DoctorAlien:




Moreover, truth is not dependent on human acceptance/belief.

plaetton:


Daahhhh.
What about religious beliefs, the very subject we are talking about ?

Christians, under pressure, tell me that even though they can't see God, they Feel his presence, his guidance, his love. They say all these because they have ACCEPTED a stone age book of myths as Truth.

Therefore, to correct you Sir, religious Truths are WHOLELY dependent on ACCEPTANCE of curtain BELIEFS.
That's why it is called FAITH.
Daahhhh !!

EyeHateGod:

No i. Want u to tell me

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2013 was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter W. Higgs "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider"

Spin: Spin-0 tentatively confirmed.

Parity: Even parity tentatively confirmed.

Decay: observed; but not "yet" confirmed.

Couplings to mass: "strongly evidenced" ("At 95% confidence level cV is within 15% of the standard model value cV=1".

Higher energy results remain "consistent".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171611/Is-God-particle-impostor-Scientists-claim-signal-Large-Hadron-Collider-Higgs-all.html#ixzz20LyPensS

Scientists at CERN are also analysing the data further to see if their discovery corresponds to the 'standard model' Higgs boson - or to something more mysterious.
One of the reasons for the caution at Cern is that while the new particle has so far behaved liked the elusive Higgs boson it is lighter than expected.

DeSepiero:


I repeat "You can consult a Psychologist" to know how he'd determine jealousy in a child or an unwilling individual.
I am not trained to conduct psychological tests and analyses.

My point is "It's possible to determine Jealousy in an individual".

DoctorAlien:


GOD is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.


.

onetrack:


In theory everything should be testable scientifically. While we don't yet have the means to do so for everything, anyone who says that something is true must be prepared to show testable evidence. Otherwise it can be dismissed without further discussion.

"What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.

plaetton:


Laughing out loud.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster( FSM) is the sole creator and sustainer of the universe.

Is that the absolute Truth or not ?
Pls tell us why not.

Mathematics , the relationships between everything in the universe, provided us with truth. That's why scientific rationalism is itself anchored on mathematics and mathematical relationships.

You see , my Friend, you are contradicting yourself here without even being aware that you are.

In one mouth you say that truth is truth, irrespective of beliefs and acceptance. And then in another mouth, you're pushing and promoting your personal beliefs, personal faith, as the Truth, without any mathematical proofs of god and his mathematical relationships with the universe.

sinequanon:


I am not going to write an essay for you on the Higgs Boson.

[size=24pt]SCIENTIFIC LIES, LIES, LIES...[/size]

The important point is that leading scientists said that they had found the Higgs Boson. François Englert and Peter W. Higgs were awarded the Nobel Prize for it. Stephen Hawking claimed to have lost his bet that the Higgs Boson did not exist.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

In the Standard Model, the Higgs particle is a boson with no spin, electric charge, or colour charge. It is also very unstable, decaying into other particles almost immediately. It is a quantum excitation of one of the four components of the Higgs field. The latter constitutes a scalar field..

Let us examine the status quo of the "confirmation":

Spin: Spin-0 tentatively confirmed.

Parity: Even parity tentatively confirmed.

Decay: observed; but not "yet" confirmed.

Couplings to mass: "strongly evidenced" ("At 95% confidence level cV is within 15% of the standard model value cV=1".

Higher energy results remain "consistent".

So, when we look at the small print for the "confirmation" of the "Higgs Boson", we see wishy-washy double speak. Confirmation in particle physics is supposed to have a very precise definition -- statistical confidence to a level of what is known as 5 sigma, or above. Instead, we have evasive claims of "tentative confirmation", and "strongly evidence", "not yet confirmed", which are just euphemisms for unconfirmed. It's a bit like saying that a woman is "a bit pregnant".

3 years after announcing the confirmation, it is NOT confirmed.

At the time, they knew something was wrong.





If it is lighter than expected, then it is NOT behaving like the Higgs Boson. See how they twist things?

And this discrepancy is not listed explicitly in the Wikipedia article. It is probably hidden in the statement -- "strongly evidenced" ("At 95% confidence level cV is within 15% of the standard model value cV=1".

This is way below the 99.9999% required. So the term "strongly evidenced" is quite deceitful.

Whatever they have found, if anything at all, they are going to call it the Higgs Boson, and twist the Standard Model and claim that it predicts the Higgs Boson after the fact.

mank1234:


In cosmology/astronomy, some of the ideas are just assumptions; some of the ideas are even conflicting ideas. Should we therefore dismiss them without further discussion? Evolution too is based on assumption. Should we therefore dismiss it too since we can't proof it? Furthermore evolution cannot even explain, the existence of animals in pairs (male and female) even by assumption.

hahn:


The first step is to agree you do not know. When you do that, it is easier to research objectively. Imagine if Isaac Newton has said of gravity, "humpty dumpty did it". Do you think we would have the laws of gravity today?



Hypothesis comes after observation and it is not the end of the scientific process.



This shows that it is still an assumption and not fact.

No I am not a scientist but I am working to become a great business man though

plaetton:


No .
Evolution involves a countless series of events and subevents that has taken billions of years to occur.

plaetton:


Schizophrenia spotted.

And how did your big mind arrive at this if not through fertile imagination ?

