Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

Hydron collider heello...

'Science' built this 100 billon dollar/euro crap fest on the idea that the little collider they had was not 'big enough' to see the particals they wanted to see. So on the 'faith' they had in what they found, they set out to build a bigger/better version. So fast forward 10/15 years what do we have? essentially what we had before.
The same particals the same understanding (Same evidence as before) just somehow more resolve that their faith in what they believe is true.
(I say faith because this partical still has not been documented.)

So tell me some more about how science is different than religion.

They built the collider because they couldn't take their ideas on faith. They needed to be tested and proved by the gathering of evidence.
If they had not found what they had theorized then they would have had to adjusted the theory or discarded it entirely. The polar opposite of religion which claims to have all the answers and no proof and if the evidence doesn't fit the religion then the evidence must be wrong.

You thinking religion is similar to religion is laughable.

Keep going with your chain of reasoning...

So if they had no evidence of the Higgs boson partical, and they needed a trillion dollar super collider to find it, what was the reason they couldn't find it with after two years of running this collider?

Their answer? the shelf life of the partical is .00000000000000006 seconds long (give or take a zero or two.) put another way, "it's self life is less than the time it would take light moving at the speed of light to cover the distance of one atom."

So then the question becomes how/why did they get funding on a trillion dollar project without any conclusive evidence/tangible evidence? Why were they allowed to proceed on just theoretical evidence?

In short...

Faith. It was all done on faith. Faith in these men, faith in their education and ultimatly faith in their theories without "empirical Evidence" (the dictionary version and your version.)

So tell me some more how science is different than religion.

---

Ok then take the Big Bang and show me the sets of the scientific method in it.

Why, would you stop bullshitting us if we did? Doubtful. It would be a waste of effort. You won't even do the science that you want to claim for your stories.....works fine when you want it to, doesn't apply when you don't, and anything you're plainly ignorant of is probably faith - we get it. The only time you power down the gibberish generator is when you don't want to answer for the demonstrable falsehoods of your own damned claims. Then it's just radio silence.

"Show me this, explain that!" -ad infinitum. Howsabout you go figure it out for yourself?

I am simply asking you to substantiate your claims... Nothing more that what I do willing or when asked.

What this does put You in a position of actual authority if/when you do it. No doubt though you are beginning to see how difficult most of what you say/believe about me or your God science can indeed be substantiated.

---

You apply reason -to- empirical evidence...because reasoning is a process. "Here's some reasoning yall", is not empirical, for something to be empirical a person must be able to derive it from sense experience (observation), not be fed an argument(reason).

Understand?

Additionally, "theory", like "empirical" does not mean what you think it means.

Again show me. Let's see a defination or explaination from something other than 'rhythm' books of backwards thinking and padded explainations.

I provided a link to merrium Webster to support what I had to say. Where is your reference sport? Or are you looking to try and just keep putting what you believe out there with no support till no one wants to talk about it anymore?