Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > MrIntelligentDesign

Pages: (42) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 >

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,19:49    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,20:13) ... If they were honest, they will clean the mess that ToE had messed..ToE had messed intelligence and made 80 definitions of intelligence... ... You are very confused and a very silly little man. You have not even attempted to show why a claimed '80 definitions' is wrong or inappropriate. Still less have you presented even a single one, nor shown that nor how it is flawed. Even had you done that much, the merest baby step on the path towards science, you would still have provided no support at all for your grandiose, but ultimately foolish, little fantasies. The glaring flaw with the categorization scheme you are so proud of is that it simply does not work. It produces both false positives and false negatives. As such, it is no categorization scheme at all. It is a failure. Even were it to work, which it does not and cannot, it would still not be an explanation. Categorization schemes, as such, have zero explanatory power. You would know these things if you knew anything about science. Clearly, you do not.  All the bluster, bravado, and shouting in the world cannot change that brute fact. Stop lying. Stop pretending. Start learning. Do the work.

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,21:55    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,23:41) Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,16:26) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,22:56)   Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32) In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations.. No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal. What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies?? YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me.. Poor retard, don't you realize that was them politely telling you that they don't care about your nonsense and that you were wasting your time (and theirs) aiming for peer reviewed journals? Of course you didn't realize that. You're far too stupid. Listen carefully Postardo, they were telling you to leave them alone and stop pestering journals, cause your crap is unpublishable. Get it now?, poor little retard If my science were unpublishable, then, they will never say to publish them in science books. THOSE reviewers were afraid that ToE will fall into their hands since they will surely lose the their jobs.. They had already biases in reviews. Thus, I don't rely on them..I rely on my science... Nope, they were not afraid of your nonsense in the slightest, you poor little retard. If they were they would have tried to shut you down, like... you know... Galileo But you're no Galileo Edgar. Deal with it. Nobody cares for your books and you will never sell any. You'll just keep being the same pathetic little whiner begging for support and all you'll get in response is more well deserved ridicule

EmperorZelos Posts: 81 Joined: Oct. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,23:58    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,15:56) Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32) In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations.. No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal. What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies?? YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me.. I'd be interested to see it but it won't change a thing, you publish in peer reviewed journals not books to discuss matter of science. And considering you have NOT published in peer reviewed journals, you do NOT have any science on your side.

MrIntelligentDesign Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,01:25    Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,21:55) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,23:41) Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,16:26)   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,22:56)   Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)     Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32) In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations.. No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal. What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies?? YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me.. Poor retard, don't you realize that was them politely telling you that they don't care about your nonsense and that you were wasting your time (and theirs) aiming for peer reviewed journals? Of course you didn't realize that. You're far too stupid. Listen carefully Postardo, they were telling you to leave them alone and stop pestering journals, cause your crap is unpublishable. Get it now?, poor little retard If my science were unpublishable, then, they will never say to publish them in science books. THOSE reviewers were afraid that ToE will fall into their hands since they will surely lose the their jobs.. They had already biases in reviews. Thus, I don't rely on them..I rely on my science... Nope, they were not afraid of your nonsense in the slightest, you poor little retard. If they were they would have tried to shut you down, like... you know... Galileo But you're no Galileo Edgar. Deal with it. Nobody cares for your books and you will never sell any. You'll just keep being the same pathetic little whiner begging for support and all you'll get in response is more well deserved ridicule LOL!!! I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence.. Like Galileo, I am too is being persecuted by religious fanatics like you that instead of studying my science, you ridicule me.. Thus, I have science and you have nothing! Deal with it!

MrIntelligentDesign Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,01:26    Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,23:58) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,15:56) Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32) In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations.. No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal. What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies?? YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me.. I'd be interested to see it but it won't change a thing, you publish in peer reviewed journals not books to discuss matter of science. And considering you have NOT published in peer reviewed journals, you do NOT have any science on your side. Yes, I may not have the peer-reviewers in my side since they did not have science, but I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence! Deal with it!

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,02:55    Quote Yes, you must publish your science books and tell the world that you have science IF THE PEER-REVIEWERS were dumb enough to understand them Hi Postcardo, I have the books to replace yours now. Please send a money order for £150,000 and I will send them to you with FREE shipping! ps I have this bridge for sale, are you interested? pps How's it going with Santa Claus?

MrIntelligentDesign Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,06:05    Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 01 2015,02:55) Quote Yes, you must publish your science books and tell the world that you have science IF THE PEER-REVIEWERS were dumb enough to understand them Hi Postcardo, I have the books to replace yours now. Please send a money order for £150,000 and I will send them to you with FREE shipping! ps I have this bridge for sale, are you interested? pps How's it going with Santa Claus? LOL!!! You are becoming deluded and crazy like Darwin!

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,06:32    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,07:05) Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 01 2015,02:55) Quote Yes, you must publish your science books and tell the world that you have science IF THE PEER-REVIEWERS were dumb enough to understand them Hi Postcardo, I have the books to replace yours now. Please send a money order for £150,000 and I will send them to you with FREE shipping! ps I have this bridge for sale, are you interested? pps How's it going with Santa Claus? LOL!!! You are becoming deluded and crazy like Darwin! Such a compelling scientific argument! How could we fail to be impressed? You're a very silly and confused little man Edgar. Running away from the serious criticisms raised against your nonsense and instead engaging in weak ad hominem.

