Intelligent Design is not creationism

[stu]

You must be seriously punch drunk or just messed up good when you fell in with the creationists blind rush to pseudo science jem. If I proved your point , then it is the point that you are delusional.

Look at this and try to get it through the brainwashing you are so obviously seeped in

This is what you said ...

" ... The explanation for the fine tuning in Susskind's view is that even though our universe looks fine tuned - our universe is really just one of billions and billions of universes - or part of the the megaverse. "

... which would mean what exactly??... that there could be countless other universes which are also "fined tuned"?? ...which would mean "fine tuning" is common to universes and so universes aren't especially "fined tuned". No one has to be Einstein to understand that much.

Don't you remember or did you never understand, If Susskind were found correct , your 'fine tuning intelligent designer ' disappears up its own wormhole. So many limitless variations also suggests too many "fined tuned" universes.

But leastways you do make some acknowledgement here, albeit in another one of your usual muddled -' yes it is and no it isn't '- sentences

(By the way A multiverse would not even rule out the possibility of a designer however, it would destroy the current fine tuning therefore it may have been designed argument.)

Seeing how you like quotes so much , here's some where Susskind actually does say what he thinks about "fine tuning" by repeating Weinberg…

Susskind:
"I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper:"

Steven Weinberg
" I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator

see that? the blue part at least? No? .... then it may be because your religious indoctrination wont let you. Be careful jem, it's a slippy slope down from there to the deprived and perverted desperations all too evident in zzTroll posts.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

You must be seriously punch drunk or just messed up good when you fell in with the creationists blind rush to pseudo science jem. If I proved your point , then it is the point that you are delusional.

Look at this and try to get it through the brainwashing you are so obviously seeped in

This is what you said ...


... which would mean what exactly??... that there could be countless other universes which are also "fined tuned"?? ...which would mean "fine tuning" is common to universes and so universes aren't especially "fined tuned". No one has to be Einstein to understand that much.

Don't you remember or did you never understand, If Susskind were found correct , your 'fine tuning intelligent designer ' disappears up its own wormhole. So many limitless variations also suggests too many "fined tuned" universes.

Seeing how you like quotes so much , here's some where Susskind actually does say what he thinks about "fine tuning" by repeating Weinberg…

Susskind:
"I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper:"

Steven Weinberg
" I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator

see that? the blue part at least? No? .... then it may be because your religious indoctrination wont let you. Be careful jem, it's a slippy slope down from there to the deprived and perverted desperations all too evident in zzTroll posts.

Stu you incoherently proved my point again.

let me put it in language you may understand.

This nobel prize wining physicist. The guy who predicted that the cosmological constant would be observed to be not zero and therefore caused this debate to bloom in top science circles just said....

If the string theorists speculation about the Landscape is true than we can observe these fine tunings in our universe and not attribute those fine tunings to the design of a creator.


Now in context -

Susskind promoted the String Landscape in his book which I have cited on this thread.

"Landscape" is Susskinds name for billions and billions of universes or regions. These alternate regions of the multiverse are speculation.

Here is some backgroud -which I already posted in this thread.

A guy name polchenski at Stanford advanced String Theory (his version) to say that string theory allowed for at least 10 to the 500 universes.

This amazing number allowed Susskind to say that even thought the fine tuning in our universe gives an indication of design (spectacular design) those fine tunings are really just a coincidence of our being in the only or one of the few universes that could support life among the billions and billions.



Of course those other universes are based on faith. Not proof. right now.

so you see -

according to some top scientists

One universe - appearance of design to state it mildly.


If you wish to conjure up billions and billions of universes - your faith allows you to say no appearance of design - just coincidence.

 

[jem]

now let me put it in terms you may get Stu. (slight exaggeration for effect regarding the faith part)




Your noble prize winning Physicist just said if you adopt the "faith" of some string theorists -- you no longer have to be concerned that the fine tunings in our universe are evidence of a designer.


do you realize the significance of Weinbergs quote. he is a nobel prize winner. He worked at Univ Texas - and his writings are very anti-religion.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

now let me put it in terms you may get Stu. (slight exaggeration for effect regarding the faith part)




Your noble prize winning Physicist just said if you adopt the "faith" of some string theorists -- you no longer have to be concerned that the fine tunings in our universe are evidence of a designer.


do you realize the significance of Weinbergs quote. he is a nobel prize winner. He worked at Univ Texas - and his writings are very anti-religion.

Yes. It means that string theory is not scientifically proven. It's all speculation and as of today, if you believe it, you're taking it on faith - and you don't have to put it under quotation marks.

It's sad to see you display your ignorance over and over again on this board, without knowing how much of an embarrassment you are.

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Yes. It means that string theory is not scientifically proven. It's all speculation and as of today, if you believe it, you're taking it on faith - and you don't have to put it under quotation marks.

It's sad to see you display your ignorance over and over again on this board, without knowing how much of an embarrassment you are.

I put in the quotations for Stu.


I have no idea what you think you just accomplished other than supporting my reading of Weinberg's quote. If that is what you are doing, I have no idea why you what your wrote.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

I put in the quotations for Stu.


I have no idea what you think you just accomplished other than supporting my reading of Weinberg's quote. If that is what you are doing, I have no idea why you what your wrote.

You were using Weinberg's quote to support your ID theory. But it doesn't support ID theory in any way. It simply says that the string theory is not yet scientifically proven. Can't you see the difference?

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You were using Weinberg's quote to support your ID theory. But it doesn't support ID theory in any way. It simply says that the string theory is not yet scientifically proven. Can't you see the difference?

Why don't you take the sentence that stu put in blue and break it down for us.

 

[jem]

"so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator"

here is my breakdown --



Because of the -

String Landscape conjecture (the current speculations about billions and billions of universes or regions of the multiverse or "landscape")

we may observe these finely tuned constants of nature in our universe - but not attribute those fine tunings to a benevolent creator.

(We can simply state that when you have billions and billions of universes or regions with differing physical laws, tunings and constants - it becomes likely that at least one of the universes or regions will have tunings which could support life and we just happen to be in that hospitable universe.)

Now remember the author of this quote is a Nobel Prize winner who thinks very precisely as does Susskind. Weinberg has written very negative things about religion.

What he wrote said should make your jaw drop.

 

[jem]

waiting on James Bond and stu

 

[jem]

I know you are participating in the non-tenured professor thread, Mr. Bond.