I mean, look at the absurdity and hypocrisy that you guys are displaying here.

You imagine a somebody supposedly existing outside of space and time. How you that exists inside space and time arrived at this remains a mystery. But then, you have the audacity and temerity to mock another who questions this mental contraption of yours.

I don't get it.

" God exists outside of space and time" . Full stop. No questions.

What a load of cow dung.

Wasn't he the same God that walked in the garden, asked Cain where Abel was, took Moses on eagle's wings, wrestled with Jacob, had an appetite for barbecued lambs, and even got his own share of virgins from the spoils of war ?

Now, in the age of reason and scientific rationalism, he has conveniently taken up residence in the outskirts of space and time ?

Na wa.

plaetton:


Yeah sure.

Physicists from all over the world are involved in a grand conspiracy to fool sinequanon.

And you are the only one that saw through their deception.
I wonder why I haven't read your refutations on a scientific journal.

mank1234:
Your point still takes us to observation as the starting point. By observation, the universe couldn't have come about by chance.

The claim of religion is spiritual and cannot be subjected to physical or scientific test; same way magic cannot be explain by science.

The tool of science is a creation of humna being and is not sophisticated enough to measure even some physical phenomenom. Some frequencies is not measurable yet.

KingEbukasBlog:


Did you witness or observe this happening ? Can I see pictures of the primordial soup ?

plaetton:


No .
Evolution involves a countless series of events and subevents that has taken billions of years to occur.
You cannot talk about the entire generality of evolution without make certain assumptions,( based on current knowledge), about the billions and billions of countless interactions and processes involved.
Science and scientific knowledge also evolves.

The important thing is that many of those assumptions have been substantiated by modern empirical research. None whatsoever, have been scientifically refuted in 150 yrs of vigorous scientific research.

DoctorAlien:


LOL. Is a psychologist a skeptical empiricist?

You still have not shown me how jealousy (and possibly the amount) in an individual can be determined by a scientific experiment, maybe in a lab.

DeSepiero:



Excuse me young man.

In my opinion, I made it clear that 'jealousy' as an emotional concept can be determined in an individual through such methods of inquiry as psychological examination and well drafted questionnaires by qualified experts (e.g Psychologists).
If you must know, I'm a molecular biologist and not a psychologist. I gave you a befitting answer from my understanding. Should I teach you psychology as a biologist?

If you disagree with my opinion or hold a different opinion, state it categorically or provide contrary evidence, and stop asking unnecessary questions.

Thank you

sinequanon:


You call yourself rational?

Well face the facts. Address the post, instead of your lame "why doesn't it say it in the bible" type of excuses.

Or maybe you don't actually understand the post, and you are just a cheerleader for scientists.

hahn:


How so? This claim is an assumption. Not a fact



So is every scam



Yeah. And religion is not sufficient to explain god. If it exists

plaetton:


The facts are rather simple. If you , as a rational whatever you call yourself, is convinced that the highs bosson is a hoax perpetrated by the assembly of world renowned physicists, then do the world a favor by exposing them WITH YOUR OWN EXPERIMENTS or at the least, a theory or model.

The religious section is already full of science deniers. We don't need a smart fella like you to add to what is already a big mess.

mank1234:


Has evolution been simulated in the lab before? Or they just described how one animal developed from one form to the other.
What's the proof that those events happened in the sequence assumed by science.

Your last statement suggest that you alluded to the fact that science sometimes proceed from assumptions.

mank1234:


Religion has provided enough evidence to buttress their claim. They pray/meditate and the creator answers their prayer. They perform miracle.

mank1234:


Religion has provided enough evidence to buttress their claim. They pray/meditate and the creator answers their prayer. They perform miracle.

plaetton:


The facts are rather simple. If you , as a rational whatever you call yourself, is convinced that the highs bosson is a hoax perpetrated by the assembly of world renowned physicists, then do the world a favor by exposing them WITH YOUR OWN EXPERIMENTS or at the least, a theory or model.

The religious section is already full of science deniers. We don't need a smart fella like you to add to what is already a big mess.

DoctorAlien:


Are you stylishly begging him to support your views?

plaetton:

He has no views, except peddling the science conspiracy theories he has known for in this forum. This is not his first time.

I am pained because Africans, as a people, already have far too much shyt up their brains, with very little room for scientific curiosity.
This educated guy ,working hard to reinforce the African aversion to scientific curiosity is nauseating, to say the least.

plaetton:


My friend.
If you have a genuine thirst to understand and critique the theory of evolution, then I suggest you actually go out and read and learn more about it. I guarantee that you will have much better and more sensible questions to ask.

hahn:


Can you perform miracle?

mank1234:


Lol.
When you ask pertinent question on evolution, they shift the burden of proof to you or call the question useless; but they demand you to proof the existence of God, even when it is evident in nature. Why do animals evolve in pairs ( male and female)? I honestly would have expected the predators to outwit the first man to evolve in the survival game!

mank1234:


Lol.
When you ask pertinent question on evolution, they shift the burden of proof to you or call the question useless; but they demand you to proof the existence of God, even when it is evident in nature. Why do animals evolve in pairs ( male and female)? I honestly would have expected the predators to outwit the first man to evolve in the survival game!