Comments on: Is “God Particle” the right term for massive mystery in physics?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:44:23 +0000

and biblically speaking, the earth is anywhere from 14-20,000 years old, with rougly 150 generations from Adam to the present. Somewhere in the middle, there was a theological monkey wrench thrown in the spokes of archaeology called the deluge, which is a biblical term for what may explain why neither side has an answer that can be backed. It was all (biblically) destroyed by a great flood. To talk this down some more, a surviving remnant would have been capable of re-populating the earth to it’s present proportion within about six to ten thousand with a little elbow grease. None of these claims the bible makes are anywhere nearly as ridiculous as the contemptible theory that we will find God wrapped around a particle, or that we will build a machine that could tear a controlled hole in space-time. Are they? Maybe when you find God, you can ask his opinion on the matter.
Until then, it might not be good to look a gift donkey’s colt in the mouth.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:27:41 +0000

if there is a God, it woul be preposterous to believe This God did not create the universe, Himself being the only thing allowing something possibly capable and by definition of God,supreme, and if there is a God, it is also preposterous to believe that we can assume to understand Him without having observed, and then say that He can only be found in the non particle, or the “un-” substance of His own creation cannot be justified. Whether the potter is also the clay, the potter but not the pot, will be the only conclusion from the god-particle. Either way this creation being that, must reflect, as every creation, its creator in some way.

oh and yes there is a car that makes about 300 mpg modestly. However technological capability does not neccessitate nor finance the implementation of that kind of an innovation to date, it will become practical when a corporate body must advance in this way to survive, or competition escalates to this level. Otherwise, read about it in popular science, and then don’t read about how its trial in Socal was shut down by giant corporations because the innovator lacked the economic power to compete. That’s life.

By: Gail Quick

Gail Quick — Mon, 19 May 2008 01:17:55 +0000

If there is no God, then what created the God particle and what gave it the power to create mass?

By: Unclesharkey

Unclesharkey — Sat, 17 May 2008 02:54:10 +0000

So where did the God particle come from? Are there yet smaller and smaller particles? Will this answer all of our questions of life the universe and everything. I doubt it. But all these projects sound cool and keep the money in the pockets of those who have and out of those who have not. Let’s use our money for better projects.

Yea we can figure out how the universe works but we can’t make a freaking car that gets 100 mpg. What a joke. We don’t know jack. Yes people some science is a wast of time and money IMO.

By: JTankers

JTankers — Sat, 03 May 2008 21:17:10 +0000

Correction: conditions not seen in Nature since the first fraction of a second AFTER the big bang…

By: JTankers

JTankers — Sat, 03 May 2008 19:22:31 +0000

… as long as finding the God particle does not create a hell on earth…

CERN predicts the creation of up to 1 micro black hole per second in the Large Hadron Collider and references the 1999 RHIC safety study as proof of safety. (But the 1999 RHIC safety study only ruled out any possibility of colliders creating micro black holes based on knowledge at that time.)

CERN’s web site predicts that micro black holes will evaporate. (But Hawking Radiation has been disputed by no less than 3 peer reviewed studies that found no basis in science for such conclusions).

CERN’s web site and Steven Hawking state that much greater energy cosmic ray impacts with Earth prove safety. (But higher energy cosmic ray impacts with stationary particles have net collision speeds less than the speed of light and send all particles created safely into space, while head-on collider collisions have net collision impact speeds at almost twice the speed of light and are designed to focus all the energy to a single point in space and particles created may be captured by Earth’s gravity).

CERN promised to create and release an new safety report before the end of 2007. (CERN’s LHC Safety Assessment Group has concluded that cosmic ray impacts do not prove safety and they do not assume that micro black holes will evaporate, but CERN never released any safety reports created by their LHC Safety Assessment Group.)

Professor Otto Rossler calculates that a single micro black hole could accrete the Earth is as few as 50 months and Dr. Rossler is world recognized as one of the most prestigious, most eminent, award winning scientists alive. (But CERN has not scientifically refuted his calculations that I am aware of, CERN only promised Dr. Rossler that if they create stable micro black holes that they will stop the experiment. Will that be too late?)

Even though the Large Hadron Collider will create conditions not seen in Nature since the first fraction of a second prior to the big bang, CERN asserts that there is no risk to the planet. (But the legal action contends a 75% probability of risk with very high degree of uncertainty calculated by a scientist with a masters degree in statistics, and alleges that Chief Scientific Officer Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN asking them regardless of personal opinion to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing CERN’s previous assertion of minimal risk).

We could delay the experiment until the promised safety studies are completed and per reviewed, and this might prevent a catastrophy. (But then some scientists may not be the first to discover new science and some Nobel prizes may be lost.)

JTankers
LHCConcerns.com

By: allen

allen — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:46:55 +0000

this partical collider stuff is a waste of money and they need to get rid of it cuz i dont feel like dieing any time soon …

By: Ding Columns

Ding Columns — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:48:57 +0000

i dont read a lot about somethings like this one. because it makes me too curious that i might even find something strange due to curiousity. For me, as a Catholic myself, believes that God is all about SCIENCE, He is biology, He is physics, He is astronomy, He is history, He is everything that civilization had learned.

By: SavageFX

SavageFX — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:01:02 +0000

I read a few short pieces of the articles on above-mentioned website. The general point of one of the articles on the origin of life was: The chemical and physical processes that are required for life forming the darwinian way are not completely understood and some are only hypotheses, without any conclusive scientific proof.
Now, this might be true. I know that darwinism has quite a few open questions so up to this point the article could be right in saying that darwinism can’t be proved, because the causes can’t be scientifically proved. However, the writer than goes on to state that the only conclusion is that “The Creator” must have done it. This is however doing exactly the same as what he is telling the darwinist off for. He’s stating that a theory is true, without any scientific evidence of its causes. If darwinism is not acceptable if the chemical processes are not scientifically proven, then intelligent design is not acceptable if the existence of God is not proven scientifically.
Of course God probably can’t be proven to exist in a scientific, which is a very reason for denying funding into intelligent design research. If it is impossible to proof the correctness of your causes, then you can never be certain of anything in a theory.
So at the most, the conclusion of the article should be that neither darwinism nor intelligent design are proven theories and at this moment in time. To accept either one, you have to believe in something rather than knowing something. Either unexplained chemical processes or an intelligent creating God… Given this choice, I do not find it surprising that most scientists would rather stick with the unexplained chemistry than introducing a God into their theories.

By: justin

justin — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:48:04 +0000

“Creationstists who are willing to take the scientific approach are more than welcome to write papers and conduct experiments that proof their theories fit in with the rest of the scientific theories.”-SavageFx

Creationists use the scientific method. They, afterall, are the ones who invented it. However, they are denied publicaction of their research, denied tenure, denied research grants all because they challenge darwin.

The documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” chronicles how Darwin-dissenters have been ruthlessly expelled, or otherwise persecuted, in their professions. This movie does not promote creationist or even intelligent design theories(they are different just ask them). This movie goes to theaters in the USA on the 18th.

All of these questions posted here to mock the creationist have long been answered. The answer and the evidence suports ceation. You just need to look at rhe research. If you want to see the answers to most of the anti-creationist questions that have been getting posted here go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are a/qa.asp But only do this if you want to be chalanged in what you believe with the evidence.