pop morality

[downbeatplumb]

So Drich is all against things that are proven to exist with a high level of certainty, black holes the Higgs etc, but is all for a character which has been found to a high level of certainty to NOT exist.

Nuupe.

Drich is against those who blindly (on faith) accept things exist simply because they can not differentiate science fiction from scientific fact.

Again DBP if Black holes exist as you understand them, then why did Steven Hawking just publish a paper that clearly states they do not work as you think they do? Why is their conflicting data in the scientific community if Black holes have indeed been proven to exist?

You see what you've done there is not actually understand what Stephen Hawking said. He said that things could escape from the "black hole" over time not that the thing itself did not exist. What he means is the idea that things cannot escape the event horizon is not true but the THING ITSELF IS THERE. all the science supports it so. So black hole real but not as black as thought.
http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawki...es-1.14583

Again If the Higgs Boson was conclusively found, then why are the Cern scientists not able to record or identify that specific partical? Why can they only look at what it supposedly leaves behind and claim it to be the particle? Do they not understand that someone else (like the team in denmark) could say those reminates are from another particles destruction??? Why did the team from denmark (who's research paper and concerns I posted) contradict the conclusions that the Cern scientist found? why is their ANY conflict of the Higgs data if infact their is conclusive proof the higgs exist?

What you are showing here is your ignorance on particle physics. I too am ignorant on particle physics so I tend to trust particle physicists to tell me things related to that field because they've put in the years of study and have the big machines. If they say they've found the higgs I am forced to accept that because I am unqualified to argue the point and so Drich are you.

Fact of the matter is they went looking for a chupacraba and found a flattened (beyond recognition) animal on the side of the road and claimed it to be a Chupacraba, and you by faith in 'science' now believe in the Chupacraba because some Paid scientists were pressured to produce results after working 2 years with a multi billion Euro POS and they tried to 'top shelf' (meaning they tried to put data out that only them and a handfull of other people on the planet could decipher) as being the particle they were looking for.

No that's how religion works, it tries to confirm what it looks for science tries to disprove things. What else could have done this thing?

A honest man would look at what I just showed you and ask himself what else do i believe, just because my god of science says so? But not you huh? you like any man of strictly 'faith' (on either side of God/science) is going to bury his head in the sand at all of the conflicting evidence he is presented and pretend the person doing the presenting is dumb, so you can feel good about your ignorance.

[/quote]

You seem to not understand simple facts and have misinterpreted some simple facts because you wrongly thought they supported your point. nothing you have pointed to has made me thing any more highly of your abilities, exactly the opposite.