Intelligent Design is not creationism

Stu. You do not understand the arguments made by Susskind.

and you clearly are challenged by logic.

father is also one of the fathers. take out your venn diagrams. By the way I also gave the disclaimer to you that he was one of the fathers. We had this argument a year ago.

You are a complete fraud

 

i thought u'd like it ;-)

 

No jem you don't understand Susskind that much has been made abundantly clear. You haven’t understood Susskind from the get go when it was made clear to you that the person you are calling "the father of /the founder of /the great mind of" would have to be wrong which would only leave your creationist assertions where they are now - absolutely nowhere.
What a cockeyed argument you do have there

Were your "the father of /the founder of /the great mind of" correct which you might expect a "father/founder/great mind " to be , it logically follows (according to Susskind) your creationist protestations are totally f*kd (as if they weren't anyway)

It's the price you pay for blindly following ID propoganda at face value without applying any critical thought.

THE father / THE founder , is not "one of the fathers / one of the the founders " by any stretch .
But of course by your "logik" anything is what you want it to be.

You aren't being logical so you say I'm not logical.
Your are a fraud so you call me a fraud.
An that is all your argument for ID/creationism amounts to.
A deceit

 

you are the evidence of the perfect fool.

You claimed that Susskind is not the founder of String theory.

If you did a little research you would know that he and the japanese guy came up with string theory concepts at about the exact same time. You know it was an extension of the guy you credited as the father. All he had was an equation. These other two realized what it was and what it meant for the universe. And apparently Susskind was the first to Publish.

Any way you slice it were wrong when you said Susskind is not the father of String Theory and you misquoted wikipedia and removed the "one". Or if you did not misquote why dont you give me the cite.



As far as creatiionism is concened. At the time I started this argument I was on the forefront of this argument. Susskind had just stared doing interviews and I had seen very few references to it. Susskind had just started to promote his book.

It is not creationism it is design and AP. And physicists have been in a debate about it for years.

Here read this a learn...

Question from new Scientist
If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

answer from Susskind
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825305.800

 

What finally convinced you?

The discovery in string theory of this large landscape of solutions, of different vacuums, which describe very different physical environments, tipped the scales for me. At first, string theorists thought there were about a million solutions. Thinking about Weinberg's argument and about the non-zero cosmological constant, I used to go around asking my mathematician friends: are you sure it's only a million? They all assured me it was the best bet.

But a million is not enough for anthropic explanations - the chances of one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small. When Joe Polchinski and Raphael Bousso wrote their paper in 2000 that revealed there are more like 10500 vacuums in string theory, that to me was the tipping point. The three things seemed to be coming together. I felt I couldn't ignore this possibility, so I wrote a paper saying so. The initial reaction was very hostile, but over the past couple of years people are taking it more seriously. They are worried that it might be true.



http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825305.800

 

yes you are, as I said you have demonstrated that.

He is not the founder. I gave equivalent evidence to show why he is not the founder.

You changed your mind AFTER being pressed to " one of the founders"

So Susskind is not the founder. Just as I said. Honestly jem just what is your problem with accepting a simple mistake when you are wrong on something

At best he is a co-founder or joint founder or one of the founders according to your “quotes”

Now he is the father again . Make your mind up. Above you say he is one of the founders now you say he is the founder again. Pathetic.

Can't you read? You pulled the wrong quote. I didn't use that quote. I used a quote off of wki which is not that one. The quote I used is in the same file as yours. By now you will have long lost the reason why I showed it.

I can give you the link anytime so tell me what will you do when the link shows no “one” is present. Apologize? Acknowledge your mistake.?
Or throw insults call me names and argue around what the word “one really means”
The latter I think would be the case


You are incapable of grasping the most simple information. How the hell you expect to understand yourself let alone Susskind is the thing.

 

So tell me jem how does the above fit with the one below , and again I ask you, why do you only provide that particular quote from Susskind and never this....

"The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"
...the ILLUSION of Intelligent Design!!??

So how come you do not choose that when quoting Susskind’s. ??
or this....
"Darwin and Wallace set a standard not only for the life sciences but for cosmology as well. The laws that govern the falling of stones , the chemistry and nuclear physics of the elements and the physics of elementary particles. They freed us from the supernatural by showing complex and even intelligent life could arise from chance, competition and natural causes." Leonard Susskind


and whilst I'm on one... again why do you not acknowledge the gaping flaw in your argument , that Susskind would have to be wrong to only leave your creationist assertions no better than they are now - But if he were right creationism would disappear right up its own string

 

STU this is why I am saying do not understand Susskind. which makes you a complete fool to argue about it.

