Explaining the God particle

[dad]

The bible contains proof? Why haven't you spread it around? That would make everyone believers.

Apparently not.

I ask again though:
Why state the obvious other than to gain some imagined credibility? (Referring to you being overly fond of the terms 'proof' and 'prove'.

When a claim has no basis in fact, or proofs, then even a child can sort of get that it is a limp noodle and not something that could refute God's word.

 

[dad]

No, plausible is not relative.

That is not plausible. Obviously one needs some set of criteria for what is plausible. When science jabbers on about times and space where it has no knowledge, that is not plausible.

 

[Elendur]

Apparently not.

I think it isn't proof at all.

When a claim has no basis in fact, or proofs, then even a child can sort of get that it is a limp noodle and not something that could refute God's word.

If you say so. Too bad there are plenty of facts supporting all scientific theories.
But again, why blabber about proof?
Too bad you don't feel your position has the need for facts, I guess that shows your dedication to reality though.

That is not plausible. Obviously one needs some set of criteria for what is plausible. When science jabbers on about times and space where it has no knowledge, that is not plausible.

I think the one without knowledge (in that area) is you.

Edit: By the way;
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH000
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/
If you're interested.
Particularly in http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH200-CH799
CH200. The universe is 6,000-10,000 years old.
CH210. The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.
CH220. The universe was created with apparent age.

 

[dad]

I think it isn't proof at all.

I know it is. Let's see you rise from the dead.

If you say so. Too bad there are plenty of facts supporting all scientific theories.
But again, why blabber about proof?
Too bad you don't feel your position has the need for facts, I guess that shows your dedication to reality though.

Allude to facts and against them all you like.

I think the one without knowledge (in that area) is you.

Edit: By the way;
An Index to Creationist Claims
An Index to Creationist Claims
If you're interested.
Particularly in An Index to Creationist Claims
CH200. The universe is 6,000-10,000 years old.
CH210. The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.
CH220. The universe was created with apparent age.

From your link


"

• We can measure the distances to some types of stars from their apparent brightness. (We know their absolute brightness from nearby stars of the same type whose distances can be measured geometrically.).. ."

So this depends 100% on parallax, no? Parallax depends on time and space being the same. Got any proof? Otherwise you might as well be reading tea leaves in a cup--'gee some seem shinier than others'!


Hypocritical circular thinking is all so called science engages in. They need to first support that time and space are a certain way, before foaming at the beak.

 

[Elendur]

I know it is. Let's see you rise from the dead.

That wouldn't be proof even if you saw me rise from the dead.

Allude to facts and against them all you like.

As if I needed your permission.

From your link

"

• We can measure the distances to some types of stars from their apparent brightness. (We know their absolute brightness from nearby stars of the same type whose distances can be measured geometrically.).. ."

So this depends 100% on parallax, no? Parallax depends on time and space being the same. Got any proof? Otherwise you might as well be reading tea leaves in a cup--'gee some seem shinier than others'!


Hypocritical circular thinking is all so called science engages in. They need to first support that time and space are a certain way, before foaming at the beak.

Again, proof (see bolded text)? You've got nothing to say until you're done with the misuse of terms.
Feel free to try again though.

 

[dad]

That wouldn't be proof even if you saw me rise from the dead.

People cannot raise from the dead, it takes God.

Again, proof (see bolded text)? You've got nothing to say until you're done with the misuse of terms.
Feel free to try again though.

Reviewing then, in this world, science has seemingly discovered a missing link in the chain of stuff involved in manufacturing mass. They cannot make mass, and have only destroyed stuff and smashed stuff to try to find the particle.


As far as star distance...none is known, that would require knowing space far far away, we don't. Back to the drawing board kids.

 

[BobRyan]

Every one knows that you can turn matter into energy (hint - atomic bombs).

It is no surprise that energy can also be converted into matter. No Bible or Christian doctrine has ever said "man can turn matter into energy but only God can turn energy into matter".

To "replace God" you would need to "Come up with" your own energy or your own matter to start with. If the starting condition is energy - then were did you get it?

Whether you manufacture your own energy or mass at the start you are claiming to be in God's chair.

