Embed from Getty ImagesMany QPR fans on Twitter reacted with dismay to the 4-0 defeat at Norwich – and questioned whether Ian Holloway is the right man to take the club forward.The defeat was Rangers’ seventh in their last eight matches and their 18th in 30 since Holloway’s return to the club for a second spell as manager.And while some supporters are keen for him to be given the summer to revamp the squad, others are not convinced he can turn things around.Holloway supporters need to articulate reasons for him staying apart from we can’t sack another manager so quickly. Where’s the vision? #qpr— Abiola (@AbiolaHP) May 7, 2017Holloway is clueless please just admit the mistake so we can all move on and plan for next season #QPR— Ancel Alexander ™ (@ancelbailey) May 7, 2017As much as its painful to say it we need to get Holloway out now!!! Otherwise were gonna be involved in a relegation scrap again! #Qpr— Jamie McCourt (@JamieMcCourt96) May 7, 2017I’ve realised that #QPR “this is our cave” season ticket marketing drive is actually referring to Holloway’s Stone Age football @QPRFC— Michael (@Mike_H92) May 7, 2017Trying not to get wound up by Holloway,his tombola selections, lack of tactical nouse & terrible post match interviews.Difficult tho #QPR— D J (@ThaGreat1) May 7, 2017Todays result sums up our entire season , personally holloway isnt the answer should cut our losses and get some1 else in 4 preseason #QPR— Duncan Mccreadie#QPR (@duncanmccreadie) May 7, 2017Holloway OUT right NOW. #QPR— Yousef Marafi® (@Yousef_QPR) May 7, 2017Why keep Holloway in charge only to inevitably have to sack him in October after managing 2 wins in 14 games of the new season? #QPR— Darren Pickard (@darrenpickard) May 7, 201730 games, 18 losses. TBH I’d happily accept Ian Holloway’s resignation because I don’t want to see another sacking in November. #QPR— James Evans (@Jimeevans) May 7, 2017Holloway if u love the club that much hold your hands up and admit it hasn’t worked out #qpr— Gareth kiss (@Gkiss100) May 7, 2017Seriously though Holloway needs to look if he can do this job. Has passion yh but everything else has been poor, nostalgia over #QPR— seaAny (@Sean_FootyMad) May 7, 2017Can’t see what Holloway has done to justify not getting sacked…either sack him in the summer or he’ll be gone by October #QPR— Russell Maynard (@MrRussellmyn) May 7, 2017What a surprise, losing again ! Please just go Holloway and give someone who actually has a clue a chance next season , anyone !!#QPR— Tony R (@rizzb64) May 7, 2017If Ian Holloway loves this football club he will leave. Get this season over and start again from scratch #QPR— kieran (@smiffdaaaa) May 7, 2017 Ads by Revcontent Trending Articles Urologists: Men, Forget the Blue Pill! This “Destroys” ED x ‘Genius Pill’ Used By Rich Americans Now Available In Netherlands! x What She Did to Lose Weight Stuns Doctors: Do This Daily Before Bed! x One Cup of This (Before Bed) Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! x Men, You Don’t Need the Blue Pill if You Do This x Do This Immediately if You Have Diabetes (Watch) x Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
Are independent science reporters less credible than the big players? Given Big Media’s awful track record, the journal editors welcome alternatives.The editors of Nature had nothing to lose for blasting science reporters. According to an infographic produced by the American Council on Science and Health and Real Clear Science showing the “Best and Worst Science News Sites,” the venerable science journal (also serving as a news site) came out on top. They ranked best of publishers that “almost always” provide “evidence-based reporting” in their coverage.In their March 7 editorial, “Science journalism can be evidence-based, compelling — and wrong,” Nature‘s editors say, “A ranking of the best science-news outlets misjudges the relationship between research and reporting.” First, they share some nasty quotes from the creators:There has been much gnashing of teeth in the science-journalism community this week, with the release of an infographic that claims to rate the best and worst sites for scientific news. According to the American Council on Science and Health, which helped to prepare the ranking, the field is in a shoddy state. “If journalism as a whole is bad (and it is),” says the council, “science journalism is even worse. Not only is it susceptible to the same sorts of biases that afflict regular journalism, but it is uniquely vulnerable to outrageous sensationalism”.News aggregator RealClearScience, which also worked on the analysis, goes further: “Much of science reporting is a morass of ideologically driven junk science, hyped research, or thick, technical jargon that almost no one can understand”.The editors gloat a little, but then question the basis of the ranking. It’s hard to compare sites with different audiences, they note. And it’s “unfair to damn all who work on a publication because of some stories that do not meet the grade.” The internet has also “spread the brand and the content so much thinner.”Next, they call into question what “evidence-based” means. Can peer review satisfy that requirement? Watch as they undermine