Scientists to unveil proof of ‘God particle’

[bobcollum]

I'll humor you...

....do you agree with scientists like astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who advanced, after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis, the following: “The universe,” he concluded, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick.

So...you down with the 'scientific' thesis that aliens brought the first life to our planet?

Why should I have to answer for an idea that occurred around 60 years ago that has an incredibly small amount of credibility, if any, among contemporary scientists?

"The discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, believed life on earth came about from DNA seeded here by an alien civilization from a far-off planet. As Graham Hancock points out in his book “Supernatural” - subtitled “Meetings With the Ancient Teachers of Mankind” - Crick’s hypothesis was “………oddly similar in its essence to the cosmology of the ayahuasca-drinking Yagua Indians of the Peruvian Amazon, who told the French anthropologist Jean-Pierre Chaumeil: At the very beginning, before the birth of the earth, this earth here, our most distant ancestors lived on another earth…………..”.
Carta Blanc: A Junkyard Hurricane and Zipf's Law


Science....filled with as much hypothetical speculation as religion.

Graham Hancock is a charlatan, not a scientist.

He's a regular on conspiracy theory-esque programs like Coast to Coast AM and Ancient Aliens on the History Channel...the idea doesn't constitute what's professionally viewed as theoretical science, not by a long-shot.

1. "Why should I have to answer for an idea...blah blah blah..."
That proves my point. There are tons of absurd ideas once known as science.

But basic ideas are correct.
The same can be said of the Judeo-Christian ideas that serve as the guidance for Western Civilization.

And again, both are based on faith.

In science ideas are just ideas until proven other wise, how can the same be said for Judeo-Christian ideas? What can you specifically prove correct about the Bible besides geographic locations? Of which some have never been located, by the way...but that never stopped anyone from spreading the gospel.

So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Berlinski


2. "Graham Hancock is a charlatan, not a scientist."
I can understand why you'd like to pretend that the subject of the quote wasn't Francis Crick...
...or, do you believe he was "a charlatan, not a scientist."?

Actually it seemed that the idea itself was the subject of the post, and as I said, it's as much a science as UFO-hunting or hunting for bigfoot.

Can you show me the mathematical models that present that idea as scientifically sound? Higgs had one, as would any other legitimate theoretical scientist.

Do you know that Higgs came up with the idea for the Higgs Boson back in the 60's? Amazing how a "faith"-based theory backed by sound mathematical models could actually lead to it's discovery once the technology was capable of physically confirming it, though it actually hasn't been seen yet technically, it's footprint has. It's coming...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With just reading the first line of your post PC...yes, theoretical means not fact, this has never been disputed, and if it has, the people in the discussion need to buy a dictionary.

The split between theoretical sciences and religion occurs at the point when religion is accepted as reality by those that follow it, and theoretical sciences eventually through technology are able to conduct physical experimentation to repeatedly verify a hypothesis, thereby making it fact.

Evolution, still just a theory despite many verifications to the hypothesis, it is indeed incomplete at this point.

General and Special Relativity, still just a theory despite numerous verifications to the hypothesis, so much so that we're able to use the findings in a practical, physical manner, for instance, satellites and GPS navigation...all because of Einstein.

How has Christianity(specifically, because I'm guessing it's your religion) evolved in comparison? Science has done more for the world in a practical sense in just a fraction of the time monotheistic religions have been around.

Religion is an attempt to explain observed phenomena, just like science. The real difference is that you accept science and reject religion because you think science has a better track record despite the abundant evidence that it gets more things wrong than religion does.

 

[bobcollum]

"It uses a methodology to observe from verifible facts what exists."

From speculation to belief. Some call it 'faith.'

So just a quick question for you.

Do you know for a fact 2+2=4, or do you just believe it?

Do you understand the difference between science and math?

Do you understand that mathematics plays a major role in legitimizing a theory's potential?

Derp much?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll humor you...

....do you agree with scientists like astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who advanced, after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis, the following: “The universe,” he concluded, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick.

So...you down with the 'scientific' thesis that aliens brought the first life to our planet?

