pop morality

[Drich]

So you are doubling down.. Bold when you know your right, very very foolish when you thing the other person is just bluffing.

So lets see who is bluffing. Please use the link I provided that transcribes professor hawking's new black hole theory, or take the posted paper from the denmark team and show me where what I have said is not consistent with their findings (which again contradict or creates a conflict with your understanding of these two subjects.)

Do you not understand that research questioning CERN's findings is a GOOD thing?  This is how science works.  If a theory is disproved, it's great, because new knowledge has been added.  It's unlikely that the Higgs will be disproved, because it showed up as  ≈125 GeV, which was in expected parameters.  Science was delighted to find it.  IF it is proven to be something else, scientists will also be delighted.  It's just more data. The same with black holes.  They've been identified and mapped through gravitational effects and radiation (and - - what else - - physicists help, I'm forgetting something).  If they turn out to be something else entirely, cool!!  More data.

Here the thing oh, great mover of goal posts.. I'm not saying it is a good or bad thing. I'm saying it takes faith to believe in a particle that can not be verified. You or DBP made the statement that 'science only deals with what is tangible/real' (the dig being God is not tangble or real, and it takes faith to believe in God.) I made the comment that 'science infact does not always operate on those principles, then I listed two common examples where faith in science fiction has bled over into science fact and blurred the lines in such away to make douche bags like yourselves believe things like black holes are indeed solid fact when in fact their is as much faith being expended in the belief of how a black hole works, as a religious person would expend in the existence of God.

Now that you can not argue that point you are trying to change the subject to something you feel you can argue. nice try, but if you want me to follow you down your rabbit hole, first concede the point I was making. Otherwise accept belief in 'science' still requires an expenditure of faith on the believers part and as such requires almost a religious devotion to fill the voids between what is observable and has solidified into theory.

[Foxaèr]

I'm saying it takes faith to believe in a particle that can not be verified.

Oh, we understand that it takes faith.

We also understand that people resort to faith because of the comfort it provides in contrast to the harshness of the truth in relation to logic and reason.

Faith is nothing noble. Rather, it is the epitome of giving up on life and living that life to its fullest potential.

[FebruaryOfReason]

...douche bags like yourselves believe things like black holes are indeed solid fact...

Oops.
Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a supermassive black hole in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy

Now that you can not argue that point you are trying to change the subject to something you feel you can argue. nice try, but if you want me to follow you down your rabbit hole, first concede the point I was making. Otherwise accept belief in 'science' still requires an expenditure of faith on the believers part and as such requires almost a religious devotion to fill the voids between what is observable and has solidified into theory.

"Belief" in science doesn't require an expenditure of faith like "belief" in religion does.

Belief in the context you are referring to simply involves an expenditure of energy to test a hypothesis.

If a hypothesis proves inconsistent with a critical assessment of the evidence, we scrap the hypothesis.

One of the main differences between science and religion is that we don't have to carry on believing in the face of contradictory evidence, whereas you do.

[drfuzzy]

Do you not understand that research questioning CERN's findings is a GOOD thing?  This is how science works.  If a theory is disproved, it's great, because new knowledge has been added.  It's unlikely that the Higgs will be disproved, because it showed up as  ≈125 GeV, which was in expected parameters.  Science was delighted to find it.  IF it is proven to be something else, scientists will also be delighted.  It's just more data. The same with black holes.  They've been identified and mapped through gravitational effects and radiation (and - - what else - - physicists help, I'm forgetting something).  If they turn out to be something else entirely, cool!!  More data.

Here the thing oh, great mover of goal posts.. I'm not saying it is a good or bad thing. I'm saying it takes faith to believe in a particle that can not be verified. You or DBP made the statement that 'science only deals with what is tangible/real' (the dig being God is not tangble or real, and it takes faith to believe in God.) I made the comment that 'science infact does not always operate on those principles, then I listed two common examples where faith in science fiction has bled over into science fact and blurred the lines in such away to make douche bags like yourselves believe things like black holes are indeed solid fact when in fact their is as much faith being expended in the belief of how a black hole works, as a religious person would expend in the existence of God.

