Intelligent Design is not creationism

[stu]

Quote from jem:

by the way STU this site credits him with the discovery of string theory.
Could you be more wrong? so consistently.

At it again I see Quote Boy.

I suggested you Look BEFORE you Leap.. Resting your argument on what is your one and only single appeal to an article you use as authority, one single.press cutting, is by now very feeble ..

Here read some more quotes (one from your fav quote source - wiki)

• 
  "String theory is a term used to describe a set of very closely related mathematical models of elementary particles and their interactions. String theories seek to unify the theory of gravity (general relativity) with the three other forces of nature which we have learned to describe using the techniques of quantum field theory.
  
  Initially these models were invented to describe the pattern of masses and spins of the so-called 'hadrons': strongly-interacting particles made-up of quarks that were produced in abundance in particle accelerators of the 50's and 60's. The key theorist behind these early models would probably be Gabriele Veneziano. The string theories turned out to be the wrong model for hadron physics,but were later adapted to their present role as a theory of all elementary particles by a number of theorists. Some of the earliest and most important were Pierre Ramond, Andre Neveu, John Schwarz and Joel Scherk. This development occurred in the mid 1970s. Of course many, many theorists were involved in the development of string theory which continues to this date."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae138.cfm


History
Main article: History of string theory

String theory was originally developed and explored during the late 1960s and early 1970s to explain some peculiarities of the behavior of hadrons (subatomic particles such as the proton and neutron which experience the strong nuclear force). In particular, Yoichiro Nambu and later Lenny Susskind and Holger Nielsen)........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#History

Your argument always was a worthless.one

Quote from jem:

You just misrepresented wikipedia by omitting the word "one". You have no honor.

you misquoted wikipedia and removed the "one"." you are the evidence of the perfect fool. "

I asked you....what will you do when the link shows no “one” is present. Apologize? Acknowledge your mistake.?
Still Not able to admit you are wrong Quote Boy?
Apologize? Acknowledge your mistake.?

and again...
why do you only ever provide one particular quote from Susskind and never this....
"The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"

The whole of your silly argument is only ever a desperate attempt to misconstrue and misinform in defense of a ridiculous ID/Creationist assertion.

But all you are left with is the fact that Susskind is not THE father of string theory as you stated he was...
AND as well as being reprted as saying this, which you rely on all out,...
"Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics."

he also says this...
"The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent" Design"

but you can only ever see enough to read one of those.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

If his theory is wrong - he is telling you that --- without any explanation for natures fine tunings - we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.

Get it Stu.

It is all too obvious if his theory is wrong, Susskind will be well aware he is in no way hard pressed to answer ID , anymore than he is now.
After all he is as you say " a great mind " of physics.
All he will need answer to any ID /creationist , as any body would .... Prove your proposition.
(as far as ID?creationism is concered it will first need get something resembling a proposition )

You could also have used other "great minds " to show you how even if Susskind is wrong, his is not the only theory which would have the same effect as you say his would ie: no ID.

Get it Jem.

Quote from jem:

Which has been my point all all along.
People who say the universe is not designed are just as faith based a people who say it is.

Nothing you can do about it till science changes.

Which all goes to show how you never had a clue or a point all along

People who feel no desire to say either, would feel equally disinclined to say Unicorns are designed..
You don't need faith to say prove it. You don't require belief to insist on overwhelming evidence to support a proposition.
In the absence of such evidence, you do not require faith to say . Unicorns were or were not designed.

Nothing I need do about it. There is no faith base where no faith is based.

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:

People who feel no desire to say either, would feel equally disinclined to say Unicorns are designed..
You don't need faith to say prove it. You don't require belief to insist on overwhelming evidence to support a proposition.
In the absence of such evidence, you do not require faith to say . Unicorns were or were not designed.

Nothing I need do about it. There is no faith base where no faith is based.

You are up to your ears in faith. Is quicksand real?

Jesus

 

[jem]

I said Susskind was the founder and then I said he was one of the founders - recently and about a year ago.

You recently said no - it was the Italian guy.

The Italian guy came up with the equation- not the theory that the equation modeled the of the Universe.