Why should I have to answer for an idea that occurred around 60 years ago that has an incredibly small amount of credibility, if any, among contemporary scientists?





Graham Hancock is a charlatan, not a scientist.

He's a regular on conspiracy theory-esque programs like Coast to Coast AM and Ancient Aliens on the History Channel...the idea doesn't constitute what's professionally viewed as theoretical science, not by a long-shot.

1. "Why should I have to answer for an idea...blah blah blah..."
That proves my point. There are tons of absurd ideas once known as science.

But basic ideas are correct.
The same can be said of the Judeo-Christian ideas that serve as the guidance for Western Civilization.

And again, both are based on faith.

In science ideas are just ideas until proven other wise, how can the same be said for Judeo-Christian ideas? What can you specifically prove correct about the Bible besides geographic locations? Of which some have never been located, by the way...but that never stopped anyone from spreading the gospel.

So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Berlinski


2. "Graham Hancock is a charlatan, not a scientist."
I can understand why you'd like to pretend that the subject of the quote wasn't Francis Crick...
...or, do you believe he was "a charlatan, not a scientist."?

Actually it seemed that the idea itself was the subject of the post, and as I said, it's as much a science as UFO-hunting or hunting for bigfoot.

Can you show me the mathematical models that present that idea as scientifically sound? Higgs had one, as would any other legitimate theoretical scientist.

Do you know that Higgs came up with the idea for the Higgs Boson back in the 60's? Amazing how a "faith"-based theory backed by sound mathematical models could actually lead to it's discovery once the technology was capable of physically confirming it, though it actually hasn't been seen yet technically, it's footprint has. It's coming...

"Amazing how a "faith"-based theory...."


Good enough for me.

 

[bobcollum]

With just reading the first line of your post PC...yes, theoretical means not fact, this has never been disputed, and if it has, the people in the discussion need to buy a dictionary.

The split between theoretical sciences and religion occurs at the point when religion is accepted as reality by those that follow it, and theoretical sciences eventually through technology are able to conduct physical experimentation to repeatedly verify a hypothesis, thereby making it fact.

Evolution, still just a theory despite many verifications to the hypothesis, it is indeed incomplete at this point.

General and Special Relativity, still just a theory despite numerous verifications to the hypothesis, so much so that we're able to use the findings in a practical, physical manner, for instance, satellites and GPS navigation...all because of Einstein.

How has Christianity(specifically, because I'm guessing it's your religion) evolved in comparison? Science has done more for the world in a practical sense in just a fraction of the time monotheistic religions have been around.

Religion is an attempt to explain observed phenomena, just like science. The real difference is that you accept science and reject religion because you think science has a better track record despite the abundant evidence that it gets more things wrong than religion does.

Holy shit you just blew my mind with the stupidity of that statement.

Do tell, what could you possibly get wrong when you don't try to prove anything?

 

[bobcollum]

"Amazing how a "faith"-based theory...."

Good enough for me.

Yeah, you should probably pack up and head home.

Getting owned never looks good on you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

^ Doesn't like the 'mystification induced by mathematics'.

Luckily for you religion only requires your belief.

I see you know less about other people's beliefs than you know about science.

Don't start on me QW, read my discussion with PC in this thread, I'll end up having to repeat it to you, and I'm not doing that.

I am making different points than she is. I actually understand both theology and science on a deeper level than she does. Not that she couldn't give me a run for the money on either subject if she put her mind to it because she is a fantastic researcher, and can string together facts in interesting ways, but I actually know this stuff. I studied science for years, worked in a highly technical field, and kept up with the new research out of curiosity.

I applied my training in science to studying theology after I became a Christian, and can see the connections between them a lot clearer than she can. I can understand your fear of actually debating me, but that won't stop me from making my points.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Explain how our science relies as much on believing as theology. And of course the way you mention believing, you mean blind faith, much like belief in theology.

You're believing in a holy book. Something that is unchanging. We base our beliefs on the greatest minds that the scientific world has to offer. They span different cultures, genders, ages. And best of all, their findings are entirely open to peer review and other scientists are welcome to challenge the theories and establish their own.

