Drippychin,(you want to vomit verbal abuse do not be surprised when the favour is returned, I can assure you that I can be considerably more pointed if need be)<quoted text>
Boofhead. Is this the best you can do?
Suck it up. You have yet another falsification to add to the that great garbage bin of falsified empirical evidence that goes to further support the basis of all evolutionary prattle...
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
It is all I need to do, as well as the facts being obvious, the facts are facts. You are ignoring time, as is usual for a godbot you assume that time relates directly to your personal experience of three score years and ten. That time period is not even a drop in the ocean compared to 400 million years. Science admits to error, usually in the realms of fractions of a percent, a fractions of 400 million is still big number compared to your understanding of life span.
This is of course only one reason why you arguments fail.
I see you have attempted to obfuscate the discussion by throwing in an irrelevant link (another sure sign of a person with little or no argument) I note that the comments section of the link you posted are quite critical of the authors findings and statistical methods as is Wikipedia who stated :-“… found major flaws in Ioannidis's methods, noting that Ioannidis (who did not collaborate with any statisticians on the article) appeared to have confused alpha level with p value and also built the assumption that most findings are likely to be false into his reasoning, thereby making his logic circular.”
That’s is of course the good christian way to do things, make a decision and then manipulate the data to suite that decision. Unfortunately for such ‘research’(and I use the word in the widest possible sense) methods other researches and readers are not as gullible as you seem to be
Of course when it comes to science, a study design is not a fact, that is the whole concept. Design a study and then evaluate it, if the study is found to be flawed it is discarded, if it is found to be valid then further study is planned and the results built upon.
Or perhaps you would prefer to rely on medicines that are untested or that have failed the tests designed to show their effectiveness and safety? Honey, you stick to your bronze age chanting to your god for forgiveness and witch doctor laying on of hands medicine, me, I’ll choose advanced, designed, scientifically tested and medical board approved medicine any time.
Of course some scientific fields rely on “accurate measures” your term. Again the nature of science is that new evidence may falsify the old. Unlike the babble where new evidence is rejected out of hand, often with verbal abuse and violence in a childish attempt to quell the facts
You are perfectly entitled to your faith but when you use that faith (belief) in a vain attempt to discredit proven fact by offering discredited articles then you are not only abusing the facts you are also lying for and about your god.