(you are so full of shit on the issue of father or founder.)

Susskind quite simple put it as this.
There are top scientists who say the Universe looks designed. In fact Susskind adds it looks spectacularly designed.

However, if his String theory is correct and Polchenskis math is correct, then there are at least 10 to the 500 universes. If there are so many universes -- then the fact our universe looks designed is possibly just an illusion. And illusion that is brought about by the fact that we live in the Universe hospitable to life so we have such great fine tuning. But there are billions of other universes or pockets not fined tuned. so the fact that we are fined tuned may be attributed to the luck of the draw instead of a designer.

Susskind firmly believes in the Landscape (megaverse or multiverse to others ) theory. It is after all a product of string theory. he frequently speaks as if the multiverse or Landscape theory is a proven fact.

However, he also admits his theory has not been proven.

so what you have left is the appearance of spectacular design or the acceptance of a theory that says there are over 10 to the 500 other universes.

Get it. Now go away.

 

... and after this mildly acrimonious patch, back to our regular programme: life in the universe!

http://www.saturndaily.com/reports/Coasts_And_Drowned_Mountains_999.html
"Coasts And Drowned Mountains on Titan

On May 12, 2007, Cassini completed its 31st flyby of Saturn's moon Titan, which the team calls T30. The radar instrument obtained this image showing the coastline and numerous island groups of a portion of a large sea, consistent with the larger sea seen by the Cassini imaging instrument.
Like other bodies of liquid seen on Titan, this feature reveals channels, islands, bays, and other features typical of terrestrial coastlines, and the liquid, most likely a combination of methane and ethane, appears very dark to the radar instrument.

What is striking about this portion of the sea compared to other liquid bodies on Titan is the relative absence of brighter regions within it, suggesting that the depth of the liquid here exceeds tens of meters (tens of yards).

Of particular note is the presence of isolated islands, which follow the same direction as the peninsula to their lower right, suggesting that they may be part of a mountain ridgeline that has been flooded. This is analogous to, for example, Catalina Island off the coast of Southern California.

The image as shown is about 160 kilometers (100 miles) by 270 kilometers (170 miles) at 300-meter (980-foot) resolution. The image is centered near 70 degrees north latitude and 310 west longitude."

 

ok ...maybe.....OR it is possible, indeed extremely likely going by your posts, you are the fool for patently not understanding what is being said to you.

How very eloquent.
Is that your best response then? You can't grasp the fact that Susskind is not THE father and not THE founder of string theory, which you said he was. In attempt to cover up you back peddled to say he is "one of the fathers" AND he is THE father.
So instead of acknowledging you made a mistake in that fact, your end response is , "you are so full of shit". And you say it is I who is the fool! oh dear.

There are 'top scientists' who say all that depends on what is actually being meant when using descriptions like design / designed.

Quote from stu .. on previous occasions and yet again in a post above...
if he [Susskind] were right ID/creationism would disappear right up its own string

Your quote above is doing nothing else but agreeing with that. So why are you trying to argue any differently?

So? Equally brilliant scientists disagree with him , so what? If he is right ID/Creationism goes up right up your wormhole any way. If he is wrong you are where you are now with ID/creationism, which is totally nowhere.

So just what is your point then ? How the hell does ANY of that help your ID/Creationism out of its nonsense?

In that case, what you have left is "String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"

You are left with an unproven theory that if ever found to be correct, leaves " luck of the draw instead of a designer" (your words). Which leaves ID/Creationism worthless.

What it is obvious you have left is, as long as Susskind is not found to be correct, which is the case and is likely to remain the case, your ID/Creationism is no better than it is now. And as it is now, it is worthless.
If he ever is found correct then ID/Creationism is worthless anyway!

You on the other hand are left with Selective Quotation Disorder Disease, in which the sufferer can only ever choose one quotation from two of Susskins, and being blindly led toward it, he cannot understand why the one he always quotes is useless as a point in his argument .

"String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" Susskind
"...the appearance of spectacular design"

I get it ok. I get you have no clue.
Go away? So you'll be the monkey covering his ears against anything which doesn't fit with what itself demonstrates to be perverted nonsensical ideas, whilst at the same time calling others Fool.