43 Dinosaur Eggs Discovered in China by Construction workers.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: borntowatch

I'm simply pointing out the truth. You refuse to admit that evidence for evolution even exists, so you dismiss it. You then claim that no evidence has been presented and ask for more. The thing is that you have a history of doing this and other threads have all the evidence of your behaviour. You seem to think that everyone will forget about it. Sorry, but no. We're calling you out on it. Link after link after link of hard, verifiable, testable proof - evidence in other words - has been provided in this and other threads. You refuse pointblank to admit that it even exists. Fine. It is, as I said, a free world. But don't claim that you're being persecuted. You're not. Instead your own double standards are being made clear.

No thats a furphy

i admit to microevolution, I can atest to that.

I deny that there is scientific evidence for all your other beliefs.

a reply to: borntowatch

??? And all the scientists discovering rudiments from lizards in snake like creatures? No eyewitnesses? Or don't count because they have studied? Eyewitnesses only counts when it's a whore and a carpenters son and an unsuccessfull fisherman? I can go and see if i can find some of these to witness evolution too for you, if that would help?

But with the dinosaur eggs:
Will there be any research done on them or will they just end in a museum showcase? Should we be worried China uses them for transhumanism genetic research...(wanted to put a LOL there but it got stuck in my fingertips, imagine GODZILLA!)

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: borntowatch

I'm simply pointing out the truth. You refuse to admit that evidence for evolution even exists, so you dismiss it. You then claim that no evidence has been presented and ask for more. The thing is that you have a history of doing this and other threads have all the evidence of your behaviour. You seem to think that everyone will forget about it. Sorry, but no. We're calling you out on it. Link after link after link of hard, verifiable, testable proof - evidence in other words - has been provided in this and other threads. You refuse pointblank to admit that it even exists. Fine. It is, as I said, a free world. But don't claim that you're being persecuted. You're not. Instead your own double standards are being made clear.

No thats a furphy

i admit to microevolution, I can atest to that.

I deny that there is scientific evidence for all your other beliefs.

'All my other beliefs', eh? Well, we can point at palaeontology and the very clear fossil record to prove that the theory of evolution is based on a very solid foundation, with yet more evidence now being provided by study of DNA. There.
Astronomy is one of my favourite sciences. That's founded on scientific evidence. Then there's geology and volcanology. My wife loves these and is actually known in some places as the 'rock chick'. Here's a hint - it's not because of her love of rock music. Both of the latter are firmly based on measurable, testable, provable science.
Oh and I also love history and archaeology. Which also has evidence.
You seem to deny science a lot. I think that it terrifies you that it so clearly contradicts your own beliefs and I pity you for it.

originally posted by: Voldster

If there were "TONS" of evidence for your evolution theory, it wouldn't be a theory anymore. The only reason you believe dinosaurs lived millions of years ago is because you believe our science is infallible. That's the problem with our science. People treat it as borderline religion and whenever it's in danger of being rewritten people have a cow over it and do everything to deny it. For a group of people that spend so much time frowning upon others for believing in something they cannot see, you sure do have a lot of faith in dinosaurs being millions of years old despite the only absolute way to be certain just how old they are is to be a 200 million year old human being. Until that 200 million year old human being turns up and explains everything to us, you have to settle for tests that half the time gives an answer that you "know" is wrong because everyone "KNOWS" dinosaurs are hundreds of millions of years old. So you sit there and test until you get the result you want.

I'm not even going to address the definition of theory.....
Whether you like it or not geology proves the stereotypical dinosaur lived prior to the KT event 65 million years ago and before you go on some diatribe, geologic time measurements are accurate enough to prove this fact. Its not faith, it is simply denying ignorance.

30 years ago everyone "knew" dinosaurs were reptile in nature. No one ever conceived the idea that they or at least some had feathers. Imagine what we will know in the future that rewrites our books, but I wouldn't hold my breathe for that holy grail evidence that turns evolution theory into fact.

And if science was based on faith, we would never have gotten to that point nor developed our current understanding to what it is. You are contradicting yourself in your same thread.