But if you start with mass - and covert it to energy - you have not replaced God.

So also if you start with energy and convert it to matter having mass.

Bob

 

[dad]

Every one knows that you can turn matter into energy (hint - atomic bombs).

It is no surprise that energy can also be converted into matter. No Bible or Christian doctrine has ever said "man can turn matter into energy but only God can turn energy into matter".

To "replace God" you would nee to "Come up with" your own energy to start with.

Whether you manufacture your own energy or mass at the start you are claiming to be in God's chair.

But if you start with mass - and covert it to energy - you have not replaced God.

So also if you start with energy and convert it to matter having mass.

Bob

Hey, at least they can smash stuff, and pat themselves on the back.

 

[Elendur]

People cannot raise from the dead, it takes God.

If you say so, that's an assumption from your part though.

Reviewing then, in this world, science has seemingly discovered a missing link in the chain of stuff involved in manufacturing mass. They cannot make mass, and have only destroyed stuff and smashed stuff to try to find the particle.

Make mass? Where did that come from? (Not mass itself, your notion of scientists trying to make mass)

As far as star distance...none is known, that would require knowing space far far away, we don't. Back to the drawing board kids.

If you say so, funny how everything coincides to indicate we do know things though.
That's another assumption from your part.

 

[dad]

If you say so, that's an assumption from your part though.

The resurrection of Jesus was not something that man could do. Neither was any of the miracles He did day to day.

Make mass? Where did that come from? (Not mass itself, your notion of scientists trying to make mass)

"The Higgs boson is an expression of the Higgs field — the mechanism ultimately responsible for the mass of known particles"


Higgs triumph opens up field of dreams : Nature News & Comment

Or if you want the fable in full drag..here it is..

"The Higgs field explained the split. In the very early Universe, the theory goes, the Higgs field was zero, and the two forces were as one. But shortly after the Big Bang, the field assumed a non-zero value and the forces split apart. One, which became electromagnetism, is mediated by massless particles of light known as photons, which ignore the Higgs field. The other force became the weak nuclear force, which causes certain kinds of radioactive decay, and works through heavy particles called W and Z bosons. These interact with the Higgs field and gain mass. Ordinary matter derives most of its mass from subsequent interactions between particles such as quarks, found in the nuclei of atoms."

Higgs triumph opens up field of dreams : Nature News & Comment

Much ado about nothing. In actual fact, finding one more particle in the chain God uses to make stuff has zero to do with anything to do with a fairy tale big bang, or the origin of earth state forces.

I kid you not.

If you say so, funny how everything coincides to indicate we do know things though.
That's another assumption from your part.

False. No coincidence. The cosmic ladder is built rung by rung on earth state beliefs.

 

[Elendur]

The resurrection of Jesus was not something that man could do. Neither was any of the miracles He did day to day.

That's two assumptions from your part.
1. Jesus resurrection.
2. Man cannot repeat that act.

"The Higgs boson is an expression of the Higgs field — the mechanism ultimately responsible for the mass of known particles"


Higgs triumph opens up field of dreams : Nature News & Comment

Or if you want the fable in full drag..here it is..

"The Higgs field explained the split. In the very early Universe, the theory goes, the Higgs field was zero, and the two forces were as one. But shortly after the Big Bang, the field assumed a non-zero value and the forces split apart. One, which became electromagnetism, is mediated by massless particles of light known as photons, which ignore the Higgs field. The other force became the weak nuclear force, which causes certain kinds of radioactive decay, and works through heavy particles called W and Z bosons. These interact with the Higgs field and gain mass. Ordinary matter derives most of its mass from subsequent interactions between particles such as quarks, found in the nuclei of atoms."

Higgs triumph opens up field of dreams : Nature News & Comment

Much ado about nothing. In actual fact, finding one more particle in the chain God uses to make stuff has zero to do with anything to do with a fairy tale big bang, or the origin of earth state forces.

I kid you not.

1. Where do they state they would make mass?
2. Not "much ado about nothing". I can understand why you think it's nothing if you don't understand anything of it.