You were dead wrong. The rest of your stuff is bullshit.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

It is all too obvious if his theory is wrong, Susskind will be well aware he is in no way hard pressed to answer ID , anymore than he is now.
After all he is as you say " a great mind " of physics.
All he will need answer to any ID /creationist , as any body would .... Prove your proposition.
(as far as ID?creationism is concered it will first need get something resembling a proposition )

You could also have used other "great minds " to show you how even if Susskind is wrong, his is not the only theory which would have the same effect as you say his would ie: no ID.

Get it Jem.


Which all goes to show how you never had a clue or a point all along

People who feel no desire to say either, would feel equally disinclined to say Unicorns are designed..
You don't need faith to say prove it. You don't require belief to insist on overwhelming evidence to support a proposition.
In the absence of such evidence, you do not require faith to say . Unicorns were or were not designed.

Nothing I need do about it. There is no faith base where no faith is based.

You remind me of a little kid who holds his ears and says I am not hearing you.

How could you waste your time writing the non accurate baloney you just wrote above.

Argue with the physicists I have cited or admit you are a little kid saying I am not hearing you.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I said Susskind was the founder and then I said he was one of the founders - recently and about a year ago.

You recently said no - it was the Italian guy.

The Italian guy came up with the equation- not the theory that the equation modeled the of the Universe.

You were dead wrong. The rest of your stuff is bullshit.

That is probably as near as you will ever be able to get to admitting your clumsy mistake.

All I did was to show how your reliance on a quote can cause you to make clumsy mistakes as other equally valid quotes do not agree with yours.

Listen to yourself, "The Italian guy" . Like I said, you haven't really got a clue.
I just thank goodness I don't share your dumb ignorance.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

You remind me of a little kid who holds his ears and says I am not hearing you.

How could you waste your time writing the non accurate baloney you just wrote above.

Argue with the physicists I have cited or admit you are a little kid saying I am not hearing you.

I have already said this to you...
"you'll be the monkey covering his ears against anything which doesn't fit with what itself demonstrates to be perverted nonsensical ideas"

I notice how you often childishly regurgitate other stuff you have read.

I have asked you over and over why you never select any other quote of Susskind.
If he is of such a " great mind " as you say he is to make the one you select - which you base the whole of your pathetic argument on - other Susskind quotes will be at least as worthy.

So here's one ..."String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent" Design" Short ,succinct, to the point. Why do you never choose that ?
Your response only got thus far .... "You remind me of a little kid who holds his ears and says I am not hearing you."
You might now ask yourself, what makes you so deaf that you will not hear.



Physicists you quote are not saying anything I don't agree with, so why would I argue with them.
On the other hand you have no argument and are too dumb to understand why. I was just trying to help you. By the sound of it , you are too far gone.

At least I can be content with knowing I taught you how to spell the word cite.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"I just thank goodness I don't share your dumb ignorance."

You thank "goodness"? I thought you would be thanking nature...

Anyway, I agree you don't share your dumb ignorance, you show your well thought out ignorance...

Quote from stu:

That is probably as near as you will ever be able to get to admitting your clumsy mistake.

All I did was to show how your reliance on a quote can cause you to make clumsy mistakes as other equally valid quotes do not agree with yours.

Listen to yourself, "The Italian guy" . Like I said, you haven't really got a clue.
I just thank goodness I don't share your dumb ignorance.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Now you find contentment in giving spelling lessons on a message board...

ROTFLMAO!

Quote from stu:

I have already said this to you...
"you'll be the monkey covering his ears against anything which doesn't fit with what itself demonstrates to be perverted nonsensical ideas"

I notice how you often childishly regurgitate other stuff you have heard.

I have asked you over and over why you never select any other quote of Susskind.
If he is of such a " great mind " as you say he is to make the one you select - which you base the whole of your pathetic argument on - other Susskind quotes will be at least as worthy.

So here's one ..."String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent" Design" Short ,succinct, to the point. Why do you never choose that ?
Your response only got thus far .... "You remind me of a little kid who holds his ears and says I am not hearing you."
You might now ask yourself, what makes you so deaf that you will not hear.



Physicists you quote are not saying anything I don't agree with, so why would I argue with them.
On the other hand you have no argument and are too dumb to understand why. I was just trying to help you. By the sound of it , you are too far gone.

At least I can be content with knowing I taught you how to spell the word cite.

 

[stu]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Anyway, I agree you don't share your dumb ignorance, you show your well thought out ignorance...

Thank you kindly. I'll take well thought out in preference to dumb , or the Troll's ignorance which you wear so well.