Large Hadron Collider

[Manzcar]

and people like to say that christians are closed minded. huh

ohhh well it is obvious that you believe only your truth is possible while anyone with a different opionion is wrong.

you use science to back up your attacks on people of faith that don't have the same opinion than you do.

I am sorry that what I wanted here was an open dialog that could discuss different opinions but what you want is someone to attack.

I am not trying to be a martyr but I see you can only call names and make attempts to belittle me.

[lamchopz]

no, Manz, no. I don't think JT has been rejecting your arguments blindly.

It's just that the fundamental tenet of science is that everything has to be observable and detectable AND, most importantly, no assumption of a deity (Occam's Razor). The last criterion has been passionately disputed by many religious advocates who believe that the assumption of a deity is also a good enough start for a theory. Going back to what JT and I said earlier, the reason why Occam's Razor exists is to ensure a a continuous, constantly renewed idea which is used to assess and explain a given phenomenon. We have progressed this far because of that.

Have you ever wondered why within a decade of our time, we are almost close to creating a quantum computer (super fast computer) and space travelling is now a reality and excitingly, the prospect of the "then sci-fi only" teletransportation, whereas during the millennium of religious ruling in Europe, they only managed to come up with beautiful architecture and scattered scientific discoveries? True advancements were realised when all those states became secular and Science Academies turned up like never before.

Christianity, like other religions, is a system of beliefs. There's nothing wrong with forming a personal belief and view on the world around us. Science, however, is the source of human intellectual strength and its survival relies on our repeated attempts to ask and find answers and then ask again when something unexpected shows up. Darwin's theory of evolution has been modified since his time (Darwin got the idea but we needed to refine it). With the advent of molecular biology, evolutionary theory is now defined as follows:

"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

I had to find the quote to prove that I'm not making it up.

All in all, Manz, you are not "closed minded". No one here is. I don't think so. It's just that religion and science have been irreconcilable because of their conflicting interests. Religion nourishes faith whereas science promotes informed scepticism (note the presence of the word "informed", meaning you have to assess everything carefully, not just sitting idle and saying "nah" to someone's proposal). In your view, God seems to be the reasonable explanation and yes, it is, in a religious context. Intelligent Design, for example, was not rejected on the spot. The science community did examine it thoroughly and found that its major flaw is the one unknown being at its core doing magic. Thus, we can't possibly ask any more questions because we simply don't need to. It would be the end of science and, hence, our advancement.

EDIT: I kept making typos. Kt, it's your fault! LOL

[Hraesvelg]

Again, thank you lamz, you understand. Hopefully you can phrase it in ways that I'm not. I do tend to come on a bit strong, but that's probably because I've grown up in the Southern US where people with these irrational beliefs are actively trying to make them public policy. I also grew up under the tuetelage of a very uncompromising Baptist pastor (which happened to be my grandfather.) I have the same fire and brimstone style of invective, except my passion is for reason and science.

Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean that it should be held in equal in value to my own or others. This leads to what is commonly referred to as moral relativism, a position I'm sure neither one of us will agree is right.

I have rigoursly come to my conclusions based on the evidence at hand; should I not defend them? I've said several times in this discussion that if there is evidence for a diety, I'd like to examine it. I am closed off to no position supported by evidence, at least until I've reviewed said evidence.

I am not trying to belittle you as a person, but I do use mockery to show the flaws in your statements and tactics (the martyr card, overplayed by apologists for centuries). As Edmund Burke said, "He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper."

[Vasu]

You have a fan Hraesvelg. I personally do not believe in God, not primarily because of the lack of evidence, though that is one of the reasons, but because belief in God refutes everything I have ever believed about humans: rational thought. I really could not believe my ears when my parents tried to make me believe in a guy with a thousand heads who could flick his fingers and make rain appear. Once I read Greek mythology, my unbelief was confirmed. If gods were going to be so fickle, then I'll have no quarrel with them. I don't see piles of evidence supporting the big bang either but its definitely a tad (more than a tad) more than that supporting a guy who flicks his fingers, makes the universe, and disappears to some retreat, never to be seen or heard of again.

[Pedobear]

man, i wish i hadn't seen this thread so late.

anyways, back to the topic at hand, quantum cosmology is just a facinating subject is it not? stuff like this really gets the nerd in me excited.

[AznSniper]

Lol, I love how a lot of threads I've read that start out talking about the LHC end up in some philosophical war...

I know that I'm not as learned as either of you, but can't you go about your life without stomping on somebody else's beliefs? Christianity and other religions give comfort (to some people), so you coming in and trashing it is like me taking away your house. Samething goes for science, some people take comfort in figuring things outs cuz we fear the unknown, usually...

Anyways, the world isn't gonna end, scientists've been accelerating particles for awhile, just not at the speed of light... So if the world was gonna end, it would've already been destroyed by a black hole.

BTW personally, I think the two protons are just gonna bounce off each other and everybody's gonna be disappointed that they wasted $10 billion

[Ralath]

Actually, from what I understand, scientists are exceptionally pleased with results.

Except the LHC is now damaged and out of commission for a while about a week in....

[Vasu]

Out of commission for about 2 months.

[Blaaaaaaaah]

Why is it damaged? o_o

[Pedobear]

i heard its not so much its damaged outright. its more of an issue of machining tolerances being off.