4 ms·

Amazing, I wonder what this means for creationists and more importantly - our understanding of our universe?

okamiueru 14y ago
I don't mean any offense, since the question itself is valid, so I'll offer one of my own: Why does it matter what creationists make of it?
jmcqk6 14y ago
Given that this is science, it doesn't mean anything to creationists.
- JonnieCache 14y ago
  On the contrary, some creationists make great efforts to engage science on it's own terms, with hilarious results: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C-decay http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C-decay
  - tudorizer 14y ago
    what? This actually exists as a theory? Now I'm a believer. This got me laughing "in order to be useful for validating an age of the universe less than 10,000 years rather than more than 10 billion years".
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - hobin 14y ago
    A teacher tried to teach me that particular hypothesis in high school. It subsequently became much harder for me to be a scientifically inclined person in a religious school. Bad memories.
ars 14y ago
Why should it mean anything special for creationists? God either created the Higgs or he didn't. This science illuminates God. That's all. It's not an argument for or against creationism. (Although if you believe God created the world, then just say it. There is nothing wrong with believing that. But don't hide behind a psudo-science like creationism.)
- archangel_one 14y ago
  > Why should it mean anything special for creationists? I guess maybe this is a misconception based on the media having come up with the stupid label of "the God particle"?
  - adestefan 14y ago
    Leon Lederman, an experimental physicist, was the one who first used the term god particle as the title for his book. There are many things to vilify the science media for, but this is not one of them.
    - jabr 14y ago
      He wanted to name the book "The Goddamn Particle" initially -- as a reference to its elusiveness -- but the publisher wore him down.
sharpneli 14y ago
Nothing at this stage. From what I've gathered this is so expected result that nothing really changes, right now atleast. It'll take a while until something new will come out of this. As an example this could be summarized like someone showing that P!=NP, it would be totally expected and nothing would really change. p.s P!=NP would be a bigger result though, the comparison was just for something that is overwhelmingly expected.
molmalo 14y ago
In high school I had a fellow student that was ortodox. So, he believed that the Bible should be taken as a literal story. So, when I asked him if he believed in Dinosaurs, he said that some fossils were from before the Great Flood, and that those animals where the beasts that died a few thousand years ago. When I asked him about Carbon-14, and that those fossils were dated millions of years ago, his answer was simple: Two options, those experiments are wrong, or is God testing our faith. This could be God testing our faith again for them, so... nothing will change.
- mike_ivanov 14y ago
  > ortodox Did you mean fundamentalist? Orthodox is something totally different.
i_cannot_hack 14y ago
Is this question a result of the name "God particle" confusing people again? In that case, it is just a stupid name that science journalist, not scientist, decided to go with. It doesn't mean anything at all, and Higg's boson has nothing to do with god.
- adestefan 14y ago
  As I noted above, the media did not come up with the god particle reference.
ygmelnikova 14y ago
The anti-creationists have become a religion unto themselves, complete with persecutions and indulgences. "I'm about fifty-fifty on believing in God" - Steve Jobs
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  This is true only if creationists' bullshit is as valid as our reality. So, no.
  - ygmelnikova 14y ago
    Hawking bet $100 that the Higgs Boson didn't exist. Does that make him a quack? If one or more creationists believes the earth was created in 6000 years, does that make all creationists quacks? Where's the scientific method in that?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

I don't mean any offense, since the question itself is valid, so I'll offer one of my own: Why does it matter what creationists make of it?

jmcqk6 14y ago

Given that this is science, it doesn't mean anything to creationists.

JonnieCache 14y ago
On the contrary, some creationists make great efforts to engage science on it's own terms, with hilarious results: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C-decay http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C-decay
- tudorizer 14y ago
  what? This actually exists as a theory? Now I'm a believer. This got me laughing "in order to be useful for validating an age of the universe less than 10,000 years rather than more than 10 billion years".
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- hobin 14y ago
  A teacher tried to teach me that particular hypothesis in high school. It subsequently became much harder for me to be a scientifically inclined person in a religious school. Bad memories.

ars 14y ago

Why should it mean anything special for creationists? God either created the Higgs or he didn't. This science illuminates God. That's all. It's not an argument for or against creationism. (Although if you believe God created the world, then just say it. There is nothing wrong with believing that. But don't hide behind a psudo-science like creationism.)

archangel_one 14y ago
> Why should it mean anything special for creationists? I guess maybe this is a misconception based on the media having come up with the stupid label of "the God particle"?
- adestefan 14y ago
  Leon Lederman, an experimental physicist, was the one who first used the term god particle as the title for his book. There are many things to vilify the science media for, but this is not one of them.
  - jabr 14y ago
    He wanted to name the book "The Goddamn Particle" initially -- as a reference to its elusiveness -- but the publisher wore him down.

sharpneli 14y ago

Nothing at this stage. From what I've gathered this is so expected result that nothing really changes, right now atleast. It'll take a while until something new will come out of this. As an example this could be summarized like someone showing that P!=NP, it would be totally expected and nothing would really change. p.s P!=NP would be a bigger result though, the comparison was just for something that is overwhelmingly expected.

molmalo 14y ago

In high school I had a fellow student that was ortodox. So, he believed that the Bible should be taken as a literal story. So, when I asked him if he believed in Dinosaurs, he said that some fossils were from before the Great Flood, and that those animals where the beasts that died a few thousand years ago. When I asked him about Carbon-14, and that those fossils were dated millions of years ago, his answer was simple: Two options, those experiments are wrong, or is God testing our faith. This could be God testing our faith again for them, so... nothing will change.

mike_ivanov 14y ago
> ortodox Did you mean fundamentalist? Orthodox is something totally different.

i_cannot_hack 14y ago

Is this question a result of the name "God particle" confusing people again? In that case, it is just a stupid name that science journalist, not scientist, decided to go with. It doesn't mean anything at all, and Higg's boson has nothing to do with god.

adestefan 14y ago
As I noted above, the media did not come up with the god particle reference.

ygmelnikova 14y ago

The anti-creationists have become a religion unto themselves, complete with persecutions and indulgences. "I'm about fifty-fifty on believing in God" - Steve Jobs

CamperBob2 14y ago
This is true only if creationists' bullshit is as valid as our reality. So, no.
- ygmelnikova 14y ago
  Hawking bet $100 that the Higgs Boson didn't exist. Does that make him a quack? If one or more creationists believes the earth was created in 6000 years, does that make all creationists quacks? Where's the scientific method in that?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]