Search results

...and you...... "unlikely to be a Christian in the following Christ..." from a dishonest semi-literate willfully ignorant lying closed minded right of tea party crude religious irrational trolling bigot.... "sense of the word" ?

Talking of 'Obama is a Muslim', that's all over the net too. Doesn't mean it's correct.. you idiot. Funny how you have "no information of it" though. String theory was begun in 1940 when Susskind was 3 years old. How exactly does that make him the co founder. What's so laughable is you are...

Perfect manifestation of how a loud mouthed ignoramus like you gets information from selective searches on the internet which fit with their prejudices rather than dealing with the facts. You keep making the same bonehead mistakes. Once again, did you not notice this in your link..."The...

I find people like Jem really don't care how unintelligent and even dishonest they are being. They'll say and believe anything, literally, to push their personal religious fantasies.

Susskind is not a co founder of string theory nor is the version he developed used. The complete ignorance you have of the whole subject doesn't make me a liar. The reader... really need only ask themselves... wtf crap are you going to drivel out next.... and their question is immediately...

really? and what would that be? Actually no we don't agree, you're wrong. I've said why a thousand times, but here's why you're wrong, again. Assert fine tuning or assert eternal inflation. You are saying eternal inflation is speculation, but in the form your false argument takes, it must...

Reminds me that one is understanding the mind of God perfectly, as soon as it conforms with what one believes.

tut tut sockpuppet, methinks you project too much. You keep "giving it" too many times but can't make a coherent argument from it once. Even if one postulates a universe that is fine tuned, it is overcome with postulating eternal inflation according what you call "our" scientific reality...

1.Sockpuppets. Check it out Not only dishonest but you have a bad memory too. 2. Facts are facts. You are discredited and an extremely dishonest person at least on this board. 3. Now you're telling Stephen Hawking what is highly speculative. Lol. 4. How come you are not telling Roger...

Lol. Just when it seemed you couldn't do more crazy, you managed it. :p Now you've admitted that you admitted to being a sock puppet after you were caught being a sock puppet, but at the same time deny being a sockpuppet and you call me a sockpuppet. Priceless. You sure take absurd to...

You admitted to being a sockpuppet after you were caught using a sockpuppet. After 3 and more attempts to correct you using the wrong spelling of a word that would be fundamentally key in your proclaimed profession , that's no typo. Sure, and as I say, you keep trying to insinuate...

Ah but you've got form. Caught using a sock puppet pretending to be someone else. Repeatedly caught not knowing how to spell a fundamental key word in law any lawyer must know. Just pretending to be a lawyer. Typos my ass. Face it, you're simply a fraud at heart. Why not just fess up...

kut2k2, I think you should be made aware that Jem was from the get go and for quite a while after, using the word 'site' for 'cite' up until he was eventually, after numerous attempts, educated right here on ET. It is therefore doubtful to say the least, he was ever a lawyer. A wannabe...

A Multiverse "Tuner" from Bernard Carr. A Gravity "Tuner" from Stephen Hawking. Both amount to the same thing. Both incorporate each other. Both scientific explanations based on the laws of physics, math and the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. All in all the "Tuner" you keep...

You say "a Tuner" and you're not injecting religion....yeah right. Not withstanding, what then? Has to be a naturalistic "Tuner". One that conforms to the laws of physics, quantum mechanics, math and scientific theory. Gravity. Yay. So really, what excatly is your problem.

It's because you are unable to rationally discuss any of this you still come up with the same version of wrong after dozens of threads. Evangelical christians are often found to be fundamentally dishonest. Using anything from them as information is almost guaranteed to be misleading...

....thereby rather ironically invoking somewhat of a multiverse.

oh, you talking to me? A self-proclaimed community of evangelical christian bloggers adulterating scientists' quotes to fit their own agenda, is not giving any true "message of the science". That's evidence of dishonesty. It is what's expected though.

evidence? "Who We Are BioLogos is a community of evangelical Christians ........" nuff said.

Don't know is an honest answer. A tuner ? Sure why not. Scientifically known as Gravity. Also scientifically, it's math and physics that indicate multiverse, not faith. Tuner/Creator/God - nothing more than blind faith, and of course, a singular failure in human reasoning.