this esteemed icon of reliability:The judges’ criterion of evidence-based news is arguably problematic, as well. Many journalists could reasonably point to the reproducibility crisis in some scientific fields and ask — as funders and critics are increasingly asking — just how reliable some of that evidence truly is. Mainstream science reporters have typically taken peer review as an official stamp of approval from the research community that a published finding is sufficiently robust to share with their readers. Yet this kind of evidence-based reporting is only as reliable as the evidence it reports on. And many scientists would complain (even if only among themselves) that some published studies, especially those that draw press attention, are themselves vulnerable to bias and sensationalism.Whoa! That’s the crash of an idol falling. What to do? Here’s where the editorial gets really interesting. Is there any room for the independent, non-institutional reporter?This is one reason why the rise of the scientist (and non-scientist) as blogger, along with other forms of post-publication review, has been so valuable. Many scientists know about the problems with some fields of research. Many journalists do, too — articles on questionable practices from statistical fishing to under-powered studies are an increasing presence in most of the publications in the infographic. The relationship between science and media reporting is far from simple, and both sides should remember this.Creation-Evolution Headlines scampers about like a small mammal under the feet of dinosaurs. It doesn’t even appear on the infographic. Even if it did, we all know what would happen. Because we dare to question the secular Darwinian worldview, Big Science and Big Media (including the creators of the infographic) would undoubtedly imprison CEH in the bottom right corner under “Pure Garbage”. We would be castigated for “ideologically driven or poor reporting”— why? Because that is the standard punishment for Darwin doubters. (At least we would have nearby inmates in the Huffington Post and Newsweek).But notice what the editors said. Big Science lacks reliability. Big Media is gullible to the illusion of credibility offered by peer review. “Evidence-based reporting” is only reliable as the evidence it reports on. In this morass of bias, sensationalism, and the reproducibility crisis, who offers something of value? The answer, according to the world’s leading science journal—whose ‘evidence’ often comes under our microscope—is “the scientist (and non-scientist) as blogger, along with other forms of post-publication review”.Thank you for reading our ‘valuable’ contributions.Nature didn’t even mention the built-in bias of academia’s press releases, where employees in the Public Relations offices of universities and institutions write glowing reports of their scientists’ work to make them look good. Most of the Big Media sites on the infographic pick up these press releases and regurgitate them uncritically on their websites. Very few if any reporters have the guts to question what these press releases claim. We do.(Visited 63 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
(Visited 395 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Here’s a look at recent botanical news stories that should offer plenty of opportunities for evolutionists to show how plants evolved.Model of ancestral flower. (Copyright: Hervé Sauquet/Jürg Schönenberger)Those DAM flowers: Desperate to honor King Charlie in the story of flowering plants, news reporters went wild after hearing a press release from the Royal Holloway University of London that announced, “Revealed: what the first ever flower looked like.” Responses from the Darwine-drunk media were predictable, especially since the University of Vienna‘s press release included an imaginary flower graphic which inebriated editors could easily copy and paste into their breathless headlines:Did the first flower look like this? (BBC News): “All living flowers ultimately derive from a single ancestor that lived about 140 million years ago, a study suggests.”What the first flower on Earth might have looked like (New Scientist): Listen carefully to what reporter James O’Donoghue says: “Three was the magic number for the very first flowering plant. The largest study into their early evolution has concluded that its flowers probably had petal-like tepals [sic; sepals] and pollen-bearing stamens arranged in layered whorls of three. It bore similarities with magnolias, buttercups and laurels – but was unlike any living flower.”What flowers looked like 100 million years ago (Science Daily): “No one knows exactly how this happened, and the origin and early evolution of flowering plants and especially their flowers still remains one of the biggest enigmas in biology, almost 140 years after Charles Darwin called their rapid rise in the Cretaceous ‘an abominable mystery’.”“These results call into question much of what has been thought and taught previously about floral evolution!