Shrunk wrote:Funniest post of the year. Good one, Raliegh! People actually seem to think you were serious, too.

Sorry, I didn't realize you'd just cut & pasted that post from another website. Comedy gold, nonetheless. And there is a certain talent to taking other people's material and making it your own.

Calilasseia...

I'm not a creationist.


Hack...

Yaaaaawn.



Oh dear. We seem to have upset some people. Face it, ID is peer reviewed. If you don't like it, tough. You can squirm all you like, it makes no difference.

Yeah, ID is peer-reviewed in the same way that creationism is a science.

Stealing terms from valid fields and claiming that you meet the same standard, in spite of loads of contrary evidence, doesn't make it so.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Calilasseia...

I'm not a creationist.


Hack...

Yaaaaawn.



Oh dear. We seem to have upset some people. Face it, ID is peer reviewed. If you don't like it, tough. You can squirm all you like, it makes no difference.

By your standard, the idea that Elvis is still alive is also supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Calilasseia...

I'm not a creationist.


Hack...

Yaaaaawn.



Oh dear. We seem to have upset some people. Face it, ID is peer reviewed. If you don't like it, tough. You can squirm all you like, it makes no difference.

Face it, blindly approving whatever screed happens to genuflect before your doctrinal presuppositions doesn't actually constitute a true scientific peer review.

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.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Cal is complaining that peer reviewing ID consists of "hand the material to other creationists, who then nod and say "publish it"", when one could argue exactly the same for non ID.

That would only be the case if people who don't agree with Creationism always agreed with each other about the little details of how things have evolved... which they don't. Evolutionary biology has a lot of little disputes within it over smaller-picture issues even though the big picture is quite solidly established.

Imagine a group of professional automotive engineers, mechanics, drivers/racers, maybe even automotive historians or just unusually well-educated car enthusiasts. You know they'd often disagree with each other about which particularly little bit of technology should be used here or there in a car, what styles look best, what economic or PR factors have led to the success or failure of different models or companies... but if some goofball submits a book to them asserting that wheels should be pentagon-shaped and marshmallow fluff would make a better fuel than gasoline and new models of cars aren't developed by engineers but deposited on the road from the anus of a magical 40-foot-tall badger... then all those car guys who actually know anything about cars will, despite their disagreements on the little details, agree that that goofball's book is full of nonsense.

And if that goofball found some other goofball to claim that it's a good book, that doesn't make it peer-reviewed. Peer review would be sending it to some kind of organization of actual automotive experts. And we know what result that would get.

(How many of the sources you named are research papers published in journals, and how many are books, which don't get filtered like research papers for journals do anyway?)

ID is peer reviewed.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:ID is peer reviewed.

Tell you what: Give us an example of something that is not peer reviewed, by your standards.

I find it interesting that Raleigh used Discovery Institute hacks as evidence of peer reviewed intelligent design propenents. These same Discovery Institute hacks who refused to defend the viability of intelligent design in court during the Dover v Kitzmiller trial. They stand atop their high horse wailing that BIG SCIENCE keeps their ideas out of mainstream science, yet when they had the chance to defend their position in a court case which sought to establish whether intelligent design was scientific in nature, they refused to testify. They left it up to Behe to defend their nonsense and this garnered the result of Behe having to accept that any definition that would permit ID as being science would also have to include astrology. They are incompetent beyond belief.

If you want your creationist "paper" "peer-reviewed" by, say, a Bio-Ceramic engineer, then please submit to PCID. However, do note that articles will have to be sent backwards in time, as we ceased publishing in 2005.

Thank you.
The PCID Review Board.

He stopped actually engaging some time ago, unfortunately he's falling back on the "Nuh-uh" defence.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:ID is peer reviewed.

And you're avoiding (awkward) questions. Why?

chairman bill wrote:

Raliegh Marsden wrote:ID is peer reviewed.

And you're avoiding (awkward) questions. Why?

She (?) knows she is spreading lies. I'd stop answering questing as well.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Go through everything in that page and demonstrate to me, in simple terms, how it doesn't constitute peer review.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:ID is peer reviewed.

Yes it is, just not by actual scientists. It's reviewed by morons and doctrinalists. Noone is impressed.

Rumraket wrote:

Raliegh Marsden wrote:ID is peer reviewed.

Yes it is, just not by actual scientists. It's reviewed by morons and doctrinalists. Noone is impressed.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Sure, they're not scientists.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Raliegh Marsden wrote:ID is peer reviewed.

Yes it is, just not by actual scientists. It's reviewed by morons and doctrinalists. Noone is impressed.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Sure, they're not scientists.

When you blindly accept horsehit you presuppose to be true in the face of empirical evidence, no.

You're saying that because you disagree. Nevertheless, contrary to what you claimed, they are scientists.

Some of them once met the standard to be called scientists.

However, they are not practicing science when they assert that mythological processes and beings must be responsible for observed phenomona, without any direct evidence supporting their claims and loads of contrary evidence they actively ignore.

Thus, they are not now scientists.