It's human, not divine. It's fallible, not infallible. It's questioned, not unwavering. It's evolving, not static.

Explain dark matter and the fact that every single designed experiment to prove the existence of dark matter has failed.

Dark matter hasn't been verified, thus it's still theoretical.

Why the hell is this so hard to understand?

It is theoretical the same way gravity is theoretical, without it the universe would not exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

^ Thinks he knows what he's talking about.

You use the wrong pointer. Next time try this one. [<]

 

[Cowman]

Now here is the point:

The science you accept relies as much on believing as theology.

If you refuse to admit that, you are simply a mind-numbed robot.

Explain how our science relies as much on believing as theology. And of course the way you mention believing, you mean blind faith, much like belief in theology.

You're believing in a holy book. Something that is unchanging. We base our beliefs on the greatest minds that the scientific world has to offer. They span different cultures, genders, ages. And best of all, their findings are entirely open to peer review and other scientists are welcome to challenge the theories and establish their own.

It's human, not divine. It's fallible, not infallible. It's questioned, not unwavering. It's evolving, not static.

Explain dark matter and the fact that every single designed experiment to prove the existence of dark matter has failed.

Explain dark matter? How the fuck can I explain that? We're still learning about it. The Higgs Bosun is a potential key to understanding it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So just a quick question for you.

Do you know for a fact 2+2=4, or do you just believe it?

Do you understand the difference between science and math?

Do you understand that mathematics plays a major role in legitimizing a theory's potential?

Derp much?

Is that a no?

 

[bobcollum]

I see you know less about other people's beliefs than you know about science.

Don't start on me QW, read my discussion with PC in this thread, I'll end up having to repeat it to you, and I'm not doing that.

I am making different points than she is. I actually understand both theology and science on a deeper level than she does. Not that she couldn't give me a run for the money on either subject if she put her mind to it because she is a fantastic researcher, and can string together facts in interesting ways, but I actually know this stuff. I studied science for years, worked in a highly technical field, and kept up with the new research out of curiosity.

I applied my training in science to studying theology after I became a Christian, and can see the connections between them a lot clearer than she can. I can understand your fear of actually debating me, but that won't stop me from making my points.

I wouldn't go that far.

I've had nearly an identical discussion with KG and I thought you as well on another thread. I'd be shocked if one between us would go much differently at all.

Frankly I can't comprehend how someone like you, who seems to know things about this topic, would try to argue that theoretical sciences are comparable to religion.



It's like my comment to PC earlier that went ignored, are any of you followers of the Christian faith willing to admit that it's mostly theoretical, and thus not proven correct?

Nobody seems to want to touch that one.

 

[Cowman]

Quantum Windbag, I swear you're quantum entangled to a rock somewhere.

 

[bobcollum]

Do you understand the difference between science and math?

Do you understand that mathematics plays a major role in legitimizing a theory's potential?

Derp much?

Is that a no?

I already know you're full of shit, you don't have to go to such great lengths to show me, again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Amazing how a "faith"-based theory...."

Good enough for me.

Yeah, you should probably pack up and head home.

Getting owned never looks good on you.

That sure is a time saving technique you've got there!


I get you to admit that I was correct...and you want me to continue.....????

...with what?


Knitting you a sweater????


It's the loneliness, isn't it?
Need a shoulder to cry on? Pull over to the side of the road.

 

[Cowman]

So you're basically denying the existence of all the things we owe our thanks to quantum mechanics on? Transistors, lasers, quantum cryptopgraphy. THOSE THINGS EXIST, and they are thanks to quantum mechanics.

Sorry, but in terms of the type of belief your religious folk engage in, that is god literally giving man the power to conjure miracles. It's real, and it's tangible. Those theories have yielded us real world results and technologies.



Anouncer: It's a dead heat! They're checking the electron microscope. And the winner is... Number three in a quantum finish!

Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!

