Creation/evolution3

[Davka]

FAIL.

The LHC was built in order to determine (among other things) whether or not the Higgs-Boson actually exists. Physicists would have been equally satisfied with evidence against the Higgs-Boson as with evidence for it. That's how science works: Hypotheses are put forward, and attempts are made to prove or disprove those hypotheses.

Scientists are just as pleased to have hypotheses disproved as to have them substantiated. Why? Because they are interested in determining what the actual facts are, not in supporting their preconceived notions of the Universe.

Science can afford to prove all previous concepts wrong. Religion cannot.

On net flix there is a documentary actually interviewing the actual scientists who work with this 100 billion dollar joke. If you honestly listen to them they start out talking about the discovery of the Higgs boson partial. After they turn on the collider and ran it for a few months thier whole focused changed. Rather than looking for the partial they decided it's shelf life was so short they would never be able to document it..

Now, the simple fact that this 100 billion dollar experiment did not yield the partial as promised, most would say the partial did not exist. But rather than that, they are saying we know it is there because of the presents of another known partial.

Their is absolutly no evidence of this partical, just the theories of 'smart people' who need this partical to make the Big Bang to work.

This is a perfect example of 'science' having a theory and then backing into it.

Your ignorance is rivaled only by your arrogance.

The LHC is a tool for figuring things out. That's all. The Higgs-Boson is not "needed to make the Big Bang" work. All the current evidence points to a period of rapid inflation ~13.5 billion years ago. Tools such as the LHC, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Webb Space Telescope, and many others have been designed in order to try to determine exactly how things worked billions of years ago, as well as how they work now.

Let's take a simpler example of science building tools to figure out how stuff works. The microscope. Scientists did not create some elaborate theory about what microscopic life would look like, and then build microscopes in order to "prove" it. They built microscopes in order to look at things they could not see with the naked eye, so they could learn.

Sure, there were various hypotheses about what they might see with a microscope, but they were just as eager to prove those hypotheses wrong as to prove them right. All of these scientific tools are designed with the exact same purpose in mind: to observe reality, and to learn.

Your foolish and ignorant opinion regarding the LHC is akin to someone saying "oh, those scientists only built microscopes so they could prove their theories about microscopic life!" No, they didn't. They built them in order to see what actually exists. The core of scientific progress is the desire to learn, not to "prove" that preconceived ideas are true. If the LHC ends up somehow falsifying the existence of the Higgs-Boson, that information is just as valuable as confirmation would be.

This is something ignorant Christians never seem to get: if a hypothesis cannot be falsified (i.e. disproven) in any conceivable way, it is useless. Scientific tools are designed to give us answers, and whether that answer turns out to be "yes, you were right" or "no, you were way off base" does not matter. The point is to learn about how things work, not to force the facts into a pre-existing theory.

Maybe years of trying to force the evidence to fit the Bible stories has made rational thought impossible for you. You approach everything from the perspective of forcing the facts to fit the story, instead of letting the facts tell the story, and following wherever they lead. So you assume everyone else is doing the same.

But they're not. Get thee to a university.

And for fuck's sake, learn to use a spellchecker.

---

Seriously? Oh I get your only pretending to be ignorant, just so dry sand doesn't get lonely.

Because if you're really referring to the you tube post in the recent Noah's ark thread I prefaced that post with "this is the YouTube video link that was broken in the OP's orginal nat geo reference." That would mean that the YouTube link I posted wasn't my source material or arguement. It belonged to the national geographic artical the op used.

Pretty sure your autoplay vids are screwing the thread. Wanna delete them, pretty please?