Evolutionists sure are faithful: They believe in something they cannot prove exists. So how are you any different from the rest of us? You can't sit there and preach that your theory is fact and that's why you're different. At least we have a book that is thousands of years old. Whether you believe it is legitimate or not is not the issue. It exists. What exists for you? Scientific testing on dinosaur fossils? Where the only way you can be sure the results are correct is to presume they are correct because "everyone knows dinosaurs are hundreds of millions of years old, it's the first thing we're taught in school!" ?

Hmm. Seems legit.

I won't get into any serious debate over this. As a matter of fact, I do not expect to come back to this thread after I hit post. I'm not an avid visitor of ATS. But I will leave with these final words: Even if my response above doesn't entirely involve the person I am replying to, it applies to someone(s), and it was worth my time. Your theory is a theory, and it will always be a theory, and you are no different from the people you bully for believing in a God. You are extremely faithful to evolution despite having no proof to make it a fact of life. Sure sounds like to me that creationists and evolutionists both rely on faith for what they believe in.

Well at least we cleared up that you don't understand what a theory nor how basic science from an elementary standpoint works.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
'All my other beliefs', eh? Well, we can point at palaeontology and the very clear fossil record to prove that the theory of evolution is based on a very solid foundation, with yet more evidence now being provided by study of DNA. There.
Astronomy is one of my favourite sciences. That's founded on scientific evidence. Then there's geology and volcanology. My wife loves these and is actually known in some places as the 'rock chick'. Here's a hint - it's not because of her love of rock music. Both of the latter are firmly based on measurable, testable, provable science.
Oh and I also love history and archaeology. Which also has evidence.
You seem to deny science a lot. I think that it terrifies you that it so clearly contradicts your own beliefs and I pity you for it.

Very clear fossil record....seriously you want to claim that, well ok lets look at the shoebox theory. Then tie it in with the geological timescale a 200 year old scientific Theory that has never been seen in a natural geological formation that is based on circular reasoning Ask the rockchick if they date rocks by the fossils found in them and then if they date fossils by the rocks they are found in.
Ask if she can prove the geological time scale and how she can do that, ask why its a 200 year old scientific theory and why it has never advanced in any format
Ask the rockchick how the geological time scale is measurable testable and proveable

I am just asking questions looking for answers, so far your best answer is the rockchic said so.
Not really good enoughis it


I love history and archeology as well, not denying that, just a lot of the dating methods the rockchick has been told are accurate.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: borntowatch

I'm simply pointing out the truth. You refuse to admit that evidence for evolution even exists, so you dismiss it. You then claim that no evidence has been presented and ask for more. The thing is that you have a history of doing this and other threads have all the evidence of your behaviour. You seem to think that everyone will forget about it. Sorry, but no. We're calling you out on it. Link after link after link of hard, verifiable, testable proof - evidence in other words - has been provided in this and other threads. You refuse pointblank to admit that it even exists. Fine. It is, as I said, a free world. But don't claim that you're being persecuted. You're not. Instead your own double standards are being made clear.

No thats a furphy

i admit to microevolution, I can atest to that.

I deny that there is scientific evidence for all your other beliefs.

'All my other beliefs', eh? Well, we can point at palaeontology and the very clear fossil record to prove that the theory of evolution is based on a very solid foundation, with yet more evidence now being provided by study of DNA. There.
Astronomy is one of my favourite sciences. That's founded on scientific evidence. Then there's geology and volcanology. My wife loves these and is actually known in some places as the 'rock chick'. Here's a hint - it's not because of her love of rock music. Both of the latter are firmly based on measurable, testable, provable science.
Oh and I also love history and archaeology. Which also has evidence.
You seem to deny science a lot. I think that it terrifies you that it so clearly contradicts your own beliefs and I pity you for it.

Ask BTW to post hard evidence. He/she will disappear in a heartbeat. An opinion is just that - an opinion - until you have hard evidence to support your opinion.

The fossil record, which interfaces directly with geological science and spectroscopic methods, is well established. There are literally DOZENS of posts on this board attesting to that with links to hard science.

