Search results

You have to laugh at Jem otherwise his religious bs just gets too creepy.

Sex Makes men more likely to believe in God hmm... so porn stars rather than popes more likely to believe in God

Dude, Sex God two words I'm very used to hearing said to me :sneaky:

So if Trump wins it's rigged?

Both wrong. Both untrue. The Standard Model explains how the basic components of matter interact with the four fundamental forces. It does not explain how the fundamental particles of the universe came to have mass. The Standard Model does not and did not predict the Higgs field, nor did it...

No you haven't. An analogy would be The Standard Model predicted salt in the sea. It did not predict how much or exactly where salt would be found. Cern did a wide beam search for Higgss or whatever particle would fit the bill. They found it around a particular area by sweeping the sea , in the...

For goodness sake. What are you trying to not understand now. and didn't you notice, he's building up to possible (scientific!) solutions to the currently unknown? "Solutions to the Naturalness Problem On purely logical grounds, a couple of qualitatively different types of solutions to this...

The Standard Model predicts a field now known as the Higgs field. The Standard Model did not and does not predict a mass for the Higgs particle. So your comment that "the extreme fine tuning of the standard model of physics was proven"....is completely untrue. The mass region or search area...

Prior to discovering the Higgs particle The Standard Model predicted it should be found somewhere within a comparatively broad range. It was discovered at the lower end of that range. Quantum calculations still require a mass greatly higher than the range in which it was discovered. It is...

To dispel notions of so called fine tuning, it really only requires the natural conditions of the Universe be such that as a consequence, all of its parameters are no more than inevitable. The Standard Model does not measure the mass of Higgs boson. It is not a value that can be properly...

The Universe exists. No contest.

Without them, they do not exist.:sneaky: With only them, life does not exist.

That which is without chemicals is naught without them, for it has no matter.

Seeing how it's a known fact that all matter observed everywhere in the universe is chemical, and all life is matter, and all life is chemical, surely that alone makes it churlish in the extreme to expect the origin of life not to be chemical.

see that Jem...parody!

No it isn't , no one teaches evolution as origin of life. If they ever do, they are not teaching evolutionary biology science. Intelligent Designers for instance don't teach evolutionary biology science. Maybe they are infiltrating classrooms and you should be more concerned about that. Not...

On a personal note I've never thought about belief in big bags, but more generally I find no necessity to either believe or not believe in the big bang. It is not known what did exist and what did not exist, what laws of physics were or were not present at big bang. Whether the Universe...

If you need a parody to be explained then you don't understand parody. If you need me to explain why the BBC put the FSM (Pasta Be Upon Him) where you imagine a God to be and why I called it proof, then as far as things go, you resemble the intellect of a five year old. yep you know who...

Quite obviously you don't understand a what parody is when you see it:rolleyes: That would be Francis Crick, Nobel prize winning co-discoverer of the DNA molecule structure, who changed his mind back in the 1990's, in regard to 1billion years being too short a timeframe. He decided in...