EmperorZelos Posts: 81 Joined: Oct. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,08:33    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,01:26) Yes, I may not have the peer-reviewers in my side since they did not have science, but I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence! Deal with it! If you don't have peer reviewed, you don't have science. Deal with it you retard

someotherguy Posts: 398 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,09:19    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,01:25) Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,21:55) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,23:41)   Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,16:26)   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,22:56)     Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)     Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32) In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations.. No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal. What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies?? YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me.. Poor retard, don't you realize that was them politely telling you that they don't care about your nonsense and that you were wasting your time (and theirs) aiming for peer reviewed journals? Of course you didn't realize that. You're far too stupid. Listen carefully Postardo, they were telling you to leave them alone and stop pestering journals, cause your crap is unpublishable. Get it now?, poor little retard If my science were unpublishable, then, they will never say to publish them in science books. THOSE reviewers were afraid that ToE will fall into their hands since they will surely lose the their jobs.. They had already biases in reviews. Thus, I don't rely on them..I rely on my science... Nope, they were not afraid of your nonsense in the slightest, you poor little retard. If they were they would have tried to shut you down, like... you know... Galileo But you're no Galileo Edgar. Deal with it. Nobody cares for your books and you will never sell any. You'll just keep being the same pathetic little whiner begging for support and all you'll get in response is more well deserved ridicule LOL!!! I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence.. Like Galileo, I am too is being persecuted by religious fanatics like you that instead of studying my science, you ridicule me.. Thus, I have science and you have nothing! Deal with it! It seems to me that the only thing being persecuted here is proper grammar. -------------- Evolander in training

MrIntelligentDesign Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2015,20:16    Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 01 2015,09:19) [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 01 2015,01:25] [quote=dazz,Oct. 31 2015,21:55]  [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 31 2015,23:41]   [quote=dazz,Oct. 31 2015,16:26]    [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 31 2015,22:56]     [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 31 2015,12:25]       Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32) In science, ince, you ridicule me.. ! It seems to me that the only thing being persecuted here is proper grammar. I have the best science and you have nothing to offer.

MrIntelligentDesign Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2015,20:17    Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 01 2015,08:33) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,01:26) Yes, I may not have the peer-reviewers in my side since they did not have science, but I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence! Deal with it! If you don't have peer reviewed, you don't have science. Deal with it you retard I have the best science and you have nothing to offer. YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS FREAK!

EmperorZelos Posts: 81 Joined: Oct. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2015,22:46    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 02 2015,20:17) Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 01 2015,08:33) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,01:26) Yes, I may not have the peer-reviewers in my side since they did not have science, but I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence! Deal with it! If you don't have peer reviewed, you don't have science. Deal with it you retard I have the best science and you have nothing to offer. YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS FREAK! You don't unless you have it published in a peer reviewed journal. It is nothing but garbage until that point.

MrIntelligentDesign Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,01:58    Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 02 2015,22:46) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 02 2015,20:17) Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 01 2015,08:33)   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,01:26) Yes, I may not have the peer-reviewers in my side since they did not have science, but I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence! Deal with it! If you don't have peer reviewed, you don't have science. Deal with it you retard I have the best science and you have nothing to offer. YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS FREAK! You don't unless you have it published in a peer reviewed journal. It is nothing but garbage until that point. LOL!! All of my thoughts and manuscripts were peer-reviewed! YOU ARE REALLY a RELIGIOUS FREAK! “…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature “…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal “…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences “…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,04:11    Quote I have the best science and you have nothing to offer. But I've already told you I have books that refute and prove yours are wrong. Is your money order in the post yet so I can show you why you are wrong.

EmperorZelos Posts: 81 Joined: Oct. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,04:23    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,01:58) LOL!! All of my thoughts and manuscripts were peer-reviewed! YOU ARE REALLY a RELIGIOUS FREAK! “…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature “…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal “…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences “…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Then why isn't it in the journals? We both know those have you made up and are not real. I challange you to provide the real deal, give us the name of those who said those things so we can contact them and ask personally.

EmperorZelos Posts: 81 Joined: Oct. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,04:24    Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 03 2015,04:11) Quote I have the best science and you have nothing to offer. But I've already told you I have books that refute and prove yours are wrong. Is your money order in the post yet so I can show you why you are wrong.

MrIntelligentDesign Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,04:56    Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 03 2015,04:24) Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 03 2015,04:11) Quote I have the best science and you have nothing to offer. But I've already told you I have books that refute and prove yours are wrong. Is your money order in the post yet so I can show you why you are wrong. SHUT UP and read my science books! http://www.amazon.com/Peer-Re....&sr=1-9 YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE!!!

