Explaining the God particle

[Elendur]

Not my problem if you think you can fly to the moon on a hot dog.

Oh but it is. It was a part of our discussion.

Yes. When it has to do with belief systems cross dressing as science.

And otherwise?

Or right...and obviously so.

No. You wrote 100% unsubstantiated, since there is a lot of objective evidence backing up all theories you're wrong. Obviously.

None. You are not qualified to discuss proven.

How did you determine that?

False. Let's take one example from ancient Egypt..spirits living among men. Not a present state thing. Or...from bible...long lifespans....not happening now.

And could you provide with that evidence? Right now it's only an assertion.

Then it is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

Because it doesn't try to do something idiotic? Interesting.

Yes. Prove that a present state existed as science assumes?

That is an absurd and idiotic demand.

Then you are not qualified to discuss rationally.

How did you determine that?

Old enough to win.

Who isn't?



I must say, you provided with a new track this time. You stated that I'm not qualified to discuss certain things. Very interesting, I would really like to see you elaborate on that.

 

[dad]

Oh but it is. It was a part of our discussion.

So can you fly to the moon on a hot dog?

No. You wrote 100% unsubstantiated, since there is a lot of objective evidence backing up all theories you're wrong. Obviously.

Name one bit of this purported objective evidence backing up a same state past.

How did you determine that?

Because you can prove squat regarding the state of the past or future.

And could you provide with that evidence? Right now it's only an assertion.

The records. They are not assertions they are all man has.

Because it doesn't try to do something idiotic? Interesting.

Tell us what it does do?

That is an absurd and idiotic demand.

So science may assume without ant evidence or proof?

Who isn't?

You. Or any other evo. Not here. Not now. Not ever.



I must say, you provided with a new track this time. You stated that I'm not qualified to discuss certain things. Very interesting, I would really like to see you elaborate on that.[/quote]

 

[Elendur]

So can you fly to the moon on a hot dog?

Yes, see #173.

Perhaps you want me to elaborate?

1. I get all necessary things to gain access to the moon.
(1.) That is, I gain access to all things needed that is available today, astronaut training, equipment, spacecraft etc.
2. During the time I go to the moon I sit on a hot dog.
(2.) I have that hot dog between me and my seat, sitting on it.

Name one bit of this purported objective evidence backing up a same state past.

I don't see why I would have to bring that up again, you never bring anything new to the table.

Because you can prove squat regarding the state of the past or future.

Wait, I am unqualified to discuss the term proven because I can't prove anything regarding the past or the future?

The records. They are not assertions they are all man has.

And could you provide with such records?

Tell us what it does do?

Science is the best tool for humanity right now to process available evidence to describe the universe and how it works.

So science may assume without ant evidence or proof?

No, there are few assumptions within science. They are made because without them nothing would make sense.
The theories and hypotheses works with evidence.
Proof is non-existent (outside of math).

You. Or any other evo. Not here. Not now. Not ever.

So it really isn't about age then?

You skipped one question:

Then you are not qualified to discuss rationally.
​

How did you determine that?

 

[dad]

Yes, see #173.

Perhaps you want me to elaborate?

1. I get all necessary things to gain access to the moon.
(1.) That is, I gain access to all things needed that is available today, astronaut training, equipment, spacecraft etc.
2. During the time I go to the moon I sit on a hot dog.
(2.) I have that hot dog between me and my seat, sitting on it.

Hey sit on an egg for I care, you cannot fly to the moon on a hot dog.

Science is the best tool for humanity right now to process available evidence to describe the universe and how it works.

That depends if the objective is to blow us up and introduce pathogens and carcinogenics and pollution and womd. If you mean the best tool to fabricate godless fables, maybe.

No, there are few assumptions within science. They are made because without them nothing would make sense.
The theories and hypotheses works with evidence.
Proof is non-existent (outside of math).

There is lots outside science. Consider that just one more assumption outside science.

So it really isn't about age then?

