ID has been peer reviewed, by scientists. Others disagree, and they're entitled to disagree, but to turn around and say that they're not scientists, merely because they disagree, is ridiculous. The reason why people here are so angry is because it infuriates them that a scientist would disagree with their theory. It eats them up inside, it's really funny.

That atheist piss in your cornflakes again today RM?

Raliegh Marsden wrote:ID has been peer reviewed, by scientists.

You're still missing the point by light years. Please cite specific papers and the journals they've been reviewed by, and you will see the problem immediately. The reviewers in these cases know the authors of the papers, and have a vested interest in passing them. In some cases, as cited above, the review has been carried out by the author of the fucking paper. Proper peer-review is carried out by professionals in the relevant fields. The word 'scientist' isn't a catch-all. The review must be carried ouot by people who know the material, don't know the authors, and have a vested interest in breaking the hypotheses and postulates put forward. This is how science works, and it's how peer-review works. If all three of those things aren't in place, it doesn't qualify as rigorous scientific peer-review.

Others disagree, and they're entitled to disagree, but to turn around and say that they're not scientists, merely because they disagree, is ridiculous. The reason why people here are so angry is because it infuriates them that a scientist would disagree with their theory. It eats them up inside, it's really funny.

People here aren't angry. The critical thinkers here are trying to educate you. Your continued reassertion of this preposterous arse-gravy, of which you clearly have no understanding whatsoever, is borderline trolling. And you wonder why I said you weren't ready to debate me? Here, you are expected to defend your postulates, like many posters in this thread have done in response to the vacuous drivel you have been posting.

Hack...

I've reviewed your post and the result of my findings is : Yaaaaawn.

Yes, I've noticed that that seems to be your stock response when you have fuck all to back up your wibblings

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Hack...

I've reviewed your post and the result of my findings is : Yaaaaawn.

Please , do substantiate .

Raliegh Marsden wrote:ID has been peer reviewed, by scientists. Others disagree, and they're entitled to disagree, but to turn around and say that they're not scientists, merely because they disagree, is ridiculous. The reason why people here are so angry is because it infuriates them that a scientist would disagree with their theory. It eats them up inside, it's really funny.

What a shame. Many people have put effort and time into trying to explain it to you, and that is all you get out of it? Is sad, it's pathetic, and it's needless.

hackenslash wrote:Yes, I've noticed that that seems to be your stock response when you have fuck all to back up your wibblings

Don't forget arse gravy and bum custard. I'd love to give you credit for two very funny phrases, but I get the feeling you didn't come up with them yourself. Nevertheless, what else have you got?

Raliegh Marsden wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Yes, I've noticed that that seems to be your stock response when you have fuck all to back up your wibblings

Don't forget arse gravy and bum custard. I'd love to give you credit for two very funny phrases, but I get the feeling you didn't come up with them yourself. Nevertheless, what else have you got?

How about actually addressing the posts both here and inthe thread you chose to slate Hack in all last night instead of continuing with this tiresome tirade. I seriously wonder why you come here

Oh dear another creationist with absolutely no substance to him, the usual trolling BS and the inability to understand the basic concepts of what science is. Also the stubborn refusal to learn with the arrogance to think they are right when they don't really understand what it is they're arguing.

Oh and I assume god is no longer "outside" of nature. Funny how they changed their tune when it suited them. Must be good times at the "make shit up club".

chairman bill wrote:

clinton huxley wrote:Cue "I.D. is peer-reviewed" in 3,2,1...

Won't happen. Only an unprincipled little shit would regurgitate that bollocks again.

I'm not saying nuffink.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Yes, I've noticed that that seems to be your stock response when you have fuck all to back up your wibblings

Don't forget arse gravy and bum custard. I'd love to give you credit for two very funny phrases, but I get the feeling you didn't come up with them yourself. Nevertheless, what else have you got?

Exposing that you do take an interest in what Hackenslash writes despite your pretense

People posting here are not only trying to educate you, they are also writing with regards to guests and future generations.

Let me make an analogy that is to your taste: if I put a glass filled with cream in the freezer it will never turn into
any ice-cream that I would ever eat. Likewise, putting the peers of creationists to review the papers of other
creationists will never result in a peer-review that would be accepted by scientists.

Amazing how he still hasn't bothered responding to this. I mean, it's not as if I haven't mentioned it before.

chairman bill wrote:

Raliegh Marsden wrote:... Face it, ID is peer reviewed. If you don't like it, tough. You can squirm all you like, it makes no difference.

Sorry, but that's bullshit. You can get a PhD from here clicky, or from here clicky, but they are not the same thing. Similarly with the concept of peer-review. Peer review is not always the same. Try addressing some of the questions in my previous post.

chairman bill wrote:Is it double-blind peer review? Are the journal's that publish ID papers also prepared to publish critical commentaries? How often are there retractions by authors who have discovered errors in their calculations etc? How do these journals rank in citation indices? How do the individual pro-ID papers rank in citation indices? Does anyone know?

Answers to these will go some way in helping to determine the quality of the journal(s) that are claiming to be peer-reviewed.

Come on. You can do it. Just try a little harder.[/quote]

So, are you up to answering these sorts of questions, or can we dismiss your suggestion of 'peer-review' as being the ignorant claim of someone who really hasn't got a fucking clue?

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Amazing. Still no one has managed to go through every item on that page, and explain, in simple terms, how it's not peer reviewed (just saying that it's not doesn't count). Calilasseia at first said that ID is not peer reviewed, and then when it was demonstrated that it is, he/she and others decided all of a sudden to redefine what peer review means. Changing the goalposts to suit you is as transparent as it gets.

I went thru the articles that the DI cited as the cream of the crop, one by one, and demonstrated that not a single one is a peer-reviewed biology article that supports ID. Or did you miss that? I see little reason to go thru the rest of that tedious list.

But the first issue at hand is that you don't even understand what the term "peer review" means. For you to accuse others of "redefining" the term is laughable.

Shrunk wrote:... you don't even understand what the term "peer review" means ...

Ooh, never thought of that. I mean, in my naivety I just assumed the OP would know what the fuck he was spouting on about. I never thought, 'oh, argument from stupidity'. Should we use smaller words, or type more slowly?

Peer review apart, Raleigh, do you agree that among the people pushing ID there are actually Christian Young Earth Creationists?

Raliegh Marsden wrote:ID has been peer reviewed

Polly want a cracker?

DaveD wrote:

Raliegh Marsden wrote:ID has been peer reviewed

Polly want a cracker?

Yeah, and it's kind of funny how after repeating this "argument" - what, three times? - he had the nerve to say:

...how it's not peer reviewed (just saying that it's not doesn't count)...

chairman bill wrote:

Shrunk wrote:... you don't even understand what the term "peer review" means ...

Ooh, never thought of that. I mean, in my naivety I just assumed the OP would know what the fuck he was spouting on about. I never thought, 'oh, argument from stupidity'. Should we use smaller words, or type more slowly?

Er... I was the OP and never mentioned peer review. Raleigh brought it up so pdq that people could be forgiven for thinking that's what the thread is about.

Hmmm, someone thinks that others are angry and finds that conjecture funny. My sons seven year old neighbour does that too.