False. No coincidence. The cosmic ladder is built rung by rung on earth state beliefs.

You're right, it's no coincidence that the 'earth state' or 'same state' (in your words) explains what we see and continues to predict further observations.
Care to guess why it's no coincidence?

 

[dad]

That's two assumptions from your part.
1. Jesus resurrection.
2. Man cannot repeat that act.

He was seen by many, no assumption.


If you can repeat it, then let's see it.

1. Where do they state they would make mass?

When it said this...what did it mean to you?


"the mechanism ultimately responsible for the mass of known particles"

2. Not "much ado about nothing". I can understand why you think it's nothing if you don't understand anything of it.

It is what I do understand that makes it small.

You're right, it's no coincidence that the 'earth state' or 'same state' (in your words) explains what we see and continues to predict further observations.
Care to guess why it's no coincidence?

No need, we know that. The present set of laws is all that is used for your models.

 

[Elendur]

He was seen by many, no assumption.

If you say so.

If you can repeat it, then let's see it.

It's up to you to provide evidence, you've said (written) that it cannot be done, can you guess what the default position is?

When it said this...what did it mean to you?


"the mechanism ultimately responsible for the mass of known particles"

It certainly doesn't mean that they make mass (or even try to).
It seems that what they're referring to is the mechanism responsible for the mass of known particles.
Huh, quite simple.

It is what I do understand that makes it small.

"I don't understand this, except for this small thing, therefore it makes no sense and is useless!"

No need, we know that. The present set of laws is all that is used for your models.

And it explains every bit of evidence available, good to know it works.

 

[dad]

It's up to you to provide evidence, you've said (written) that it cannot be done, can you guess what the default position is?

The default position is that people die and stay dead. Ask Lenin or Michael Jackson.

It certainly doesn't mean that they make mass (or even try to).
It seems that what they're referring to is the mechanism responsible for the mass of known particles.
Huh, quite simple.

I would think God makes stuff. On and near earth, then, if these CERN folks are right, in the creation field for physical only objects (higgs field) would be all the stuff God uses to make physical only stuff.
In the far universe, we don't know. If there is spiritual stuff out there, then obviously the creation field out there is more than just a higgs field! Therefore the Higgs field = Fishbowl field.

Anything more?...Looks like we may have almost cracked the case here. Now if only they could have explained it in a godly and simple way to start with, it would have saved time. But I think we all know they couldn't.

"I don't understand this, except for this small thing, therefore it makes no sense and is useless!"

No? Just ask. Maybe some here can help.

And it explains every bit of evidence available, good to know it works.

If you are talking about the same state past based belief system as the "it" of course it tries to explain everything under it's little limited system. But so would a system that said the tooth fairy made it all...so? The issue is what do we know? Your little belief sysytem does not explain all evidence in any way! It leaves 95% of the universe dark unknown stuff. It wafts unknown stuff to earth on a comet or some such, to work wonders of life for the planet. It stuffs the sun moon and stars into a little speck of a magic hat to make it fit to their earth state regulations and rules. It poofs a moon out of dust from some dreamt up collision of a dreamt up planet like body. It claims the rings they saw in 1987 around a star were already there for tens of thousands of years...we just never saw em....and that the wrong kind of star exploded....etc. It claims that the sites in Oklo were put on a magic elevator ride to go miles under the surface of the planet at the right moment, to facilitate a present state nuclear reaction, then, eons later, when the moment was right, magically resurfaced..etc!

Your whole so called science is a book of fables. None of which can be supported. Therefore do not presume to refer us to other chapters of your fable book to support each other!

'gee, 40 chapters all couldn't be wrong'...

 

[Elendur]

The default position is that people die and stay dead. Ask Lenin or Michael Jackson.

That has nothing to do with the default position. Try again.

I would think God makes stuff. On and near earth, then, if these CERN folks are right, in the creation field for physical only objects (higgs field) would be all the stuff God uses to make physical only stuff.
In the far universe, we don't know. If there is spiritual stuff out there, then obviously the creation field out there is more than just a higgs field! Therefore the Higgs field = Fishbowl field.

