Nature 1(1):1, 0000
God
Abstract
Background: in the beginning, there was nothing.
Hypothesis: A universe would be a good thing.
Methods: Earth, sky, ocean, and life were created using proprietary divine methods over a period of 6 days.
Results: I saw that it was good.
Discussion: Divine powers can be used to create, and that is good. Further longitudinal study is necessary to evaluate evolution of creation over time, and the use of divine powers for destructive purposes has not been ruled out.
PMID: 1
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Hilarious. Shame that the results were never replicated, though.
Not that we know of, anyway
3rd reviewer: Results subjective. Needs more data. Is speculation about "good" really warranted? Reject.
Overruled. Dude, god created the journal. Can't refuse, and don't guilt e out about COI...
*grumble grumble* back in my day... none of this fancy "divine powers" *grumble grumble* we had regular powers - and we were grateful for them!
God would be the ultimate curmudgeon. Could pretty much tell anyone to get offa his lawn...
Real peer review starts after publication anyway, right?
I thought God was editor at Nature, not author.
Now, but only after publishing there.
I mean, even a deity needs to build a rep.
no, editors at Nature only *think* they are God. big difference.
Not to the poor slugs whose careers depend on a glamor mag pub. I'm pretty sure I've seen post docs lighting candles and sacrificing chickens to the editors of Nature and Science...
*SNAP*