>>So i am insane, a kook, a conspiracy theorist, and now an idiot. How far do you intend to extend you ad hominem attacks?<<
I generally don’t psychoanalyze people over the net
But hear goes. You don’t sound like a consoiracy theorist to me.
You sound like someone who has committed to religion based and almost literalist outlook. Since you seem bright and well spoken, odds are pretty good that you realize your view isn’t supportable evidence as judged by those who spend their studying this stuff.
Now, I don’t blame you if you feel a bit defensive when you are beset on all sides - I certainly get defensive .
None of that makes you a bad person. If my Grand Daddy (an old timey Baptist preacher) were here, I believe he would say “Your God is too small.” That can happen to the best of us when we make assumptions that something beyond what Jesus is somehow essential to faith - when really , God is above that.
You could not be more wrong. Religion has nothing to do with my involvement except as another data source. Have you seen me bring up ANY religious issue on this thread?
I am following the implications of where the science leads regardless of orthodoxy of paleontology.
The problem is that the issues that rise from the implications of animals of such massive sizes and weights cross many disciplines including cosmology, engineering, mathematics, biomechanics, cellular biology, geometry, aerodynamics, astrophysics, comparative mythology, and religion.
Scientists are usually too specialized in their particular fields to even recognize how the conclusions in another field could impact their field. The sheer volume of written material in every field makes it difficult for scientists to keep current in their own field that reading about another is out of the question. An aeronautical engineer is not likely to read about Teratorns and say "Wait a minute... that doesn't work!" But perhaps they wouldn't even notice because aeronautical engineers are not familiar with the limitations of chemical muscle engines. That might require the specialized knowledge of a scientist working with biomechanics. The members of the other fields, if they even hear about the findings in paleontology at all, are likely to merely dismiss them out of hand or ignore them as not relevant. In fact there is a tendency in what is termed the "hard sciences" to discount disciplines such as paleontology, archaeology, and anthropology as "soft sciences." Some discount them completely as not sciences at all but merely categorizing, observational, comparative, scholarship disciplines that merely dig up things, list what they found, and make up things about what they found.
We see some of that on this thread where posters tend to ignore peer-reviewed paleontological science about the weights and masses and say that the facts must be wrong and that those who publish them must have made a basic error. JS1138 keeps insisting that it is I who has come up with these figures, not the experts in the field, demanding that I prove their work. Peer-reviewed articles are not acceptable to him. They do not want to look at the implications of those facts because the facts may disturb things they believe. That sounds more like the dogma of religion to me.