That depends if growing old quick applies to your arguments.

You skipped one question:

Define rational debate.

 

[sandwiches]

There is lots outside science.

So, what you're saying is that there are "lots" of things outside our what we can sense or understand. Things such as?

 

[dad]

So, what you're saying is that there are "lots" of things outside our what we can sense or understand. Things such as?

Science is not about what we can understand when it comes to the unknown. The creation debate involves the unknown. The only way to understand much of that unknown is outside science. Obviously.

 

[Elendur]

Hey sit on an egg for I care, you cannot fly to the moon on a hot dog.

If you don't understand my sister passed you in semantics skill when she was 7.

That depends if the objective is to blow us up and introduce pathogens and carcinogenics and pollution and womd. If you mean the best tool to fabricate godless fables, maybe.

First sentence, no.
Second sentence, godless yes, fables no.

There is lots outside science. Consider that just one more assumption outside science.

There is a whole lot more outside the scope of those who won't look at reality.

That depends if growing old quick applies to your arguments.

My main argument right now is how illogical you are.

Define rational debate.

Why would I? It was you who claimed I wasn't qualified to discuss rationally. Obviously you have a working definition already to support this. Now explain how you determined that.



Edit: You forgot this question:

And could you provide with such records?

Edit: And this:

Wait, I am unqualified to discuss the term proven because I can't prove anything regarding the past or the future?

 

[dad]

If you don't understand my sister passed you in semantics skill when she was 7.

So she could drive a hot dog further than the moon?

First sentence, no.
Second sentence, godless yes, fables no.

You don't get a vote.

There is a whole lot more outside the scope of those who won't look at reality.

Keep us posted on those that don't look at reality.

My main argument right now is how illogical you are.

A real winner of an argument then. Why not seek to have an argument not based on me? Careful, next thing might be basing your signature on me. Not a healthy thing.

Why would I? It was you who claimed I wasn't qualified to discuss rationally. Obviously you have a working definition already to support this. Now explain how you determined that.

Make it rational...and they will come.

Edit: You forgot this question:



Edit: And this:

Records? You mean like history and the bible? You need those 'provided'? Can you wash your own hands?

 

[Elendur]

So she could drive a hot dog further than the moon?

Don't play dumb. Or perhaps you're not playing?

You don't get a vote.

Funny enough, neither do you.

Keep us posted on those that don't look at reality.

You.

A real winner of an argument then. Why not seek to have an argument not based on me?

Oh but it all comes down to you.

Make it rational...and they will come.

It is a rational demand.

Records? You mean like history and the bible? You need those 'provided'? Can you wash your own hands?

Yes, it's common courtesy to provide with the material to support ones arguments.


So far you have three unanswered questions:

How did you determine that?

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

And could you provide with such records?

Wait, I am unqualified to discuss the term proven because I can't prove anything regarding the past or the future?

 

[dad]

Don't play dumb. Or perhaps you're not playing?

Just remember you cannot ride a hot dog to the moon, nor can your sister.

Funny enough, neither do you.

The past was what it was. It did not get voted that way.

You.


Oh but it all comes down to you.

Get a life.

It is a rational demand.

"It" is? Now all you need to do is tell us what it is?

Yes, it's common courtesy to provide with the material to support ones arguments.

None exists for a same state past. The bible has been provided to man.

So far you have three unanswered questions:

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

Maybe focus a bit. What have you to say about the God particle that is rational, for example?


Remember, there is NO evidence for a same state past. That is because no evidence can stand by itself without you first believing in and assuming one first.

 

[Elendur]

Just remember you cannot ride a hot dog to the moon, nor can your sister.

I won't continue with this, I've explicitly explained it to you.

The past was what it was. It did not get voted that way.

Exactly.

Get a life.

I thought I had one, wonderous how things work out.

"It" is? Now all you need to do is tell us what it is?

