A bird with a T. rex head may help reveal how dinosaurs became birds

[Frank Robert]

By other people you don't know anything about?

You started out saying "Uniformed people make all kinds of halfwitted [sic] claims". That was really rude by the way. Not to mention presumptuous.

I never said it was.

I apologize for being rude. For the 4th or 5th time if you have counter evidence to ecosystem destruction or that Exxon didn't know about climate change in the 70s present it instead of wasting time by deflecting.

 

[Frank Robert]

Often in threads like this there are people who aren't scientists acting like they're scientists, because they read internet articles by people they don't know anything about.

You don't need to be a scientist to understand evidence. I am not a scientist but I do have 2 graduate research degrees.

 

[dlamberth]

But misinterpreted by science.

Says a person who espouses embedded age.

 

[Larniavc]

Also based on the fact that you guys don't even bother to do a quick background check of someone's work before posting it or denouncing it, it's obvious that standard isn't being applied.

Who’s background should I have checked?

 

[Larniavc]

Meta analysis isn't required for stating an opinion, and certainly not required for making a comment like

Friend, you are the one who brought up meta analyses.

 

[AV1611VET]

Says a person who espouses embedded age.

Do you have a better explanation?

 

[ozso]

Friend, you are the one who brought up meta analyses.

In relation to you saying: "You could evaluate it's methodology and conclusions". Then you applied meta analysis to opining.

 

[ozso]

I apologize for being rude. For the 4th or 5th time if you have counter evidence to ecosystem destruction or that Exxon didn't know about climate change in the 70s present it instead of wasting time by deflecting.

I like to post impromptu comments and opinions. If that upsets you, you can always put me on ignore. Demanding evidence to back up an impromptu comment or opinion is non sequitur.

 

[Larniavc]

In relation to you saying: "You could evaluate it's methodology and conclusions". Then you applied meta analysis to opining.

That’s not what a meta analysis is. A meta analysis is the review of many like studies to determine trends.

I simply suggested reviewing the methodology and conclusions of the research. You implied it was inaccurate research.

I’m saying you should read the research to evaluate it yourself.

 

[ozso]

That’s not what a meta analysis is. A meta analysis is the review of many like studies to determine trends.

Yeah, I know. And that's what would be required to "evaluate it's methodology and conclusions".

I simply suggested reviewing the methodology and conclusions of the research. You implied it was inaccurate research.

You and Frank Robert have taken "if it's on the internet, it must be true" way too far.

I’m saying you should read the research to evaluate it yourself.

Before making or in order to make an impromptu statement? That's not going to happen. No matter how much you and Frank nag me.

If you think it's important for me to read and evaluate the research (which I have in the past) it's not. Being an armchair pseudo climate change "expert" isn't go to make one bit of difference in the world in any way whatsoever.

 

[dlamberth]

Do you have a better explanation?

Yes!
Embedded age is an imagination.
The Genesis Creation story is a carry over from pre-Abrahamic religions. And science is opening a window into how God actually creates the Earth as well as new life forms.

 

[Frank Robert]

I like to post impromptu comments and opinions. If that upsets you, you can always put me on ignore. Demanding evidence to back up an impromptu comment or opinion is non sequitur.

I posted a comment that you didn't agree with and you asked me to ck out the author. Why? My comment had little to do with the authors credentials so it is now obvious that your only intention was not to disagree with the articles but to kill the messenger (in this case the author of the article.)

 

[Frank Robert]

You and Frank Robert have taken "if it's on the internet, it must be true" way too far.

We are here for discussion. For the sixth time if you disagreed with the references I posted you need to tell us why you disagree.

No competent people here take what we read on the internet as truth.

Again if you disagree with an OP or other commenter you need to spell out why and back up your claims to be taken seriously.

 

[Frank Robert]

Before making or in order to make an impromptu statement? That's not going to happen. No matter how much you and Frank nag me.

Asking what you disagree with, why you disagree with and evidence to back it up is not nagging.

 

[ozso]

I posted a comment that you didn't agree with and you asked me to ck out the author. Why? My comment had little to do with the authors credentials so it is now obvious that your only intention was not to disagree with the articles but to kill the messenger (in this case the author of the article.)

I think a lot of people accept what they find on the internet at face value because it supports confirmation bias.

 

[ozso]

Asking what you disagree with, why you disagree with and evidence to back it up is not nagging.

It is when you keep asking over and over again. I'll supply what I want to supply in my own good time.

 

[Aussie Pete]

When creationists begin contributing to science by actually doing and publishing in scientific journals instead of just apologetics disagreeing with the science they dislike then they could be taken seriously.

You should be a comedian. How does a creationist get a paper published? There are a number of scientists who scientifically demonstrate the implausibility of evolution. Did you read the article? It was written by a scientist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You should be a comedian. How does a creationist get a paper published? There are a number of scientists who scientifically demonstrate the implausibility of evolution. Did you read the article? It was written by a scientist.

Yet not a scientists with any knowledge of biology nor even a biological scientist himself. He was systems administrator and a team lead systems administrator for the Cassini mission.
Now THAT is an appeal to authority if I ever seen one.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think a lot of people accept what they find on the internet at face value because it supports confirmation bias.

Yes, that is a problem.

That does not change the fact that there is a lot of good information on the Internet. For instance, here is clear evidence that evolution happened -- 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent .

 

[doubtingmerle]

How does a creationist get a paper published?

By passing peer review.

There are a number of scientists who scientifically demonstrate the implausibility of evolution.

Please show me a paper that demonstrates the implausibility of evolution that deserves to pass peer review.

Did you read the article? It was written by a scientist.

Are you referring to this one? (Darwinians Leap Over Flight Origins – CEH) Yes, I read it.

Have you read this page? Did We Evolve? It was written by an engineer.