To engage BTW is a waste of time - a "moot point" is a better definition of a brain that lacks fundamental reasoning capabilities. And is highly dishonest as well.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
'All my other beliefs', eh? Well, we can point at palaeontology and the very clear fossil record to prove that the theory of evolution is based on a very solid foundation, with yet more evidence now being provided by study of DNA. There.
Astronomy is one of my favourite sciences. That's founded on scientific evidence. Then there's geology and volcanology. My wife loves these and is actually known in some places as the 'rock chick'. Here's a hint - it's not because of her love of rock music. Both of the latter are firmly based on measurable, testable, provable science.
Oh and I also love history and archaeology. Which also has evidence.
You seem to deny science a lot. I think that it terrifies you that it so clearly contradicts your own beliefs and I pity you for it.

Very clear fossil record....seriously you want to claim that, well ok lets look at the shoebox theory. Then tie it in with the geological timescale a 200 year old scientific Theory that has never been seen in a natural geological formation that is based on circular reasoning Ask the rockchick if they date rocks by the fossils found in them and then if they date fossils by the rocks they are found in.
Ask if she can prove the geological time scale and how she can do that, ask why its a 200 year old scientific theory and why it has never advanced in any format
Ask the rockchick how the geological time scale is measurable testable and proveable

I am just asking questions looking for answers, so far your best answer is the rockchic said so.
Not really good enoughis it


I love history and archeology as well, not denying that, just a lot of the dating methods the rockchick has been told are accurate.

So where is your data that dating methods are inaccurate??? Come on now - don't be a coward - post something that supports your opinion. I dare you.

Now watch for the disappearing act - under several different names of course - you can run, but you can't hide.

originally posted by: Phantom423

So where is your data that dating methods are inaccurate??? Come on now - don't be a coward - post something that supports your opinion. I dare you.

Now watch for the disappearing act - under several different names of course - you can run, but you can't hide.

I dont have any data claiming that the geological time scale is inaccurate. I am not claiming its accurate or its a science, you are, the onus is on science to prove it.

A coward implies I am scared, here I am prove with science the geological time scale is scientific

What do I have to hide from, evidence? Well show it

I double dare you, nay.... triple dare you, hell dare you four times more, infinity dare you to prove what you believe

It doesnt matter if I can prove it wrong, I am not calling it a science I am calling it a faith and the onus is on science to prove it a science

You are claiming it as real, its on science to prove it

This is simple so you should be able to understand it. I cant prove what isnt proven to be true to be false.

So you have to show me what evidence you claim to have for me to make fun of it. There is no evidence for me to disprove.

They date rocks by fossils and fossils by rocks, circular reasoning

originally posted by: borntowatch

Very clear fossil record....seriously you want to claim that, well ok lets look at the shoebox theory. Then tie it in with the geological timescale a 200 year old scientific Theory that has never been seen in a natural geological formation that is based on circular reasoning Ask the rockchick if they date rocks by the fossils found in them and then if they date fossils by the rocks they are found in.

Except that you are entirely wrong. Fossils are not dated solely by the strata in which they are found therefore it can not be a circular reasoning behind the dating of them. No fossil is ascribed a date by one single dating method. Multiple tests are always done to confirm the age of fossils in question.

And what exactly do you mean when you say the geological timescale has never been seen in a geological formation? Can you support that with any sort of citation or further explanation?

Ask if she can prove the geological time scale and how she can do that, ask why its a 200 year old scientific theory and why it has never advanced in any format

And what exactly would is "advance" to? Do you actually know? You make it sound as if the science behind geology has been stagnant for 2 centuries which is completely ludicrous. The advent of absolute dating techniques at the beginning of the 20th century for example has completely altered the scientific landscape for how things are dated by adding aspects of physics into geological dating.

Absolute dating of fossils requires other dating methods such as the potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium methods, which involve isotopes with slower decay rates (longer "half-lives"). Such isotopes are rare in fossils themselves, but may occur in surrounding or adjoining rock layers, yielding an approximate age for the fossil-bearing unit. Using the principles discussed above, scientists also can deduce the approximate age of other layers correlated with the same formation, as well as an approximate age for layers above and below the formation (which would be somewhat younger and older respectively).