It is in this case:

Why would I? It was you who claimed I wasn't qualified to discuss rationally. Obviously you have a working definition already to support this. Now explain how you determined that.

None exists for a same state past. The bible has been provided to man.

Please present your evidence for DSP then.

Maybe focus a bit. What have you to say about the God particle that is rational, for example?

I have nothing to say about the particle at all, I don't know enough about it.

Remember, there is NO evidence for a same state past. That is because no evidence can stand by itself without you first believing in and assuming one first.

You're correct about one thing. No evidence can stand by itself. Luckily it doesn't have to.


You still have three questions you haven't answered, is it because they are uncomforable?
This is the second time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

How did you determine that?

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

And could you provide with such records?

Wait, I am unqualified to discuss the term proven because I can't prove anything regarding the past or the future?

 

[sandwiches]

Science is not about what we can understand when it comes to the unknown. The creation debate involves the unknown. The only way to understand much of that unknown is outside science. Obviously.

So, creation is beyond our understanding. How do you know?

 

[freezerman2000]

With recent news, it might be good to explain what the particle is.

Here is a short version

--God created the world and many things that are physical. He used materials, many very small. There is speculation one of the smallest may be involved in sort of 'manufacturing mass'. It is logical God would have used such a thing if they are right...hence a God particle is a good name! Kids...it just means another little thingie God used. Now remember also that this thing they think they found is on earth. We cannot imply it would exist far far away and long ago. Especially before anything was created!

If I missed anything feel free to chirp in....

That..doesn't make a bit of sense,but..

anyway?

 

[dad]

I won't continue with this, I've explicitly explained it to you.

You tried to weasel out of the obvious by squawking about sitting on a hot dog on the moon. The fact remains you cannot fly to the moon on a hot dog. Really. Word games aside.

Please present your evidence for DSP then.

The bible, and the fact science doesn't know.

I have nothing to say about the particle at all, I don't know enough about it.

So did you read the title of the thread?

You're correct about one thing. No evidence can stand by itself. Luckily it doesn't have to.

Right, not when you have you belief system to prop it up. We get it.

You still have three questions you haven't answered, is it because they are uncomforable?
This is the second time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

You get one chance at asking one question. Make it good kid.

 

[dad]

So, creation is beyond our understanding. How do you know?

The creation debate involves a time before civilization existed, or science.

 

[dad]

That..doesn't make a bit of sense,but.. anyway?

The creation field makes a lot of sense. Naturally God has a way to do stuff.

 

[Elendur]

You tried to weasel out of the obvious by squawking about sitting on a hot dog on the moon. The fact remains you cannot fly to the moon on a hot dog. Really. Word games aside.

I've never claimed to be able to sit on a hot dog on the moon. That is something I would be able to do as well though.
If you would like to put the word games aside, which you never once earlier demanded, I would say I cannot travel to the moon on a hot dog.
You finally got it.

The bible, and the fact science doesn't know.

Then whip it out, since it's a fact it should be easily presented and explained.

So did you read the title of the thread?

Yup. What of it?

Right, not when you have you belief system to prop it up. We get it.

It's the additional evidence, not a belief system. That's your forté.

You get one chance at asking one question. Make it good kid.

Oh but all questions were asked once to start with, so what you're saying is that if you ignore them once you will never adress them?


This is the third time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

How did you determine that?

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

And could you provide with such records?

Wait, I am unqualified to discuss the term proven because I can't prove anything regarding the past or the future?

 

[freezerman2000]

The creation field makes a lot of sense. Naturally God has a way to do stuff.

Your explanation of the "god" particle made no sense at all.

 

[Tiberius]

The God particle; thank you for explaining it. Let there be light and there was light; when God created light he may have made the God particle.

Going to dad for information about science is like going to McDonalds to get information about a healthy diet.

 

[dad]

Going to dad for information about science is like going to McDonalds to get information about a healthy diet.

"Building a spaceship from 6 Lego blocks.."??? Wow. You are good.