Now that you can not argue that point you are trying to change the subject to something you feel you can argue. nice try, but if you want me to follow you down your rabbit hole, first concede the point I was making. Otherwise accept belief in 'science' still requires an expenditure of faith on the believers part and as such requires almost a religious devotion to fill the voids between what is observable and has solidified into theory.

You clearly do not understand that the existence of a particle and the measuring of its attributes has already been accomplished.  It fits the criteria for the Higgs and more research is being completed.  There is no "faith" needed, we have data.  No goalposts were moved, you clearly don't understand how science works.  Pick up a magazine.  Even Discover is good.  Or even better, "Particle Fever" is on Netflix.  It's a fabulous documentary.

How xtian of you to resort to insults and name-calling.  That's the kind of behavior I expect from a preechur.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Should we call the Nobel Prize committee and tell them they need to withdraw the 2013 award for Physics?

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...ates/2013/

[robvalue]

I never understand the point of this kind of tu quoque.

Are they saying that it's a good thing we believe in [some scientific thing] based on [no evidence, according to them]? People should just believe whatever they want, without evidence? That's a sensible, respectable way to behave?

They're either saying this, or they are saying our methods are just as stupid as theirs. Which is it? Or is there some profound third option I am missing?

This is pretending, of course, that their claims about there being no evidence are justified for the sake of argument. I doubt they've thought it through this far. It's just deflecting.

[Drich]

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

I swear it feels like I'm trying to talk to a room full of monkeys sometimes... Or trying to play connect the dots with people who don't know how to count, don't know what dots are, and dont have anything to connect them with.

When I challenged your understanding, your sci fi understanding of a black hole/Gravity Well, I am challenging the model that is based off of Einstein's theory of relativity. In that a black hole is a depression in time and space that even light can not escape. a Gravity well. Hawkings theory says it is not a gravity well.

Now if black holes exist as Einstein's theory supports then Hawking is wrong. If Hawking's theory is correct then Einstein theory is wrong... That is what we grown folk call a contradiction, or a conflicting theory. both can not be right. which means the existence of a black hole down to it's very nature of how it works is truly unknown.
It's all just theory to explain why we have x-ray and gamma ray spikes when we scan the night sky.

Did you know we can not even directly observe a black hole in space. All the pictures you see all the CG is just what we think is going on. That's because we have no gravity sensing telescopes., and we don't have any telescopes powerful enough that see deep enough into space to capture the visible light of a black hole nor the x-ray or gamma rays a black holes is supposed to emmit.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/foc...ack-holes/
all we have to detect black holes is Accretion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_...physics%29
If a black hole were the hole in a whirl pool of water, Accretion would be the spiral of water circling towards the center. But the problem we have we never actually witness anything actually spiral into the center confirming the gravity well theory, because of the Time/Space clause of Einstein's theory would mean it would also appear to us the whirlpool was frozen in time. so we get static pics as in the wiki page. when in fact the whole process is just slowed in time. It would take 100's of thousands of years to witness something get sucked down into the whirlpool. So then all we can really measure is the X-rays and Gamma ray bursts from the material (stars, stellar objects) that supposedly makes up the Accretion.

That's why according to the old standard model nothing could ever escape a black hole. while Hawking says the opposite, that given enough time an object could. which blows EVERYTHING You were not even smart enough to know about black holes out of the water.

Now if you didn't get frustrated and just skip over everything I just said, and you actually read and understood all of it, you would see what a very very thin line the whole black hole nonsense balances on. If I took all the excuses on why we can not observe a working black hole, and apply that to God, you clowns would loose your mind having a field day poking holes in our faith.

That sport, is what I am doing to you.

