[PassedOut]

Throughout history, many scientific explanations of the natural world have contradicted religious explanations. In every case, the scientific explanations have been correct. When you give that some real thought, you'll realize why things always work out that way. Better not to position your religious views so they can be refuted by science. Most moderates have figured that out.

Evolution is a fact: the evidence is overwhelming and there is no plausible alternative. Most religious folks do understand that, after reading up on it. The fact of evolution should not pose a problem for anyone's religion. If it does, the religion needs to change.

[gwnn]

Huh, the LHC will fail? The LHC already succeeded. They did not award the Nobel prize for building the LHC. They gave the Nobel prize for finding Higg's boson. Read this previous sentence if you ever decide to read any of my posts that are addressed to you.

I already answered your question on the "glaring flaw" on the BBT: there are theories out there that state that the total energy of the universe is zero (there is a huge positive component from E=mc^2 and a huge negative component from the gravitational attraction that probably cancel out). Therefore, it is energy-neutral for the hot, dense universe to come into being out of nothing or that it vanishes. However, after it came into existence, it quickly exploded and then cooled off. This is also basic thermodynamics. Note that I am a physicist but I am not a cosmologist. I read this explanation in The Grand Design by Hawking and Mlodinow. I have also already posted this upthread. But from your reluctance to read the Nobel committee's decision and your fellow BBF members' 100-500 word posts, I gather you are not a big fan of books.

[mike777]

NOt sure the multi universe theory denies a higher power.....just that all can win if you roll the dice all answers occur just not in your universe

In any event some of us get something out of the ritual of a higher power and going to a cathedral service. If only the pagent...ok. What gets me is the virulent hate and disgust towards Christians in countries. In fact some claim there is a war, worldwide war on Christians in the sense they are killed. I assume the nonbelievers are next if not first.


as I Mentioned before many an atheist believes in an after life.

[gwnn]

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2013-October-15, 20:34, said:

Cut this post out and stick it on your fridge. You heard it first in the BBO Forums. With EVERY FAILURE of the LHC, science (and like thinking governments) are going to throw more and more money at it. What is the current budget? 9 Billion? (I never bothered to look up the actual figure again). Revisit the article on Wikipedia every year on the 16th of October (the date of this post), and follow the progress made with the LHC. More importantly – take note of the steadily rising costs, and still they got nothing!

For the life of me, I can't understand why you are so obsessed with the Large Hadron Collider...

You continually reference this as if it is some kind of be all and end all for "science".
The Big Bang Theory was posited long before the Large Hadron Collider.
The mechanisms by which the myriad elements formed have been well understood for years.

It was great that the Large Hadron Collider has identified a particle that behaves in the same way as the Higgs Boson.
Having to refine the standard model would have been a shame...

But you know what, if folks had to arrive at a new (and presumably better) theory, I trust that they would have.

To me, this is the most significant difference between science and religion.

Our scientific understanding of the universe has been improving for millennia.

You're stuck working from some confusing old stories that were written thousands of years ago.
Very little advances. Very little changes.

And when some modern discoveries contradict some of your cherished truths, you're forced to retreat even further back into your shell

[billw55]

 gwnn, on 2013-October-16, 00:01, said:

Huh, the LHC will fail? The LHC already succeeded. They did not award the Nobel prize for building the LHC. They gave the Nobel prize for finding Higg's boson. Read this previous sentence if you ever decide to read any of my posts that are addressed to you.

To be entirely accurate, the prize was given to Higgs and Englert for proposing the particle decades ago. The experimenters who found it lost out this time.
[\nitpick]

[barmar]

 billw55, on 2013-October-16, 08:00, said:

To be entirely accurate, the prize was given to Higgs and Englert for proposing the particle decades ago. The experimenters who found it lost out this time.
[\nitpick]

Right. They did the scientific research that determined that the particle should exist. Since then we've just been waiting for technology to improve so that their conjecture could be verified, and that's the point we reached last year with the LHC. Once the physics community felt the evidence was sufficient, their discovery deserved the award.

[32519]

 PassedOut, on 2013-October-15, 22:32, said:

Throughout history, many scientific explanations of the natural world have contradicted religious explanations. In every case, the scientific explanations have been correct. When you give that some real thought, you'll realize why things always work out that way. Better not to position your religious views so they can be refuted by science. Most moderates have figured that out.

Evolution is a fact: the evidence is overwhelming and there is no plausible alternative. Most religious folks do understand that, after reading up on it. The fact of evolution should not pose a problem for anyone's religion. If it does, the religion needs to change.

Which part of my post did you not understand?

I really, really, really hope that every other scientist on planet earth who rejects the possible existence of a super-natural being echoes this view of yours, “There is NO PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE.”

