Creation/evolution3

[downbeatplumb]

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?

Notice that what they didn't do was just assume that it existed because the current theory required it what they went out of their way to do expending vast sums and years of work was to carry out experiments to verify it.

This is the opposite of religion which thinks it already has all the answers.

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.)

Ok you really are a fuck wit aren't you. the whole point of the collider is to gather evidence. if the evidence had no supported the Higgs they would have had to think again and that would also have been a valid answer.

This is not how Religion works which only likes anything that supports its view and rejects everything else.

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

Religion pretends it knows everything and is totally biased in what it chooses to fit into acceptable facts.
Religion filters everything through its faith attempting to ignore or discount anything that seems to disagree and when that fails to then try and change what their religion said in the first place.

Science is a dispassionate view of the evidence, that attempts as far as possible to not let pre-conceptions interfere with the findings that the evidence provides.

Religion and science are opposites and your pathetic attempts to conflate the two are an act of intellectual dishonesty.

So to conclude.

Science is the process that men use to take faith out of the equation and go where the evidence leads.

Faith is the blind adherence to beliefs despite the evidence.