On en est à quoi, 60-70 articles peer-reviewed qui ne voient de démolition controllée dans la chute du WTC

« toutes été invalidées par des analyses de truthers »
Mais oui, et les articles sur la théorie de l’évolution ont tous été invalidé par les créationnistes

"Des tas de chercheurs qui dérangent n’ont jamais été publiés dans une revue dite scientifique, parce que les comités de lecture respectent les dogmes de la science et les interdits de la société.« 

Mais oui, mais oui. Vous allez vous plaire au Texas. Petit florilège

 »I agree with Stein. Every natural history museum, every university bio department and every peer-reviewed science journal in the entire world is taking part in a vast conspiracy against the truth.« 
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=xGCxbhGaVfE&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DxGCxbhGaVfE

 » When dealing with some evolutionist fanatics, especially the strongly anti-Christian faction, you are expected to prove every assertion, no matter how obvious, while they sit back watch. If you tell them the sun rises in the east, they ask for a specific scientific, peer-reviewed, published article, with a list of the writer’s credentials. Then they make some sneering comment referring to your belief in a flat Earth.« 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1767643/posts?page=346#346

 »Which of course shows the dishonesty of « peer-reviewed » journals in that they ban any open discussion on ID. I can assure you there are lots of people who would write the articals but they can not get them published.« 
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23864757&postcount=7

 »OK, I’ll address your claims about the lack of peer reviewed scientific papers supporting creationist claims and I’m sure you know this well(but won’t admit it) : PREJUDICE, plain and simple. And it is as ugly and hateful as the racial prejudice that led to the Jewish holaocaust perpetrated by Hitler (a pond scum himself)(several anti-Christian, evolutionist, atheist blogs as case-in-point). The so-called referees and peer reviewers have an emotional/psychological adherence to the prevailing paradigm. Anything challenging that will be rejected out of hand, no matter its’ merits.« 
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/a_reply_to_carl_wieland.php#comment-2175523

 »Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify ; it corrupts.« 
http://nov55.com/prv.html

 »Ok, black arachnid. My response would be to check the peer review process itself. Being biased towards creationism has effectively nothing to do with peer review really, as national geographic and scientific american have been running blatantly pro-evolution, anti-creation content for some time now. This is why creationists have published their findings in their own journals, respectively.« 
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/47309753?page=2

 »ya but if you get expelled for even questioning Darwin’s theories, the peer review is the expellerss trap ! where is the objective reasoning in science now a days, i think Bill O’Reilly is right you guys are secular pin heads.« 
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&all_comments&v=iV8sN1UngFY&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DiV8sN1UngFY

 »Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God–then research is done with the goal in mind (implicit or explicit) of finding an explanation that fits within evolutionary theory. Peer review rules out the possibility of even considering any outside-the-box thinking. Toe the pseudoscientific philosophical line or be ridiculed and marginalized.« 
 http://www.venganza.org/category/hate-mail/

Remplacez »théorie de l’évolution" par VO. Oh ! Mais quelle ressemblance frappante (en fait je dirais même troublante) avec vos arguments contre le peer-review. 30 ans de combats contre le créationnisme ont pulvérisé ce type d’argument. Vous n’avez pas l’ombre d’une chance.

Amusez-vous bien avec vos nouveaux amis.