Explaining the God particle

[dad]

Not so much, no. I mean, in the sense that your point of view is ill thought out and irrational, nobody usual touts that as a virtue so there you may be original, but your philosophical position is nothing new. It's essentially limited undetermination.

You seem strangely out of touch. The allowing of the past laws to be different means that the flood and creation and Genesis could really have happened. Now unless you grow some science to tout fast, I guess you have been left behind here.

That you've set an arbitrary physical and temporal limitation on the boundaries of human knowledge because of a dusty old book doesn't alter that.

The bible indicates a different past and future. Is that what you are trying to say?

Solipsism (a concept long around - not one I agree with literally, by the way) is the philosophy that does the exact same as you, but instead of setting the boundary biblically it sets it based on the conscious mind.

I set nothing. God did. I read. I look at what evidence you produce here. I connect the dots.

 

[Tiberius]

What part of reality failed science that produced six different scientific theories as to how we got our moon? or are theories a part of your reality?

Nonsense.

If the evidence from reality spoke of six different contradictory theories, then you;d have a point. But that's not what happened, is it?

Scientists looked at the evidence and came up with several ideas based on that evidence. The six theories didn't come from reality, they came from scientists who were studying reality. And if I am not mistaken, it is generally accepted that the "Massive rock smashing into Earth caused the moon to form" explanation is the most likely one.

So why don't you drop it and find a new song to sing, because this one is old, AV. No one wants to hear it any more.

 

[Tiberius]

I cannot lose even if I try actually. Not sure why evos sometimes refer to deep space as supporting you, yet cannot deal with the basics. For example I gave some of the definition of space, and how it is conceived as 3 dimensional, etc.

Woopee doo. None of what you say supports your position.

You're an idiot if you think that you can spout a whole lot of technical jargon and think it proves anything.

When dealing with the topic of the God particle and associated Higgs field, one actually cannot avoid the issue.

Same as above...

Oh, and you still haven't told me why you thought you could get away with quote mining me.

 

[dad]

Woopee doo. None of what you say supports your position.

You're an idiot if you think that you can spout a whole lot of technical jargon and think it proves anything.



Same as above...

Oh, and you still haven't told me why you thought you could get away with quote mining me.

Quote mining?

 

[davidbilby]

The allowing of the past laws to be different means that the flood and creation and Genesis could really have happened.

So God was incapable of merely performing a miracle in spite of the laws of nature that he had supposedly written himself?

You seem to have a low opinion of your deity.

 

[dad]

So God was incapable of merely performing a miracle in spite of the laws of nature that he had supposedly written himself?

You seem to have a low opinion of your deity.

No, one could stick ferries under every leaf and tree and move continents around by blowing on them etc etc I suppose. The simplest explanation is that nature itself was different.

 

[Tiberius]

Quote mining?

Do you even know what it is? I've already explained how and when you did it. Don't blame me if you're incapable of comprehending it.

Is comprehending too long for you?

 

[Tiberius]

No, one could stick ferries under every leaf and tree and move continents around by blowing on them etc etc I suppose. The simplest explanation is that nature itself was different.

Wow. Must be pretty impressive if he can fit entire FERRIES under every leaf!

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists looked at the evidence and came up with several ideas based on that evidence.

I don't buy that.

If you're saying that scientists are looking at the same evidence and coming up with six different theories, I find that hard to believe.

They might be looking at overlapping evidence, but these are six theories, each with synoptic and unique evidence.

Just like the Gospels.

 

[davidbilby]

No, one could stick ferries under every leaf and tree and move continents around by blowing on them etc etc I suppose. The simplest explanation is that nature itself was different.

Really?

Here's the explanations - let's match them up and see which looks simpler:

1) The events of Genesis occurred. They are miraculous by our current modern standards, and the explanation is God could just do what he wanted...because he's God, and that's the point of a miracle.

2) The events of Genesis occurred. God couldn't just do them, he had to alter the laws of nature first, or create them after, leaving every single impression on planet earth that the very opposite happened, so he could cover his tracks. He did this for motives that we don't know, but he had to create two separate 'states' to do it in, as opposed to simply doing it.

You think 2 is simpler than 1. Seriously?

 

[davidbilby]

I don't buy that.

If you're saying that scientists are looking at the same evidence and coming up with six different theories, I find that hard to believe.