I'm not doubting that black holes exist, I am not calling into question either Einstein nor Hawking's theories, I am simply pointing out all of that faith you and your buddies have in a system that habitually can not provide 'proof' on a cornerstone event like a black hole or the Higgs/Boson.

You said Science isn't used to support fantasy.. Yes the propaganda around it says that very thing, but in practice it DOES THAT VERY THING! (Science FICTION Is still fantasy) And further more it takes MORE faith to believe in some of the crap science comes up with than it does to believe in God.

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.

Google sport, google it like I did. I'm not smart. I just verify absolutly Everything then form my conclusions of data that i can support several different ways.
Yes I can't personally contradict the Cern findings, but the Denmark team of Particle Physicists I quoted/linked to can and did.

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?

AND that is how Science works like it or not. The two examples I provided underscore this fact.

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.

What I've done is taken the 'facts' out of the package they/science wants to sell it to us in, and examine the actual content, then compare the process of acceptance and belief to any other known systems of acceptance and belief. i found one, in religion. the parallels between the two are staggering, especially when 'science' insists so much that it is based on the complete opposite.

Understand I am fully aware I am not viewing the facts through the lenses and assurances science would have us view them. I have taken the narrative and the pedigree/prestige away and just looked at content/raw data, and ran it through the same prossess you run "God/religion though" Guess what... It fails. I have found a greater need for faith in science than what is needed for God.

Why is this important? Because again back to the morality thing. 'Science' is being used to manipulate morality in the general population (those with and with out God) The easiest example to demonstrate this is abortion. Bottom line that any honest person will accept is we are killing babies. Yet, 'science' is used to justify these deaths and remove the unborn baby's humanity reducing him down to 'a clump of cells.'

Now because of the faith you have in science, you are far less likly to question anything this new god will command you do. Science is becoming the same force, or has the same level of control over people that the dark ages church was over Europe. With the church splintered into 30K pieces no one could ever control people through religion like they once did (almost as if God wanted it that way), Yet here we go forgetting the past and shifting all of our faith into the religion science which can be controlled and manipulated by money, to determine our rights and wrongs.

[Drich]

I'm saying it takes faith to believe in a particle that can not be verified.

Oh, we understand that it takes faith.

We also understand that people resort to faith because of the comfort it provides in contrast to the harshness of the truth in relation to logic and reason.

Faith is nothing noble.  Rather, it is the epitome of giving up on life and living that life to its fullest potential.

Faith is also a double edged sword. What's true (negative) for religion is also true for the faith used in science.
Faith in science does not get a pass just because it is 'science' you have faith in.

[Drich]

...douche bags like yourselves believe things like black holes are indeed solid fact...

Oops.
Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a supermassive black hole in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy

Now that you can not argue that point you are trying to change the subject to something you feel you can argue. nice try, but if you want me to follow you down your rabbit hole, first concede the point I was making. Otherwise accept belief in 'science' still requires an expenditure of faith on the believers part and as such requires almost a religious devotion to fill the voids between what is observable and has solidified into theory.

"Belief" in science doesn't require an expenditure of faith like "belief" in religion does.

Belief in the context you are referring to simply involves an expenditure of energy to test a hypothesis.

If a hypothesis proves inconsistent with a critical assessment of the evidence, we scrap the hypothesis.

One of the main differences between science and religion is that we don't have to carry on believing in the face of contradictory evidence, whereas you do.

I have conclusively shown repeatedly that it indeed does. Also are you saying Kitan is wrong for saying "we"/you all know science requires faith

[robvalue]

I never understand the point of this kind of tu quoque.

Are they saying that it's a good thing we believe in [some scientific thing] based on [no evidence, according to them]? People should just believe whatever they want, without evidence? That's a sensible, respectable way to behave?

They're either saying this, or they are saying our methods are just as stupid as theirs. Which is it? Or is there some profound third option I am missing?

This is pretending, of course, that their claims about there being no evidence are justified for the sake of argument. I doubt they've thought it through this far. It's just deflecting.

Yeah well, you deflect too!