RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: For Randy, and the other IDC biology "experts"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,07:25   

Hey Randy, since you've got nothing better to do than cry like a baby about the IDiots not getting published in scientific peer reviewed journals, how about asking your new pal William Demsbki to publish one of his scientific papers he's written that is evidence based and testable that Nature and all the other scientific journals refuse to publish because they are all dogmatic, anti-anything but darwinism?

Seriously, ask Dembski to publish all those scientific papers he's written but no one will publish on his blog so we can all judge the scientific merit of it.

For that matter ask Behe to publish all the scientific papers he's submitted to godless science journals that are evidence based and testable yet they have been turned down for publication.  Ask Behe to publicly publish all those papers so we can judge for ourselves.

As one who is obviously upset over the dogma driven science journals that unfairly will not publish anything that supports IDc why not ask your IDC heros to publish all those papers they have written and submitted (but were rejected) on Dembski's blog?

I encourage the other IDC cry babies here to do the same.  Ask Dembski and Behe to show us what they have written and submitted that continues to not get published in a legitimate scientific peer review journal.  And ask them to please name the scientific journals who have rejected their papers.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,07:35   

He'll probably just complain now that your tone is derogatory or something.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,07:49   

Quote (GCT @ June 21 2006,12:35)
He'll probably just complain now that your tone is derogatory or something.

No doubt.  It's astonishing though that none of these cry babies has ever asked Dembski or Behe to show them a paper(s) that they submitted to a science journal that was rejected.

Not one of these peer review whiners has ever asked to read a paper that was rejected.  Not one of these persecuted fools has ever asked Dembski or Behe for testable scientific evidence that supports IDC.

During the Kitzmiller trial there was all this discussion about all the IDC related lab work and testing going on by all these biologists all over the place.  Have any of the IDiots noticed not a peep has come from a single scientist supporting IDC since Kitzmiller?

And although the persecuted cry babies go on and on about this peer review conspiracy there is nothing stopping Dembski or Behe from publishing their rejected scientific works on their own blog. Nothing except they have never written any evidence based papers on ID, they have never submitted any papers supporting IDC to a legitimate science journal, nor have they ever conducted any ID related experiements.  Big surprise!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,09:10   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ June 21 2006,12:49)
Quote (GCT @ June 21 2006,12:35)
He'll probably just complain now that your tone is derogatory or something.

No doubt. †It's astonishing though that none of these cry babies has ever asked Dembski or Behe to show them a paper(s) that they submitted to a science journal that was rejected.

Not one of these peer review whiners has ever asked to read a paper that was rejected. †Not one of these persecuted fools has ever asked Dembski or Behe for testable scientific evidence that supports IDC.

During the Kitzmiller trial there was all this discussion about all the IDC related lab work and testing going on by all these biologists all over the place. †Have any of the IDiots noticed not a peep has come from a single scientist supporting IDC since Kitzmiller?

And although the persecuted cry babies go on and on about this peer review conspiracy there is nothing stopping Dembski or Behe from publishing their rejected scientific works on their own blog. Nothing except they have never written any evidence based papers on ID, they have never submitted any papers supporting IDC to a legitimate science journal, nor have they ever conducted any ID related experiements. †Big surprise!

Ooo! Ooo! I know the answer!!

"ID is not a mechanistic theory, and itís not IDís task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories."

Dembski is as good as his word. †:p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,10:28   

Why doesnt Dembski take his arguments and publish them in a mathematical journal?

Surely the Evilatheistconspiracy doesn't control maths as well?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,10:32   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 21 2006,15:28)
Why doesnt Dembski take his arguments and publish them in a mathematical journal?

Surely the Evilatheistconspiracy doesn't control maths as well?

2 + 2 - GOD = 5.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,11:45   

Re "2 + 2 - GOD = 5."

God is a negative 1? I didn't know that!

Wait, how about this instead:

2 + 2 - G**2 = 5.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,12:43   

Quote
God is a negative 1? I didn't know that!


yup.  now you know.  any time you introduce "God" into a theory or equation, it automatically removes information and usefulness from that equation.

makes perfect sense.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
  7 replies since June 21 2006,07:25 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]