The theory of EVOLUTION is 100% dependant on the BIG BANG theory. When the BIG BANG theory fails, the EVOLUTION theory fails as well. And so we have the LHC. When the LHC fails to deliver, how are scientists going to explain how the universe came into existence, let alone the diversity of living things on planet earth? Now your theory of EVOLUTION has had its legs chopped right off. The best part here is that it was chopped off by you yourselves (the scientists). You never needed any help from any of the following to point out the flaw in the theory, a) atheists, b) agnostics, or c) believers. You did it all alone. Together the scientists spent like how many years to “perfect” this theory? You held the perfect hand for your “perfect” theory, one which you kept on throwing into the face of anyone who thought differently to yourselves. And then what do you do? You revoke! All your years of hard work you yourselves come and blow to pieces! Wow! That’s a BBO expert on display!

If you (and likewise thinkers) cannot see that with the failure of the BIG BANG theory, the scientists are steadily painting themselves into a corner from which there is no escape, then there is nothing anyone can do to help you.

PS: Have you stuck my post onto your fridge yet?

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2013-October-16, 11:59, said:

The theory of EVOLUTION is 100% dependant on the BIG BANG theory. When the BIG BANG theory fails, the EVOLUTION theory fails as well.

If we take the time and effort to disprove this, will you shut up and go away?

[32519]

 gwnn, on 2013-October-16, 00:01, said:

Huh, the LHC will fail? The LHC already succeeded. They did not award the Nobel prize for building the LHC. They gave the Nobel prize for finding Higg's boson. Read this previous sentence if you ever decide to read any of my posts that are addressed to you.

I already answered your question on the "glaring flaw" on the BBT: there are theories out there that state that the total energy of the universe is zero (there is a huge positive component from E=mc^2 and a huge negative component from the gravitational attraction that probably cancel out). Therefore, it is energy-neutral for the hot, dense universe to come into being out of nothing or that it vanishes. However, after it came into existence, it quickly exploded and then cooled off. This is also basic thermodynamics. Note that I am a physicist but I am not a cosmologist. I read this explanation in The Grand Design by Hawking and Mlodinow. I have also already posted this upthread. But from your reluctance to read the Nobel committee's decision and your fellow BBF members' 100-500 word posts, I gather you are not a big fan of books.

It what way is this supposed to put any fear into me, "Note that I am a physicist"? But with your superior knowledge, tell me how you produce the BIG BANG when you got nothing at your disposal (my point 1 above)? When I asked MikeH he threw all his toys out the cot. How about you?

You can post as many formulas as you choose in this thread. It matters squat. Why? Go and read your own post again…slowly…! Can you spot the flaw? Here’s a clue – it is the word theory. So you need to build the LHC to give any substance to your theories. Why? Never mind whether you are talking to atheists, agnostics or believers about all your fancy theories, all you need is some rational thinking to point out the stupidity of the whole thing. And my guess is that more and more rational thinkers are pointing out to science the absurdity of these theories. And you just don’t have anything left in defence. So what do you do? You need to build the LHC! And to encourage like thinkers, you award them the Noble Prize (spelling mistake deliberate), so as to say, “Hey guys, don’t give up yet. We’ve got to be able to defend this thing!”

I concede that the theory of EVOLUTION is PLAUSIBLE. But it goes up in smoke when the BIG BANG theory fails.

We got plenty of lurkers reading this thread. They are going to start throwing your theories back into your face. Be ready with some new answers. The old ones won’t do the trick anymore.

PS. Have you stuck a copy of my post on your fridge yet?

PPS: Back to the Pink Floyd lyrics:

 32519, on 2013-October-09, 04:21, said:

Breathe
(Waters, Gilmour, Wright) 2:44

<Snip>

Run, rabbit run.
Dig that hole, forget the sun,
And when at last the work is done
Don't sit down it's time to dig another one.

<Snip>

Time
(Mason, Waters, Wright, Gilmour) 7:06

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way.
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way.

Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain.
You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today.
And then one day you find ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun.

So you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again.
The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older,
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

Every year is getting shorter never seem to find the time.
Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way
The time is gone, the song is over,
Thought I'd something more to say.

<Snip>

Us and Them
(Waters, Wright) 7:40

Us, and them [Scientists and everyone else?]
And after all we're only ordinary men.
Me, and you.
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do.
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
moved from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end it's only round and round.
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside.

<Snip>

Down and out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about.
With, without.
And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about?
Out of the way, it's a busy day
I've got things on my mind.

<Snip>

Brain Damage
(Waters) 3:50

The lunatic is on the grass.
The lunatic is on the grass.
Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs.
Got to keep the loonies on the path.

The lunatic is in the hall.
The lunatics are in my hall.
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And every day the paper boy brings more.

And if the dam breaks open many years too soon
And if there is no room upon the hill
And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

The lunatic is in my head.
The lunatic is in my head
You raise the blade, you make the change
You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane.
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me.

And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear.
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

"I can't think of anything to say except...
I think it's marvelous! HaHaHa!"

Eclipse
(Waters) 2:04

All that you touch
All that you see
All that you taste
All you feel.
All that you love
All that you hate
All you distrust
All you save.
All that you give
All that you deal
All that you buy,
beg, borrow or steal.
All you create
All you destroy
All that you do
All that you say.
All that you eat
And everyone you meet
All that you slight
And everyone you fight.
All that is now
All that is gone
All that's to come
and everything under the sun is in tune
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.

