[RFEngineer]

“It’s still not clear just what all that has to do with the article subject, the reliability of making connections from dino to birds and so forth.”

The article if from ICR, they are crackpots. It certainly has something to do with the thread and the credibility of the article, don’t you think?

[count-your-change]

Crackpots? I find a lot to disagree with them about but “crackpots”? No. The article is from one person, a PhD, so if you want say HE is a crackpot you have to point to what it is in the article that demonstrates that.

And what you read into the tenets, even if accurate, really has naught to do with premises of the article which you have not really said much about. Or how stone and minerals can be sequenced (erroneous but not crackpot either).

The credibility of the article is easily checked but if that is the complaint point to where the article is wrong not what you say the ICR believes, the ICR did not write the article, one person did.

What have you done to support your statements?