It is said:
- The ocean holds nearly 20 million tons of gold. While most of the gold is diluted (each liter of sea water contains about 13 billionths of a gram), there is enough undissolved gold on the sea floor to put 9 pounds in every pocket on Earth.
- 99% of the Earth's gold is in its core.
- There is enough gold in the Earth's core to coat its surface in 1.5 feet of the stuff.
The only piece of information in the above statements that has any scientific credibility to it is this: "Each liter of sea water contains about 13 billionths of a gram." This statement can be tested and observed in order to draw an accurate conclusion. We can verify whether or not it is true. The rest of the above statements are nothing but pure speculation and imagination.
Since nobody has ever seen what comes after the Earth's crust, and nobody has seen the Earth's core, it is ludicrous and unscientific to make claims that the core holds 99% of Earth's gold. Likewise, unless you collected all the supposed gold in the Earth's core, you cannot make ludicrous and unscientific statements that there is enough gold there to cover the Earth's surface 1.5 feet thick. There is no model you can use to accurately predict such a thing, and predictions are not science.
It is just as ludicrous to state that the ocean holds enough gold to put 9 pounds in every pocket on Earth. Unless one has collected all that gold, weighed it and then divided it by the number of people on the Earth, the statement is made foolishly. There is nothing scientific about it.
If I say, "There is no gold in China," I would have to know everything about every square inch of China, and every person living in China, in order to say that with any genuine scientific accuracy. I would have to know that the land absolutely and positively contains no gold whatsoever, and I would have to know that nobody has a gold filling inside their mouth. It is the same with the above statements.
Most of our so-called "scientists" need to go back to school and learn what science really is. Science is the examination and observation of things in order to provide accurate, verifiable facts. Models and predictions are not science. If it is not testable, observable, and verifiable, it is not science. Scientists can argue that point all they want; they will still be in the wrong.
Science is what tells me my car needs gasoline in order to run, instead of chocolate milk. Science is what tells me all the properties of an apple and how one apple differs from another. Science is what tells me the distance from the Earth to the moon. Science is what tells me what things to combine in order to make salt. If science is not about conclusions, facts, and truth, things we can test, observe, and verify, as some of these fools try to assert, then it is untrustworthy and not science at all.
I am not talking about proof. The only field wherein you get proof in the strict sense is mathematics. In every other field, including science, you cannot speak of proof, but you can speak of evidence. For those who fail to grasp it, science is limited. Science has absolutely nothing to do with, and is not equated with, rationality. The things that are beyond science are not necessarily "irrational," as some erroneously believe. Science cannot tell us whether a poem, a work of literature, a work of art, or music is good or beautiful. Science can, however, tell us that putting strychnine into someone's tea will kill them. But science cannot tell us whether it is morally right to do so. You can easily see the limitations of science because it cannot answer the elementary questions of a child: Who am I? Where did I come from? What is the purpose of my existence? Where am I going?
Our encyclopedias and textbooks need to be re-written containing only the information that is verifiable, and that can be tested at later dates to see if they provide the same results or not. Putting "millions" or "billions" of years in these books is unscientific. Stating they only grow to be a certain size is also unscientific, considering the fact that snakes, squids, turtles, etc., have been found that are larger than our encyclopedias and textbooks assure us regarding their maximum size. If the largest your people have ever found was, say, 36 feet (in the case of the Anaconda), then state that! "The largest anaconda we have ever found was 36 feet." That is a scientific statement. "Anacondas grow to a length of 36 feet," or even, "Anacondas grow to an average length of 36 feet." That is arrogant pride thinking your data is absolute and infallible, just like the foolish statements above pertaining to gold.