They might be looking at overlapping evidence, but these are six theories, each with synoptic and unique evidence.

Just like the Gospels.

No - the evidence is the same, simply the interpretation of the evidence is different and the weight applied to certain bits of evidence over others is different. Just like two detectives might look at a murder scene and come up with different ideas of what is important in the crime scene and what is irrelevant. It can be hard to tell, which is why there is such a thing as discussion and investigation.

You do know what the difference between 'evidence' and 'interpretation' is, right?

 

[dad]

Really?

Here's the explanations - let's match them up and see which looks simpler:

1) The events of Genesis occurred. They are miraculous by our current modern standards, and the explanation is God could just do what he wanted...because he's God, and that's the point of a miracle.

2) The events of Genesis occurred. God couldn't just do them, he had to alter the laws of nature first, or create them after, leaving every single impression on planet earth that the very opposite happened, so he could cover his tracks. He did this for motives that we don't know, but he had to create two separate 'states' to do it in, as opposed to simply doing it.

You think 2 is simpler than 1. Seriously?

Strawman. If the created nature was what was different, then most of what happened was in keeping with the nature of that day. After the flood, the vast differences in nature we see then, would simply be due to a change in nature as part of the changes God saw fit for super wicked man.

 

[AV1611VET]

No - the evidence is the same, simply the interpretation of the evidence is different and the weight applied to certain bits of evidence over others is different.

Are you kidding me?

Five serious theories have been proposed for the formation of the Moon (not counting the one involving green cheese):

1. The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar System. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came.
2. The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.
3. The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.
4. The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.
5. The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth.

SOURCE

 

[davidbilby]

Are you kidding me?

Um...those are the theories. Not the evidence for the theories, those are the actual theories. They are all based on different observations, some with different interpretations of the same evidence...what aren't you understanding?

 

[AV1611VET]

Um...those are the theories. Not the evidence for the theories, those are the actual theories. They are all based on different observations, some with different interpretations of the same evidence...what aren't you understanding?

Okay ... you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine ...

And for the record, I already addressed your point with this comment:

They might be looking at overlapping evidence, but these are six theories, each with synoptic and unique evidence.

... and I don't feel like playing games.

I've made my point and I'm sticking to it.

 

[davidbilby]

Okay ... you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine ...

And for the record, I already addressed your point with this comment:


... and I don't feel like playing games.

I've made my point and I'm sticking to it.

But your point, it seemed, was that science was somehow deficient for having multiple theories for an unanswered question...as if that was somehow bad...wasn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

But your point, it seemed, was that science was somehow deficient for having multiple theories for an unanswered question...as if that was somehow bad...wasn't it?

573

 

[Tiberius]

I don't buy that.

If you're saying that scientists are looking at the same evidence and coming up with six different theories, I find that hard to believe.

They might be looking at overlapping evidence, but these are six theories, each with synoptic and unique evidence.

Just like the Gospels.

If you don't buy that, then you are wrong.

Why is it so hard to grasp? We have some evidence, and there's several different explanations which fit the evidence. But there's not enough evidence to eliminate all of them. So there are several theories, all of which match THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE AVAILABLE. Once more evidence becomes available, we will be able to eliminate some of those theories until we only have one left.

Why do you not understand this?

 

[Tiberius]

Strawman. If the created nature was what was different, then most of what happened was in keeping with the nature of that day. After the flood, the vast differences in nature we see then, would simply be due to a change in nature as part of the changes God saw fit for super wicked man.

FALSE!!!

God killed all the super wicked men in the flood. The only people who survived were Noah and his family, who God said were nice folks.

And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

So tell me, if the only people who survived were righteous, where did the wicked people come from?

Defeated again, dad!

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't buy that, then you are wrong.

Why is it so hard to grasp? We have some evidence, and there's several different explanations which fit the evidence. But there's not enough evidence to eliminate all of them. So there are several theories, all of which match THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE AVAILABLE. Once more evidence becomes available, we will be able to eliminate some of those theories until we only have one left.

Why do you not understand this?

Then your point ... that science has all of reality to support it ... can take a hike.

If science has all of reality to support it, why does the moon have six different 'realities' as to how we got it?

And if it only has one 'reality' supporting it, why does that 'reality' share itself with five other theories?