, but it's utter B.S.
There'd be such large amounts of algae discovered in period related sediments that it would be something that could be proven fairly easily.
For instance, there appears to be a layer related to the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event (commonly called the K-T Event), in some places, that can be correlated to what they believe was that major meteorite event. (For those not familiar with what I'm referring, the meteorite responsible for the mass extinction event associated with the dinosaurs.) This sediment layer is known as the K-T Boundry.
Back to the algae:
It would be VERY easy to detect a massive growth in algae and even derive the species responsible for a mass growth in algae. On top of that, we would also find atmospheric residue from atmospheric compositional changes. (More 02 in the air and things similar.) We could also find climate differences in the climes affected by the growth outburst.
That's probably just a few of the changes that we could detect with modern geological techniques.
This is how you can tell when an extinction hypothesis smells of B.S.
And, I highly doubt "many scientists" believe that algae caused mass extinction for the K-T event. 😐 It's probably one or two quacks.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think it would be pretty easy to prove that irradiating water doesn't turn it into blood.
You're being too nice here.