That you still think popular magazines are the best sources for detailed discussions of science.
It’s like reading Reader’s Digest to determine the authority of Scripture.
I’m not surprised though. Mr. Thomas does this quite a bit in his articles.
Actually, I recently read in a secular science newsletter that the sheer number of just the abstracts from each scientific discipline could fill up many phone books per year. Scientists were quoted saying that the sheer volume of these mostly inconsequential scientific papers are impossible to keep up with, and that many scientists learn about the latest discoveries in publications such as the New York Times!
This guy makes it up as he goes along. He doesn’t even cross reference his own output. In the ‘article’ were he claimed that fish could handle the salinity (or lack of it) of The Flood, he ignored another piece he’d written where he claimed the waters would have been moving at over 80m per second to account for the geological reformation of the earth. Hardy beasts those flood fishes.
So any time a science mag references a press release, the article is to be discounted. Got it.
Some popular science publications FORCE researchers to come up with better, more understandable graphics and photos ~ and we ALL benefit from that.
Only problem with New Scientist is they use too many "ou"s to spell words.