“There it is: the DAM Law (‘Darwin’s Abominable Mystery‘) making its inevitable appearance. So what is all the hype based on? When the fogma is cleared away, we find nothing to help soothe Mr. Darwin’s stomach ache. On the contrary:36 researchers from 13 countries, including Royal Holloway, University of London have reported results from the ‘eFLOWER project’. Among the most surprising results from the project is a new model of an original ancestral flower that does not match any of the ideas proposed previously – shedding new light on the early evolution of flowers as well as major patterns in floral evolution across all living flowering plants.There is no such flower on earth. It’s made up by giving some artist the traits the evolutionists think must have been present in the ancestor. Even so, clearly this ‘ancestral flower’ is all flower, and a complex one at that. It has stamens, pistils, sepals, whorls, petals and all; quite pretty, actually, perhaps worthy of being in a modern flower arrangement. The press release admits it has a ‘modern appearance‘ and makes a big deal of the fact that the new model overturns previous ideas. “An old assumption disproved” one sub-heading reads. “These results call into question much of what has been thought and taught previously about floral evolution!” one researcher shouts. So much for everything you were taught.Despite the promise that this model “sheds light” on the evolution of flowering plants, it doesn’t help Darwin’s case for his disciples to show off a very complex, fully-modern-looking flowering plant as the ancestor. The depth of this problem for Darwinians can be sensed by listening to them confess utter ignorance about the origin of one of the most successful groups of organisms on earth – the angiosperms –Flowering plants (angiosperms), with at least 300,000 species, are by far the most diverse group of plants on Earth.They include almost all the species used by people for food, medicine, and many other purposes. However, flowering plants arose only about 140 million years ago, quite late in the evolution of plants, toward the end of the age of the dinosaurs. Since then they have diversified spectacularly.However, no one knows exactly how this happened. The origin and early evolution of flowering plants -especially flowers still remain one of the biggest enigmas in biology, almost 140 years after Charles Darwin called their rapid rise in the Cretaceous “an abominable mystery”.A look at the materials & methods used by the evolutionary team in Nature Communications shows multiple instances of incestuous assumptions, where they used Darwinian phylogenies, Darwinian timelines, and Darwinian molecular clocks to infer ‘ancestral’ traits. The fact that after all this DIDO divination they still ended up with a modern-looking, complex flower as the ancestor would seem to indicate, to an unbiased observer, that evolution really had little to do with the abrupt appearance of flowers. The authors say nothing about mutations, the fountainhead of all innovation in the imaginations of neo-Darwinists. And the very phrase that made Darwin famous—natural selection—does not appear in the paper either, except for a couple of fact-free, offhand speculations that some traits might have given flowers a ‘selective advantage’ here or there. For example, “What does this scenario of early whorl reduction tell us about the evolutionary forces at play?” [Note to Nature editors: evolution is not a force.] “We propose that early reduction in the number of whorls of ancestral flowers presented selective advantages that eventually led to the extinction of its original, multiparted floral groundplan.” This speculation hardly rises above the level of anecdote. Besides, reduction and extinction are not what Darwin needs! It appears DAM just got more abominable.Dodging the issue in bladderworts: Certainly the most interesting traits in bladderworts, aquatic carnivorous plants, are their lightning-fast traps that accelerate at 600 G’s (2/17/11). A paper in PLoS One about the evolution of carnivorous plants, however, only discusses variation in mitochondrial genome size in the members of the genus Utricularia, never mentioning how the incredible traps in those angiosperms could have emerged by a Darwinian process. There is no mention of mutation or selection. Readers wishing to hear about the evolutionary appearance of the “amazing piece of mechanics” that allows these traps to fire hundreds of times will have to keep looking.Dear readers: we give you links to the very best evolutionary evidence from the leading journals and academic institutions. You can read what they say and see if it sounds convincing. But when you strip away the fogma, the Darwin Flubber and perhapsimaybecouldness spikes; when you are not intimated by Jargonwocky; when you disallow incestuous Darwinian assumptions; when you examine their methods; when you just look at the raw data and see what it indicates, what do you find? Creation! All the Darwinese reduces to hot air and storytelling. Evolution is a narrative gloss painted on the facts, not an inference from the facts themselves. Darwin paint turns beautiful flowers into black, hideous products of the Stuff Happens Law. Tomorrow we will provide more examples to rub it in. People need to see the how the Darwin Party subverts science into Darwinolatry.
