I love how he has not a shed of evidence that we have found such a discovery.
Iâd be impressed with a whole shed full of evidence!
Post deleted
And just how many fossil finds that âdo not fit the evolutionary paradigmâ do you think are being covered up in this way?
How much money do you think is being squandered on this wholescale scientific fraud?
What effect do you think this is having on the ability of petrochemical companies to find oil?
Where are the documents blowing the gaff on it on Wikileaks?
Where are the bean counters complaining about it?
Where are the scientists in other fields, complaining about losing out on grants for their own research because of it?
2 Likes
Post deleted
1 Like
OK, if youâre not going to take a stab at answering my questions, then I will.
Item one: the scale of the alleged cover-up.
- The number of radiometric results published in the scientific literature runs into the hundreds of thousands, and quite possibly even the millions, with tens of thousands of new results being published every year.
- Dating a single sample can cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.
- If scientists are just covering up any results that donât fit the âevolutionary paradigmâ they must be covering up well over 90% of the data, possibly even 99%. Certainly far, far more than just your hypothetical 432.
- Do the maths: a million results being covered up, at the cost of up to ten billion dollars â every year.
Iâm sorry, but youâre getting into some very heavy duty conspiracy theorising here.
Item two: who is doing the covering up anyway?
Much of the evidence comes from the oil industry. Petroleum geologists need to know how long the stuff has been in the ground and at what temperature, to determine whether itâs ready or not. And they are under strong incentives to come up with results that are correct, not results that are ideologically convenient. If they really were covering things up, they would end up sending the drilling companies on a wild goose chase, the geologists would all get fired and end up flipping burgers in McDonaldâs, and the radiometric labs would all end up being sued out of their insurances.
Flood Geology is not the Bible, but a thick layer of science fiction plastered on top of it. Even if the Flood was global rather than regional, there is nowhere in the Bible that tells us that it created the fossils, nor that it reshaped the continents, nor that Noah had dinosaurs on board the Ark.
6 Likes
If there was such a conspiracy we would not see hoaxes such as the Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor be exposed.
Post deleted
I am simply arguing that there is no cover-up. It doesnât matter whether weâre talking about the age of the earth, the age of life, or who did or did not evolve from what, the idea that tens of thousands of scientists worldwide are squandering billions of dollars every year on covering up results that donât fit their presuppositions is simply ridiculous.
When you consider that academic career progression depends on publishing as much as possible, your conspiracy theory gets even more absurd. For anyone whose productivity is measured in journal articles per year, withholding 99% of your data from publication would be career suicide.
You realize oil is made of organic matter that was once alive, right?
Actually you appear to have argued for a young universe in a previous thread. So forgive us if we are confused.
Post deleted
Post deleted
Hey there again Randy! I hope you are well. I will summarize for folks here my thoughts on your model and itâs main problems.
-
it is unpublished. Nobody here except maybe @Casper_Hesp canât even evaluate what you were saying. If your idea is actually any good, let people who are experts in the field critique it.
-
It is a âjust soâ explanation of the universe. I have illustrated in other threads how you have purposefully chosen specific parameters in an ad hoc way to train account for what we actually see in the universe. Itâs like you were actually arguing what a good size for the universe at the time of the plank scale. And why did you choose this number? So your math could work out to be the present size of the universe. You have absolutely no reason to select the numbers you did other than just to make something work.
-
it makes no new predictions. There is nothing special about the model and no good reason to Think itâs correct.
-
It gets some things wrong. Iâm going to assume you worked on this since we last spoke but the production and distribution of elements, especially those beyond Helium are not what we see in the universe.
Those are my main critiques, and I am definitely not a cosmologist. Sure I have an advanced degree in physics, but it is in biophysics so I cannot speak on an expert level to what youâre saying. Not that it would actually matter, because you believe there is a massive global conspiracy of experts in all fields of science, and you amazingly claim you are right because of your particular interpretation of the Bible.
I am open to correcting anything Iâve said if it is incorrect, but back to the topic at hand⌠I think we are arguing whether or not any part of the fossil record can be accounted for by global flood which has no evidence for other than single interpretation of the Bible .
âŚâŚâŚâŚâŚUm. You know that this is not how science works, right? How would an asteroid impact hard enough to affect dinosaurs on the opposite side of the world without destroying the earth in the process? How is âcomplete and irreversible paralysisâ a probable response to any amount of light, sound, or heat? Can you think of any examples of this happening in biology, ever?
Wow. I never knew that mammals floated while dinosaurs sank! Thatâs pretty counterintuitive considering that dinosaurs, like birds, sometimes had hollow bones.
Are there even 32 large mammals you can point to? Bones that have washed out of their original beds donât count; itâs pretty easy for paleontologists to tell when thatâs happened, despite people who might engage in wishful thinking!
Post deleted
Post deleted
What the article refers to is not being covered up, it is not unexpected, and it is not ânot common knowledgeâ. No-one ever said that mammals and dinosaurs did not coexist. What the fossil record shows is that large and modern mammals and dinosaurs did not coexist. The earliest mammals were late Triassic/early Jurassic, about 210 million years ago.
Or are you going to try and convince us that vast numbers of fossils of humans, cats, dogs, rabbits, rhinoceroses and giraffes have been found in Cretaceous strata and are being hushed up? Again, implausible conspiracy theory.
2 Likes
I must have very uncommon knowledge then. I didnât know the number of species but I knew that there were mammals, small mammals, that lived with the dinosaurs. Just as predicted by evolution BTW. Given there are currently more than 5,000 species of mammals I wouldnât call 432, or 8% of the total, a âlarge number of mammalsâ. And how many of these species are bigger than a small dog? The article indicates the animal was 5 to 12 pounds.
Your âhypothesisâ was not based on available evidence, nor can I discern any intention of yours to test it. For it to be âwithin the constraints of biological differences in organisms,â I would expect you to show âcomplete and irreversible paralysisâ as a symptom of exterior stimuli in modern animals. Whipping out any old idea to use as an argument in an Internet forum is, I repeat, not how science works.
And also, how would light from an impact in the Yucatan travel all around the world?? How bright would it have to be to kill herds of dinosaurs with the entire earth between them and it?
1 Like