It's a little confusing that you take such umbrage with this science yet put all of your faith in a 3500 year old basket of scripture written by the Hebrews in the bronze age while failing to see the cognitive disconnect involved here by refusing to qualify your remarks with anything more than a denial of the science.

Ask the rockchick how the geological time scale is measurable testable and proveable

When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.

If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years. However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong."

If it is a small but significant inconsistency, it could indicate that the geological time scale requires a small revision. This happens regularly. The continued revision of the time scale as a result of new data demonstrates that geologists are willing to question it and change it. The geological time scale is far from dogma.

I am just asking questions looking for answers, so far your best answer is the rockchic said so.
Not really good enoughis it

if that were the only answer given then I would wholeheartedly agree with you that it isn't nearly a realistic answer. you've been provided many answers by many people on many occasions. You either dismiss them out of hand with no counter hypothesis or basis for your dismissal or you simply refuse to read them and move on to ad hominem rants and personal slurs.

I love history and archeology as well, not denying that, just a lot of the dating methods the rockchick has been told are accurate.

Then please, in your infinite wisdom and knowledge, clue all of us heathens in on what precisely is wrong about dating methods aside from your antiquated and elementary understanding of how they work. The continuous insistence of "circularity" is just wrong and is in no way how things are done despite your insistence to the contrary.

Don't worry... based on past and recent exchanges, I don't actually expect you to do so but I thought I would give you both the benefit of the doubt as well as the opportunity to give what you ask of others for once. Evidence. give it a shot if you can.


Rastall, R.H., 1956. Geology. Encyclopaedia Britannica 10, p.168. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.: Chicago.

Harper, C.W., Jr., 1980. Relative age inference in paleontology. Lethaia, v.13, p.239-248


Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.

1.The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4.The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.

originally posted by: borntowatch
They date rocks by fossils and fossils by rocks, circular reasoning

Absolutely false.

a reply to: borntowatch

You continue to demonstrate that a) you have badly - or perhaps wilfully? - misunderstood much about science and b) are entirely wrong, as Peter Vlar's magnificent post has demonstrated. I'm guessing that your reaction will be to further deny that facts are facts and that science is relevant. I think that my own theory that science terrifies you is right. As you are a creationist you regard it as a threat to your own beliefs.
Here's a nice simple question. Do you believe that dinosaurs lived and died millions of years ago? A simple yes or no will suffice.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: borntowatch

You continue to demonstrate that a) you have badly - or perhaps wilfully? - misunderstood much about science and b) are entirely wrong, as Peter Vlar's magnificent post has demonstrated. I'm guessing that your reaction will be to further deny that facts are facts and that science is relevant. I think that my own theory that science terrifies you is right. As you are a creationist you regard it as a threat to your own beliefs.
Here's a nice simple question. Do you believe that dinosaurs lived and died millions of years ago? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I have answered this on this site hundreds of times.
and no its not a simple yes or no answer


Sooo, no I wont answer your question

originally posted by: peter vlar

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.

1.The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4.The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.
is an interesting statement
Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions

Sounds a little strange and fanciful, sorta take it as I tell you to take it because i know and its a secret

ITS SCIENCE, ITS EMPIRICAL

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: borntowatch

You continue to demonstrate that a) you have badly - or perhaps wilfully? - misunderstood much about science and b) are entirely wrong, as Peter Vlar's magnificent post has demonstrated. I'm guessing that your reaction will be to further deny that facts are facts and that science is relevant. I think that my own theory that science terrifies you is right. As you are a creationist you regard it as a threat to your own beliefs.
Here's a nice simple question. Do you believe that dinosaurs lived and died millions of years ago? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I have answered this on this site hundreds of times.
and no its not a simple yes or no answer


Sooo, no I wont answer your question

Exactly as I suspected. Thank you for confirming my theory.

a reply to: borntowatch

The evidence has been posted DOZENS of times by myself and others - YOU are the one who never responds or challenges the evidence. So it's a waste of time to repost all the hard data. Look it up yourself for a change - there are over a thousand recognized scientific journals out there - stop asking other people to do the work for you. At the very least, you could review other threads where you have made exactly the same statements i.e. "show me the evidence" - and when the evidence is presented, you ignore it. So once again, it's a waste of time.

