Search results

..so... can you ever argue without resorting to abuse and insult or not? It's a straight forward question because to date you have not been able to.

Is that all your arguments are ever going to end as. Insult after insult? Is that the christian way?, the ID way?. Can't properly respond so you get offensive 'cause "right" is on your side?

the "person you describe as the father of string theory"and also the "creator" of string theory.... Has now become .... integrity??? You call me slime ball for suggesting a correction that Susskind was not "creator" (your word). Then you slip in "one of the fathers" as if that were no...

....I seem to have touched a nerve there. What part do you want me to get? "If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons,...." How the hell you manage to convince yoursef the sentence above can mean anything like you say it does...

Cube, I didn't compare the math to understanding the universe. Just a suggestion... I won't fall out with you I like you too much:p... but maybe you could start right there. Understanding what is really being said instead of altering it before it reaches cognizance. If your defense of ID...

The person you describe as the creator of string theory has concluded no such thing. You are making conclusions for him. There are no conclusions that stem from the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is incapable of falsification. It is not science. Therefore cannot be a principle...

I agree. On this matter you want 2+2 = 5, that is your right privalige and perogative. But in my view that approach doesn't help toward understanding the universe much.

You could look at it this way ... a hole in the dirst doesn't fine tune itself around water to make a puddle does it? Doesn't the water 'adapt' itself to fill and fit with the hole? So there is no need for any fine tuning, as the very nature of differing things can adapt (or not) to fit...

Physics doesn't recognize 'fine tuning' = design. You do. Anthropic principle includes'fine tuning' as a possibility not a fact nor a scientific fact, and there is no science that states the universe is fine tuned or that it is designed. There are shitloads of alternatives countering that...

Well he does have his mind and he does not say he believes , or comes the conclusion there was a "design". The anthropic principle is a compendium of various conjecture, so why should anything reply to a conjecture in which any number if not all of its parts may not be the case. Rubbish. It...

LOL kiss me Cuban!:p (not on the lips dude!)

thing is ...it is not a matter of fact. What odds?. What chance? But for the sake of argument, say all that were the case, why would you limit your ideas to 'intelligent design' being the only other option? Why not 'unintelligent design as another option? Staying with the speculation the...

What physics? Anthropic principle includes that as one of its speculations and your Susskind quote does not give anything much extra to what Einstein commented anyway. It's not a question of "luck" when something that can occur does occur. Exactly, another speculation and it's included in the...

"...most physicists now understand that the arguments against the anthropic principle are speculative" The anthropic priciple itself is speculation you idiot. You want me to craft a strong argument about speculative arguments on a speculative subject? For what reason exactly? So you can...

You have spoken wrongly about the anthropic principle. You said because of it physics admits the universe is fined tuned. You are wrong. Neither physics nor science states any such thing. You have based your argument for that upon one particular scientist you quote who is simply saying...

You have previously demonstrated your attraction to the "scholarly" articles in wikipedia so here you are... for when you stop dreaming jem.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design "An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as...

What are you talking about ? You remarked - "there is literally no argument that invalidates ID." You have that back to front. Because there is no argument that validates ID in the first place, it in effect invalidates itself, simply because it literally has no valid argument in support...

You have that ass over tit. There is no argument that validates ID. "NONE."

I don't know what planet you are on jem but when it comes to reality it isn't earth based. I have given a description of what the anthropic principle is generally defined as. It fits pretty much with your wilkipedia definitions/explanations link. So what is your problem? You have now...

The anthropic principle is a contentious collection of some general, some specific, some philosophical, some scientific and some non-scientific ideas discussed and argued for years in and out of science and physics. But in the main it boils down to truism. Anthropic principle afterall is to do...