Intelligent Design is not creationism

[james_bond_3rd]

What's your problem? Can't you read?

Weinberg's quote (by stu) is clear as crystal. Which part do you need explanation for?

I am really puzzled by your inability to understand some of the simple concepts quoted in this thread.

String theory is as of today a speculation not scientifically proven. OTOH, it certainly offers one (of the many) possible ways to explain the "fine tuned" parameters we see in our universe. But even if the string theory is proven to be completely wrong, it does not in any way prove the design theory right. There can still be other theories that can offer explanations of our existence.

The only way that the design theory can be proven correct, is for it to offer up falsifiable predictions and to be tested empirically. Until that happens, it is only a religious doctrine.

You're either too dumb to understand this, or too prejudiced by your religion.

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

What's your problem? Can't you read?

Weinberg's quote (by stu) is clear as crystal. Which part do you need explanation for?

It is clear that you are incorrect.

Why dont you have the balls to us what you think it means.

I just broke it down for you on the previous page.... in very simple English.

why don't break it down and tell us what it means. I will then prove to you why you are wrong and my interpretation is correct.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

It is clear that you are incorrect.

Why dont you have the balls to us what you think it means.

I just broke it down for you on the previous page.... in very simple English.

why don't break it down and tell us what it means.

We explained to you in numerous posts but you simply refused to learn. We can't help you if you're too dumb to learn. Sorry.

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

We told you in numerous posts but you simply refused to learn. We can't help you if you're too dumb to learn. Sorry.

you had a chance to be a man and back up your point.

you are an intellectual fairy and troll of the worst sort.

It is so strange to me that people have some sort of block against learning what nobel prize winners are saying if it conflicts with their world view.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

String theory is as of today a speculation not scientifically proven. OTOH, it certainly offers one (of the many) possible ways to explain the "fine tuned" parameters we see in our universe. But even if the string theory is proven to be completely wrong, it does not in any way prove the design theory right. There can still be other theories that can offer explanations of our existence.

The only way that the design theory can be proven correct, is for it to offer up falsifiable predictions and to be tested empirically. Until that happens, it is only a religious doctrine.

Quote from jem:

you had a chance to be a man and back up your point.

you are an intellectual fairy and troll of the worst sort.

It is so strange to me that people have some sort of block against learning what nobel prize winners are saying if it conflicts with their world view.

Have trouble reading, therefore resort to name calling. Is this what lawyers do? No wonder we need tort reform.

 

[jem]

that is not an explanation of the quote stu gave us from weinberg.

That is a conclusion without support.

I have no idea if you wrote it or someone else, when it was written and it what context is was created.

What did weinberg say. give an explanation of why my interpretation is incorrect.

 

[jem]

Oh now I see where you got your quote from --- you little fairy.

you went back and added verbiage after I quoted you.

is that what they teach you to do in the faculty lounge at your JC.

Luckily each one of my posts quoted your quotes in full. Everyone can see the little stunt you pulled.


I was going to give you more quotes from Weinberg but I can see you are not interested in learning.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Poor guy needs to see a doctor. He thinks he is being persecuted by all these evil atheists. And they're changing their posts behind his back. Never mind that posters cannot change a post 15 minutes later. All you have to do is to check the time stamps of the posts.

Next you're going to accuse me of doing this with the sys admin. LOL

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Poor guy needs to see a doctor. He thinks he is being persecuted by all these evil atheists. And they're changing their posts behind his back. LOL

all of that was a diversion created by you to avoid actually using your brain. you just went to great lengths to change the subject. You have used cunning internet tactics and skills to avoid the truth. In so doing you manifested your lack of intellectual integrity.

the reality is you still have not addressed what weinberg said because you can't and still save face and your world view. It would be a true shame if you were like this in a classroom.

 

[Turok]

Quote from jem:

Luckily each one of my posts quoted your quotes in full. Everyone can see the little stunt you pulled.

Not accusing you of such jem, but just so you know the "quote" feature can easily be edited (as I did above). As you can see I only took *some* of your words from your post and yet made them appear as though it was your entire quote.

Thus...your above "quoted" sentence isn't true and you have no such "luck".

JB3 could have edited, you could have edited... who knows?

JB