"You do n't seem to grasp the concept of the hostile witness . Of course he is an evolutionist , they both are , if Ken Ham said that it would not mean much . What they are both saying is that the people who promote the dinosaurs to birds scenario are lying propagandist , not scientist . Just so you ca n't say I took it out of context here is Dr. Olsen 's letter in it 's entirety ."
"Your use of language is rather colourful here ( lying propagandist ! ) and smacks of hyperbole . What is being critisised here is bad application of the scientific method in relation to National Geographic 's articles on the nature of relationship between birds and dinosaurs . I think Olsen makes some very pertinent points , but at no stage is he saying that evolution does not occur or the possibility that there is no link between any theropods and birds ever . What he correctly draws attention to is poor peer review and less than conclusive evidence to support the hypothesis of the article 's author . In turn this is a stinging criticism of the NG given its high profile , reputation and claim to being a leading forum for the presentation of science in a popular format ."
"You do n't seem to grasp the concept of the hostile witness"
"Your use of language is rather colourful here ( lying propagandist ! )"