Return to article. Long DescriptionIn fact, in the following situations, experts recommend NOT filing a claim:If the cost to repair and replace may well be less than the deductible;If the cost to repair and replace isn’t going to be much more than the deductible (most say not to file unless it’s at least $500-$1000 more, while some advise going even higher);If the damage is caused by an event that is unlikely to be covered by the policy (remember, those without flood insurance are most likely NOT covered for a high-water event);If the homeowner has made more than two claims in the last decade (meaning the insurance company already considers him or her high risk);If the problem happened because of needed maintenance the homeowner failed to do (meaning the claim will likely be denied)This might seem contrary to common sense. After all, we may think, this is why we have insurance. Unfortunately, however, homeowner’s insurance companies can and do raise rates or even pull coverage completely based on homeowner claims—even claims that were denied. (Laws on this do vary by state.) In the end, the monetary benefits from filing may be dwarfed by cost increases to the policy.What’s more, a homeowner’s claim history will follow them around and potentially count against them. Insurers use an information system called CLUE, the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange, to check on claims history before insuring or issuing a quote. CLUE tracks all the car and homeowner’s insurance claims a consumer has made over the past 7 years, including those that were denied.So before putting it on record that a claim has been made, homeowners should think carefully. Of course, there is definitely a time and place for making a claim, but that time and place is typically after major and catastrophic damage.Document the DamageLet’s say damage is severe enough to warrant filing. Although it may seem tempting to start cleaning up the home right away, the homeowner’s first job is to document the damage and list the losses, as thoroughly as possible. Today’s smartphones make this task easy, but it’s crucial to take notes as well, and to date them.Do not throw out damaged items yet, as the adjuster may want to see them. At the same time, don’t place belongings at risk of further damage by leaving them exposed to the elements. Move salvageable goods to a safe storage area.Finally, homeowners who have been the victim of a crime, such as a theft, should report it to the police. Get copies of the police report.Begin RepairsAlthough homeowners may think they should wait to receive a check or at least see an adjuster before making any steps toward repair, this is not the case. In fact, they should not hesitate to make repairs that are needed for safety or to protect the home, such as fixing broken windows. Holding off may cause the insurance company to say that damage has been worsened by negligence. However, save receipts from these repairs.If the home’s damage is so severe that it is unlivable, families should seek shelter elsewhere–again, saving receipts so they can be reimbursed.In part 2 of this series, we’ll cover filing the claim, dealing with problems, severe disasters, and special concerns for military members.ReferencesHill, T. (2017). How to Make the Most of Your Home Insurance Claim. Retrieved from https://smartasset.com/mortgage/how-to-make-the-most-of-your-home-insurance-claimInsurance Information Institute. (n.d.) How do I file a homeowner’s claim? Retrieved from http://www.iii.org/article/how-do-i-file-a-homeowners-claimLake, R. (2016). How to file a homeowner’s insurance claim. Retrieved from https://smartasset.com/mortgage/how-to-file-a-homeowners-insurance-claimOchalla, B. (2017). When not to file a homeowner’s insurance claim. Retrieved from https://quotewizard.com/home-insurance/when-not-to-file-a-homeowners-insurance-claimProcter, B. Financial Recovery and Risk Management. Retrieved from http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPrinterFriendlyPub.aspx?P=emw1022Waters, J. (2013). When not to file a home insurance claim Retrieved from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/think-twice-before-filing-home-insurance-claims-2013-10-16 New Home by paulbr75. CC BY 2.0. By Carol ChurchIf you’ve ever had the experience of having your home robbed or seriously damaged, you know how awful it can be. Seeing the destruction and mess can feel deeply upsetting, and somehow very personal.At times like these, we may react in emotional ways. However, it’s key to try to stay calm. This may well be a time to make a claim on homeowner’s insurance. But to do so effectively, there are some things that are important to know.Should You File a Claim?When we see any kind of damage to our home, our impulse may be to pick up the phone and immediately call the insurance agent. But in real life, it’s actually not that simple. Before making that call, homeowners should consult the terms of their policy and consider the potential price of making a claim vs. the cost of repairing and/or replacing the missing or destroyed items.