Take the time to look at the data that was posted on this board in a multitude of threads, select any one of the research articles and tell me why the conclusions are wrong. You have consistently failed to address any hard evidence that's presented here.

I've offered to debate anyone who wants to have a intelligent discussion about the evidence. You, however, throw out statements and make claims which amount to hot air because you can't substantiate them. And your claim that no evidence has ever been presented simply confirms the fact that you ignore it.

So once again, I challenge YOU to select any one of the articles previously posted on this board and tell me why the conclusions are wrong.

I'm happy to take the entire subject over to the debate forum where evidence from all sides can be documented and evaluated. That's the intelligent way to do things. I don't expect you'll want to do that though

a reply to: Phantom423

I wouldn't hold your breath. He won't debate you. He'll claim that he's being persecuted and that besides no-one has given him any of the information that he asked for, not really. Then he'll move the goalposts again so that his definition of evidence changes. He has a record on this, as you know.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Phantom423

I wouldn't hold your breath. He won't debate you. He'll claim that he's being persecuted and that besides no-one has given him any of the information that he asked for, not really. Then he'll move the goalposts again so that his definition of evidence changes. He has a record on this, as you know.

Yes - have made the offer more than a few times - disappears into the aether - then reappears with the same posts. Very transparent.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Phantom423

I wouldn't hold your breath. He won't debate you. He'll claim that he's being persecuted and that besides no-one has given him any of the information that he asked for, not really. Then he'll move the goalposts again so that his definition of evidence changes. He has a record on this, as you know.

Another strawman
Where have I ever claimed to be persecuted

You have nothing so are left with nothing than silly non valid arguments. I wouldnt bother with you either because you attack me not use science to defend a position, but its undefendable so.

i refuse to debate Phantom because he doesnt seem to understand its not about him and me, its about science.
That and he seems to be very angry and agitated.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Phantom423

I wouldn't hold your breath. He won't debate you. He'll claim that he's being persecuted and that besides no-one has given him any of the information that he asked for, not really. Then he'll move the goalposts again so that his definition of evidence changes. He has a record on this, as you know.

Yes - have made the offer more than a few times - disappears into the aether - then reappears with the same posts. Very transparent.

As I have said in the past Phantom, lets make it clear again

You dont strike me as an intellectual person and I would not enjoy debating you with your spitefulness.
It wouldnt be fun and I would gain nothing from it, just have to put up with more of your strawman rants and personal attacks, no thanks.

You dont need to debate, if you can offer more than

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.

1.The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4.The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.


Then answer my question

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions

we may get somewhere

What to tough

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Phantom423

I wouldn't hold your breath. He won't debate you. He'll claim that he's being persecuted and that besides no-one has given him any of the information that he asked for, not really. Then he'll move the goalposts again so that his definition of evidence changes. He has a record on this, as you know.

Yes - have made the offer more than a few times - disappears into the aether - then reappears with the same posts. Very transparent.

As I have said in the past Phantom, lets make it clear again

You dont strike me as an intellectual person and I would not enjoy debating you with your spitefulness.
It wouldnt be fun and I would gain nothing from it, just have to put up with more of your strawman rants and personal attacks, no thanks.

You dont need to debate, if you can offer more than

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.

1.The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.
2. The principle of original horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. The principle of original lateral extension - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4.The principle of cross-cutting relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. The principle of inclusion - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.


Then answer my question

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions

we may get somewhere

What to tough

Here we go again -

Exactly what "exceptions" are you referring to?? If you know anything about statistics, which you obviously don't, anomalies (or exceptions as you phrase it which is actually incorrect) must fall into a specific range of values in order to be included or excluded from data. These are commonly called "P" values or Chi squared analysis.

So pick your poison - cite an article in which you have observed these "exceptions" and give your analysis on the citation - i.e. why the methods were wrong, why the conclusions were incorrect, etc.

jeez - I think we've been here before