Anything more?...Looks like we may have almost cracked the case here. Now if only they could have explained it in a godly and simple way to start with, it would have saved time. But I think we all know they couldn't.

You're just rambling right now, maybe you're trying to smooth over the fact that you drew up another straw man.

No? Just ask. Maybe some here can help.

I referred to you. I'm already asking people if I don't understand (and want to).

If you are talking about the same state past based belief system as the "it" of course it tries to explain everything under it's little limited system. But so would a system that said the tooth fairy made it all...so? The issue is what do we know? Your little belief sysytem does not explain all evidence in any way! It leaves 95% of the universe dark unknown stuff. It wafts unknown stuff to earth on a comet or some such, to work wonders of life for the planet. It stuffs the sun moon and stars into a little speck of a magic hat to make it fit to their earth state regulations and rules. It poofs a moon out of dust from some dreamt up collision of a dreamt up planet like body. It claims the rings they saw in 1987 around a star were already there for tens of thousands of years...we just never saw em....and that the wrong kind of star exploded....etc. It claims that the sites in Oklo were put on a magic elevator ride to go miles under the surface of the planet at the right moment, to facilitate a present state nuclear reaction, then, eons later, when the moment was right, magically resurfaced..etc!

Your whole so called science is a book of fables. None of which can be supported. Therefore do not presume to refer us to other chapters of your fable book to support each other!

'gee, 40 chapters all couldn't be wrong'...

I think I can sum that rant up with one (or two, depending how one sees it) word (-s):
Antiscience.

If you took your time to actually understand what you're talking about, not relying on straw men, you could learn something.
I've said (written) it before to you:
You could benefit from learning what evidence, proof, prove, hypothesis and theory means. Add in how the scientific method works as well and you have a good foundation to continue your crusade against science.

 

[dad]

That has nothing to do with the default position. Try again.

It is normal to die and stay dead actually. You probably should start facing that.

You're just rambling right now, maybe you're trying to smooth over the fact that you drew up another straw man.

No it was actually something startlingly profound. Higgs field = Fishbowl field.

I referred to you. I'm already asking people if I don't understand (and want to).

OK, so maybe they can help you.

I think I can sum that rant up with one (or two, depending how one sees it) word (-s):
Antiscience.

No, it is actual claims of science capsulized. If you don't know that, you have a lot to learn.

I've said (written) it before to you:
You could benefit from learning what evidence, proof, prove, hypothesis and theory means. Add in how the scientific method works as well and you have a good foundation to continue your crusade against science.

So called science is not science. The claims regarding the far past are based on this present state. Nothing else whatsoever. It cannot be denied.

 

[Elendur]

It is normal to die and stay dead actually. You probably should start facing that.

That has nothing to do with the default position either. It seems like you don't know what was asked of you.

No it was actually something startlingly profound. Higgs field = Fishbowl field.

Your denial is based upon ignorance (and willful one to boot).

No, it is actual claims of science capsulized. If you don't know that, you have a lot to learn.

Science has never made a theory that "poofs" a moon into existance.
That's a straw man.

So called science is not science. The claims regarding the far past are based on this present state. Nothing else whatsoever. It cannot be denied.

Oh it can be denied. Everything can be denied, you should know.

I've got to ask, why are you writing in this part of the forum?

 

[Gracchus]

Your denial is based upon ignorance (and willful one to boot).

Dad's ignorance is probably about as willful as Stephen Hawking's failure to climb Mt. Everest.

 

[dad]

Dad's ignorance is probably about as willful as Stephen Hawking's failure to climb Mt. Everest.

Better work on your sick humor.

 

[dad]

That has nothing to do with the default position either. It seems like you don't know what was asked of you.

Guess not. I am not a mind reader.

Your denial is based upon ignorance (and willful one to boot).

I do not deny a fishbowl field...guess who that leaves?

Science has never made a theory that "poofs" a moon into existance.
That's a straw man.

False. It has. Coalesce from the dust of the dreamt up impact. Look it up, I know.

Oh it can be denied. Everything can be denied, you should know.

I deny that.

I've got to ask, why are you writing in this part of the forum?

Bringing some light.