Sorry, but my lack of ability to understand the sciences on the level that the scientists do DOES NOT mean I do not lack an understanding of the theories themselves. I have a very good understanding of what the Higgs Boson represents and I'm very fascinated by quantum cryptography and quantum computers and have studied a great deal about them.

It's called having an educated opinion. You can have that without actually having degrees in the field.

We don't owe all that much to quantum dynamics, we owe quite a bit to the natural phenomena that quantum dynamics attempts to explain. I suggest you do some basic reading, you can start with this article posted earlier in the thread.

The Higgs Boson could break physics (Wired UK)

The real problem here is that quantum mechanics and the standard model are incompatible, yet both survive because all the predictions of the standard model are holding, and none of the predictions of the various models of quantum mechanics have matched up to reality. We should have discovered a slew of particles by now, and we haven't. Each time we don't the predictions of quantum mechanics become less tenable, but we are forced to cling to the overarching theory because nothing else works.

That explains why real scientists are concerned, why Hawkings bet against finding the Higgs, and why you are just as bad as the ignorant believers who sneer at the scientists who study the universe.

If quantum mechanics couldn't explain it, how the hell do we have an endless variety of things that benefit from our understanding of quantum mechanics?

It's not like gravity, where you don't need to understand gravity to have things fall down.

Don't be such a retard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With just reading the first line of your post PC...yes, theoretical means not fact, this has never been disputed, and if it has, the people in the discussion need to buy a dictionary.

The split between theoretical sciences and religion occurs at the point when religion is accepted as reality by those that follow it, and theoretical sciences eventually through technology are able to conduct physical experimentation to repeatedly verify a hypothesis, thereby making it fact.

Evolution, still just a theory despite many verifications to the hypothesis, it is indeed incomplete at this point.

General and Special Relativity, still just a theory despite numerous verifications to the hypothesis, so much so that we're able to use the findings in a practical, physical manner, for instance, satellites and GPS navigation...all because of Einstein.

How has Christianity(specifically, because I'm guessing it's your religion) evolved in comparison? Science has done more for the world in a practical sense in just a fraction of the time monotheistic religions have been around.

Religion is an attempt to explain observed phenomena, just like science. The real difference is that you accept science and reject religion because you think science has a better track record despite the abundant evidence that it gets more things wrong than religion does.

Holy shit you just blew my mind with the stupidity of that statement.

Do tell, what could you possibly get wrong when you don't try to prove anything?

Religion tells us that it is possible for a man to change. That was a prediction made based on the theory that men have free will. Science had been trying to prove free will does not exist for centuries, then we discovered that photons have free will.

Want to try again?

 

[bobcollum]

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe.

Derp!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Explain how our science relies as much on believing as theology. And of course the way you mention believing, you mean blind faith, much like belief in theology.

You're believing in a holy book. Something that is unchanging. We base our beliefs on the greatest minds that the scientific world has to offer. They span different cultures, genders, ages. And best of all, their findings are entirely open to peer review and other scientists are welcome to challenge the theories and establish their own.

It's human, not divine. It's fallible, not infallible. It's questioned, not unwavering. It's evolving, not static.

Explain dark matter and the fact that every single designed experiment to prove the existence of dark matter has failed.

Explain dark matter? How the fuck can I explain that? We're still learning about it. The Higgs Bosun is a potential key to understanding it.

Actually, the Higgs being found does more to disprove dark matter than it does to prove it. You should try reading the articles that get posted in a discussion like this one, they can be very informative. This was posted earlier.

The Higgs Boson could break physics (Wired UK)

 

[bobcollum]

Religion is an attempt to explain observed phenomena, just like science. The real difference is that you accept science and reject religion because you think science has a better track record despite the abundant evidence that it gets more things wrong than religion does.

Holy shit you just blew my mind with the stupidity of that statement.

Do tell, what could you possibly get wrong when you don't try to prove anything?

Religion tells us that it is possible for a man to change. That was a prediction made based on the theory that men have free will. Science had been trying to prove free will does not exist for centuries, then we discovered that photons have free will.

Want to try again?

This means absolutely nothing to any rational person. Maybe you should try again.