[Trinidad]

 hrothgar, on 2013-October-16, 12:08, said:

If we take the time and effort to disprove this, will you shut up and go away?

Come on, all theories are connected... If (big if) the Big Bang theory falls then behavior theory will fall too and Pavlov's dog will stop drooling immediately. The Law of Supply and Demand will break down and the oil price will drop when we want more of it. Molecular theory... completely out of the window: acids will start reacting with acids and bases with bases.

In short: as soon as the Big Bang theory falls... Doomsday will arrive.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2013-October-16, 12:11, said:

Here’s a clue – it is the word theory.

Do not use the word "theory" again until you understand what it means.

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2013-October-16, 12:11, said:

And my guess is that more and more rational thinkers are pointing out to science the absurdity of these theories. And you just don’t have anything left in defence. So what do you do? You need to build the LHC! And to encourage like thinkers, you award them the Noble Prize (spelling mistake deliberate), so as to say, “Hey guys, don’t give up yet. We’ve got to be able to defend this thing!”

We got plenty of lurkers reading this thread. They are going to start throwing your theories back into your face. Be ready with some new answers. The old ones won’t do the trick anymore.

All these "lurkers", "rational thinkers", and "free thinkers" that you're talking about.

Do they speak to you?
Do they ever tell you to do things?
Have they ever taken the form of your neighbor's dog?

Do you know that wearing a tin foil hat will stop the MK Ultra from reading your brainwaves?

[kenberg]

listen: there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go --- e.e. cummings

[gwnn]

Are you underlining the parts of our posts that you HAVE read? In that case you are doing OK. Other creationists are quoting only the underlined part.

[Winstonm]

 32519, on 2013-October-16, 12:11, said:

It what way is this supposed to put any fear into me, "Note that I am a physicist"? But with your superior knowledge, tell me how you produce the BIG BANG when you got nothing at your disposal (my point 1 above)? When I asked MikeH he threw all his toys out the cot. How about you?

Here’s a clue – it is the word theory.

I concede that the theory of EVOLUTION is PLAUSIBLE. But it goes up in smoke when the BIG BANG theory fails.

That's quite a theory you got there - the theory of theories. Myself, I get theory-eyed thinking that in Texas you could be elected to Congress.

[Fluffy]

 Trinidad, on 2013-October-16, 12:24, said:

Come on, all theories are connected... If (big if) the Big Bang theory falls then behavior theory will fall too and Pavlov's dog will stop drooling immediately. The Law of Supply and Demand will break down and the oil price will drop when we want more of it. Molecular theory... completely out of the window: acids will start reacting with acids and bases with bases.

Yeah like theory of gravity, you fools still believe its true, but I know masses just get random forces into them, the fact that all of those you observe seem to go towards each other its just luck, it will stop anytime soon.

[mikeh]

 hrothgar, on 2013-October-16, 12:08, said:

If we take the time and effort to disprove this, will you shut up and go away?

I know you 'get it' but, it seems, you can't quite bring yourself to realize just how futile it is to engage a troll. The more you appear to take it seriously, as seeing it as raising issues that you will address, the more it feasts, and rubs its tiny, greasy paws together while gloating over our gullibility. It lives on our indignation, and our attention. Without it, it has only its squalid, deranged inner thoughts and desires, circling endlessly in the narrow, circular tunnel that is its mind. Any resemblance to the shape of the LHC is coincidental, but both are almost entirely composed of vacuum when in operation.

The troll is incapable of rational thought, has no concept of the concept even. Remember how worked up you (and I) got with Lukewarm? This troll is Lukewarm without the veneer afforded by Lukewarm's superficial familiarity with logic.

Lukewarm seems to have gone away and, if we stop feeding it, maybe this one will follow suit. Heck, maybe they'll find each other! Wouldn't reading their exchanges be a guilty pleasure

[Vampyr]

 mikeh, on 2013-October-16, 17:25, said:

Lukewarm seems to have gone away and, if we stop feeding it, maybe this one will follow suit. Heck, maybe they'll find each other! Wouldn't reading their exchanges be a guilty pleasure

Speaking of guilty pleasures, I am forced to admit that I find 325's posts very funny -- especially as they get more and more frantic and incoherent.

[32519]

 hrothgar, on 2013-October-16, 12:08, said:

If we take the time and effort to disprove this, will you shut up and go away?

Are you also a scientist? If then, tell me how you produce the BANG when you got nothing? When I asked MikeH he threw all his toys out the cot. Then I asked gwnn. He too failed to offer anything. So now its your turn to fly the flag for every scientist who supports the BIG BANG theory. How do you produce the BANG with a big fat nothing at your disposal?

How much time do you need? But your request brings a smile to my face. It is simple enough and I will agree to it if you also agree to my request, which is this –
1. Cut out post 249 of this thread and stick it on your fridge. Then on the 16th of October every year (the date when the post was made) come and update this forum on LHC developments.
2. Your update must include –
a. Progress
b. Failures
c. Latest actual spend on the LHC

Deal or no deal?