Intelligent Design is not creationism

here is a prime example of your ignorance on this subject.

Stu said...

"String landscape itself does not include a Multiverse proposition. Multiverse is an extension from string theory."
 
Quote from jem:

ironic coming from you...

You have been making ignorant but specious arguments for year and you think that entitles you to feel superior.
You're telling me what I think at the same time as talking about entitlements to feel superior!
Now that IS what's ironic.

Quote from jem:
here is a prime example of your ignorance on this subject.

Stu said...

"String landscape itself does not include a Multiverse proposition. Multiverse is an extension from string theory."
Yes that is a prime example of your ignorance.

It's a correct statement.

String Landscape is about the possibly infinite number of false vacuums (or vacua) in string theory.
If you want to say chalk is cheese, apples are pears, then you would no doubt say false vacuums are universes.

There is no designer/tuner here. You'll make no progress trying to insert god into science where it doesn't belong.
You have though made enormous headway in showing how little you understand about any of the stuff you post. Including its own irony.
 
Is anyone even paying attention to you guys anymore? For myself, just considering jem's stupidity on the GW issue, I declare stu must the one who's right here. Is that fair? Maybe not but I don't give a shit.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Is anyone even paying attention to you guys anymore? For myself, just considering jem's stupidity on the GW issue, I declare stu must the one who's right here. Is that fair? Maybe not but I don't give a shit.

sock puppet drive by lie. These leftists exhibit no honor.
 
Quote from jem:

sock puppet drive by lie. These leftists exhibit no honor.
Leftists? Grow up for goodness sake..

There is no sockpuppet here yet YOU were caught red handed using one. You hypocrite.

Now what trouble is it you are having with string landscape not being itself a proposition for multiverse?
Unless you can explain yourself, repeating the sentence just makes you look as ridiculous as you always end up being.

There's still no designer/tuner/god in any of it.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Is anyone even paying attention to you guys anymore? For myself, just considering jem's stupidity on the GW issue, I declare stu must the one who's right here. Is that fair? Maybe not but I don't give a shit.

No I don't think it fair. If you're not paying attention why post at all? I would have hoped at least you may have noticed responses to Jem's nonsense at least demonstrated he doesn't even have an argument.
 
Quote from jem:

The comedy continues.

every scientist in the world cites to sources... but stu is against such practice.
Stu thinks citing to sources is a liability.
Which it is for trolls.

Hey stu... learn the science.

Come back and show us what a vacua is (cite to an authority)
come back an show us was an alternate universe is. (cite to an authority)

Then perhaps you will realize what a fool you are.
 
Moving-picture-dog-chasing-tail-gif-animation.gif


So in the end, that's all you can really do.
 
Quote from stu:

Moving-picture-dog-chasing-tail-gif-animation.gif


So in the end, that's all you can really do.

I am not going to let you use troll playbook page 4 and change the subject.

You made ignorant comment about string landscape vs multiverse and you doubled down on your stupidity. So explain.
 
Back
Top