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,05:33    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,12:56) Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 03 2015,04:24) Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 03 2015,04:11)   Quote I have the best science and you have nothing to offer. But I've already told you I have books that refute and prove yours are wrong. Is your money order in the post yet so I can show you why you are wrong. SHUT UP and read my science books! http://www.amazon.com/Peer-Re....&sr=1-9 YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE!!! -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,06:33    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,05:56) ... YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE!!! This is one of your most absurd claims.  That you continue to make it is one of the reasons everyone other than yourself considers you a lunatic. Even were you to be correct in your views about intelligence (you aren't), you have nothing to replace all the edifice of modern science. At the very most, you would be chipping away at a small area of one of the blocks, all but microscopic in size and scope, of the structure of human knowledge. To continue to assert that rejection of your views is invalid because your opponents 'have no science' is not merely beside the point, it is batshit insane.

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,08:08    Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,09:37) If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales here. October sales for Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0 The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0 Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0 Physics of Intelligent Design = 0 Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data Why does the term windbag comes to mind? Earth-shattering October sales: Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0 The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 4!!! Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0 Physics of Intelligent Design = 0 Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

EmperorZelos Posts: 81 Joined: Oct. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,08:11    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,04:56) Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 03 2015,04:24) Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 03 2015,04:11)   Quote I have the best science and you have nothing to offer. But I've already told you I have books that refute and prove yours are wrong. Is your money order in the post yet so I can show you why you are wrong. SHUT UP and read my science books! http://www.amazon.com/Peer-Re....&sr=1-9 YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE!!! They are books and I have read some of them, they are laughable and pathetic. I notice hwoever that you avoided my challange.

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,08:14    The "rich" in "rich and famous" must have some special meaning in Ed's world. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,08:50    Quote Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0 The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 4!!! Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0 Physics of Intelligent Design = 0 Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data Going by the World Population Clock at http://www.worldometers.info/world-p....ulation that's 7,378,371,981 - 4 satisfied customers combined with a massive uptick in sales: great going, Edgar!!!  Next stop, Stockholm!

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,09:21    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,02:58) ... “…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature “…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal “…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences “…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General You are a known, proven, liar, so why should we trust these "quotes"? It is certainly possible that each of these journals uttered those words, likely even those phrases. That they were said to you or about your work strains credulity. Given that we know you lie, why should we accept these?

EmperorZelos Posts: 81 Joined: Oct. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,10:19    Quote (NoName @ Nov. 03 2015,09:21) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,02:58) ... “…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature “…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal “…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences “…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General You are a known, proven, liar, so why should we trust these "quotes"? It is certainly possible that each of these journals uttered those words, likely even those phrases. That they were said to you or about your work strains credulity. Given that we know you lie, why should we accept these? I did contact amazon on that as he put them on his "books" and I said those are false advertisement unless he can substantiate it.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,11:05    Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 03 2015,11:19) Quote (NoName @ Nov. 03 2015,09:21) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,02:58) ... “…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature “…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal “…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences “…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General You are a known, proven, liar, so why should we trust these "quotes"? It is certainly possible that each of these journals uttered those words, likely even those phrases. That they were said to you or about your work strains credulity. Given that we know you lie, why should we accept these? I did contact amazon on that as he put them on his "books" and I said those are false advertisement unless he can substantiate it. Any response from Amazon? We've seen him telling lies right here, as well as putting words in other people's mouths, grossly mis-speaking, and generally mis-representing people, places, and things.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,12:23    Quote (NoName @ Nov. 03 2015,07:21) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,02:58) ... “…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature “…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal “…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences “…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General You are a known, proven, liar, so why should we trust these "quotes"? It is certainly possible that each of these journals uttered those words, likely even those phrases. That they were said to you or about your work strains credulity. Given that we know you lie, why should we accept these? #2 looks like standard rejection-letter language.  The others, if they're not made up entirely, may be similar.  Journals tend to reply with a polite thank-you, not "What a load of bollocks." -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

EmperorZelos Posts: 81 Joined: Oct. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,12:32    Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2015,12:23) Quote (NoName @ Nov. 03 2015,07:21) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,02:58) ... “…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature “…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal “…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences “…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General You are a known, proven, liar, so why should we trust these "quotes"? It is certainly possible that each of these journals uttered those words, likely even those phrases. That they were said to you or about your work strains credulity. Given that we know you lie, why should we accept these? #2 looks like standard rejection-letter language.  The others, if they're not made up entirely, may be similar.  Journals tend to reply with a polite thank-you, not "What a load of bollocks." I think they should start doing that

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,13:09    It would be bizarre if Behavioral and Brain Sciences and Journal of Experimental Psychology: General had really considered Eddy's Physics of Intelligent Design as he claims on Amazon:    Quote Review The original manuscript of this science book was peer-reviewed by many professional scientists in our generation. Here are the comments: "...stimulating to others' thinking..." - NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature "...our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations." - SCIENCE Journal "...This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript..." -  Behavioral and Brain Sciences "...I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects..." -  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Especially when one finds the very same reviews for each of his different ID "books": The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down Atheism and Intelligent Design Psychology Of Intelligent Design Biology Of Intelligent Design Intelligent Design must explain Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary Four identical reviews for seven different "books"! Edited by sparc on Nov. 03 2015,13:10 -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

Pages: (42) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard