Comments on: This is Science? But some folks claim ID isn’t? Why?

By: Domoman

Domoman — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:49:06 +0000

LOL

That’s an awesome theory!! I love it. It’s so scientific. xD

At least ID is based off of observable evidence, mainly, the creation of complex objects and machines by intelligent agents.

By: Clive Hayden

Clive Hayden — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:54:34 +0000

TeePegg,

Except for serendipity, where random happenstance results in important, unexpected observation.

Serendipity is finding something good when you were looking for something else. In that vain, your comment makes no sense. Random happenstance doesn’t build things more complicated than even the world’s most complicated wristwatch. It just doesn’t my friend. I’m sorry that you had to hear it from me.

By: TeePegg

TeePegg — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:01:55 +0000

Clive,

We have a precedent for it, things that are designed by humans. We have no precedent for random happenstance to make designed things.

Except for serendipity, where random happenstance results in important, unexpected observation.

By: William J. Murray

William J. Murray — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:05:51 +0000

The difference between science and non-science lies in the terminology. As long as the terminology sounds materialistic and mainstream-ish, it’s all good.

By: Seversky

Seversky — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:45:56 +0000

A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

Gregory Benford has a rather neat solution to the grandfather paradox in his 1980 SF novel Timescape. If he is right then the sabotage from the future wouldn't work.

By: tragic mishap

tragic mishap — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:21:57 +0000

Tim, actually you received this nickel thirty years ago. It was a preemptive reimbursement. The Higgs-boson particles did it for you in a successful future bid to de-fund the project.

By: Anthony09

Anthony09 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:53:38 +0000

I don’t think anyone claimed this was science. I think everyone, including the scientists themselves, views it as speculation.

By: JGuy

JGuy — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:20:43 +0000

I wonder if this could explain the sudden unexplainably weird urges I’ve had recently to move to Switzerland, break into the LHC and hang uncooked turkey’s in the main collider tunnel.

By: JGuy

JGuy — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:10:17 +0000

It kinda makes sense…if time branches…but it doesn’t if this particle “destroyed” the timelines that generated it, then would it ever have been existed in the first palfce to destroy the time path to that point?

Seems more paradoxical than logical.

By: smordecai

smordecai — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:43:02 +0000

Hey, I read the novel! Flash Forward by Robert J. Sawyer. Now they’ve made it into a TV series, only they changed the plot because they figured the public wouldn’t understand the LHC search for the Higgs boson particle.