I'm not sure why this was posted without comments but when NBC aired this episode back in the mid 90's it apparently got a lot of flack.
Me being a skeptic agree that science does have flaws. One big argument for those seemingly against science itself is that opposing theories (scientific definition.) are usually considered quacks. I agree.
However, this is how science always has been. Science has succeeded to adapt to new ideas in change of old ones all the time. Ex: Oceanography and tectonic plates. Truth usually succeeds.
Usually when one argues that there is a huge cover up...it tends to lack in and ignore mountains of data to justify it's own theories. It's pretty common. You name it....Flat Earthers, Neo Nazi, 9/11 truthers, etc...
I agree that there should be questions that need to be asked all the time. This is what keeps science self correcting consistently as new data grows.
I have a problem with this program because in it's beginning it does not clarify that it has strong ties to the creationist movement. I have no beefs with this, but it seemed rather covered up to make itself sound more scientific and had more credentials.
1. Carl Baugh is actually a fundamental minister, not an accredited archeologist. His latest fraud could be attributed as recently as 2008 with the 'alvis delk cretaceous footprint
2. The stone tools found on table mountain were conclusively shown in creation/evolution magazine 1981 that the tools were placed there by a local shopkeeper and in fact were modern and not ancient artifacts.
"Talk origins archive - "www.talkorigins.org
3. Dr. McIntyre actually continued to persue her career but did not achieve high degree of success or recognition. She never lost her job.
4. Laurie Godfrey, John Cole, R. J. Hastings, J. D. Schafersman, Jim Farlow, and Glen Kuban. all recognized scientists that played a role in investigating the Paluxy formation were never mentioned by the producers for their work.
3. "Fossilization preserves only hard parts, like bones, shells, and wood. The fleshy parts of an animal are never preserved as fossils, although a mold or imprint of soft parts are sometimes fossilized. The video displayed what is claimed to be a fossilized finger, whole and complete. A cat scan was shown of the "finger," revealing what appeared to be a core with two dark patches in locations roughly corresponding to finger joints. It was claimed that these shadows corresponded to the bones of the finger. It was also claimed that the cat scan revealed the ligaments of the finger, although they could not be seen by the viewer. The "finger" had been diagonally sectioned, and would have presumably revealed these structures if they were present. However,the section was never revealed; the two pieces were always held tightly together." Frank Steiger
4. My favorite was the carcass of what Childress claims was the photograph of a badly decomposed plesiosaur. This was never proven and insinuated that it was. In other words..the burden of proof was shifted subtly by Mr. Heston,
"Although its authenticity has never been disproven, skeptics claim that it's merely the body of a decomposing shark."
the list can go on and on, but I'm simply gonna state that yes, we don't have all of the answers. I don't mean to say that creationists will always be wrong by default...but because this program was so lacking in facts and insinuations, it's hard to take into account what they are claiming. I think there are better examples of creationist arguments than this link provided. I would actually like to think that humans indeed walked among the great dinosaurs...but I would have to do two great things.
1. Ignore the mountain of evidence to refute creationist/conspiracy theorist/truthers claims
2. Agree that a massive conspiracy was needed to cover up this "truth" that (some) creationists claim to have."
If you want to imply that the fossil record has huge holes and gaps of transitional fossils, than this theory can fit through the huge gaping hole of a creation argument of man walking with dinosaurs. There is absolutely no convincing evidence of this....but it is plausible if and when we find it.