Has The Large Hadron Collider Destroyed The Earth Yet? Check For Latest Updates HERE

[Simster]

Darwin did that years ago ..

Nope. Darwin's remains a theory of evolution and believe it or not, it does have some flaws.

 

[Sam]

As far as I was aware, today was not colliding particles together, it was just the first time the beam has gone round the whole length of the tunnel. On the 21st October the beams will be sent round in opposite directions smashing them together creating black holes!

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Nope. Darwin's remains a theory of evolution and believe it or not, it does have some flaws.

Go on then I'll bite...what flaws?

 

[Gazwag]

Go on then I'll bite...what flaws?

the french

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I can't believe the banks who are lending billions to make this project possible will be satisfied with that though. Surely they will want some of their £5,000,000,000 back with interest?

But it's not the banks paying for it, it's governments, so you & me. However 80 odd countries have contributed to this project, over 1000 scientists from over 500 institutions around the world.

Bizarley, if they find nothing in terms of Higgs-Boson particles, while it sounds like a waste of money, for the scientists it would actually be quite exciting as it would disprove some theories and they'd have to think again (thereby ensuring their academic tenure for another few decades).

BTW - No chance of destruction just yet, no proton colisions due for 6 weeks or so.

 

[maffew]

Just said on the radio they've had to turn it off and on again to make an adjustment

we could have told them that

5bn is nothing for a project this big, its taken something like 50 years to build the thing

 

[Gazwag]

The could have saved all that money by Hoy and Wiggins cycling in opposite directions around the volodrome with the particles attached to their helmets on a piece of string

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

the french

Surely they are living proof that Man evolved from gibbons?

 

[Simster]

Go on then I'll bite...what flaws?

There are flaws with survival of the fittest. For example, it seems that if you're born with money you have all the trappings you'll ever need without being "fit" any way other than being born with a shed load of cash.

But more interestingly, there are actual real discrepancies all over the shop. For example, do you know what animal has an EYE that closest resembles a human eye? Is a it a chimp? No. A gorilla? No. It's actually an OCTOPUS. How did that happen? Are we really supposed to believe that the completely different tangent of evolution that led to the formation of the octopus arrived at the same eye "technology" as that which led to the creation of homosapien? And as I say, there are apparently several examples of this throughout the animal kingdom.









And then there is the whole French thing as already discussed.

 

[Fred Oliver - Legend]

it's gonna make a great film..

 

[Lankyseagull]

They haven't told us that the black hole DID open up and the planet has been transported to another galaxy millions of billions of light year away from our own.

I'm on the lookout for Daleks as we speak..........

 

[Tooting Gull]

I don't know if anyone's done this already, but the Sun have come out with an all-time classic today on Page 3.

Keeley, 21, from Bromley (who incidentally is looking MIGHTY fine), said: "It's so exciting. The machine's main purpose is to explore the validity and limitations of the current theoretical picture for particle physics."

Genius.

 

[Mellotron]

This LHC will not tell us WHY anything about the existence of the universe. Only HOW. Particle Physics cannot reveal motives, as that is linked to emotions and its a whole different field.

Even if the LHC shows us the Big Bang in all it's glory I don't see how any of it affects any religions in the slightest. Again none of this whole thing is looking to find out WHY, only HOW.

Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory. Like my theory of Space Hoppers being awesome.

 

[Was not Was]

For example, do you know what animal has an EYE that closest resembles a human eye? Is a it a chimp? No. A gorilla? No. It's actually an OCTOPUS. How did that happen? Are we really supposed to believe that the completely different tangent of evolution that led to the formation of the octopus arrived at the same eye "technology" as that which led to the creation of homosapien? And as I say, there are apparently several examples of this throughout the animal kingdom.

That's not a flaw in evolutionary theory. The eye isn't as unique as all that. It developed in different species independently, rather than every creature's eyes having evolved from a 'master' eye.

This will explain it in five minutes (though I should warn you that Richard Dawkins isn't the most manly of TV presenters):

YouTube - Richard Dawkins on the Evolution of the Eye || Part 1

 

[Was not Was]

And don't forget that everything keeps evolving. We didn't evolve from today's chimps - it's just that, somewhere down the line, we share the same ancestors.

Go far enough back in time, and we share ancestors with every living thing on earth.

 

[Scoffers]

They've spent £5bn on this thing. Serious question: For that sort of investment, what are they hoping to find? Are they hoping to find the secret of time travel? That would RULE.

Yeah, just think, we could go back in time and NOT hire Steve McLaren

 

[Mellotron]

Dawkins is a moron. There is a ridiculous amount of holes in a lot of his arguments, some of which are frankly childish.

The internet's a big place, look around and you will find plenty of factual sites that show that a number of his arguments hold little to no water whatsoever.

 

[Cian]

Dawkins is a moron. There is a ridiculous amount of holes in a lot of his arguments, some of which are frankly childish.

The internet's a big place, look around and you will find plenty of factual sites that show that a number of his arguments hold little to no water whatsoever.

As opposed to religions arguments being based on a very bad novel (the charactersation is rubbish, for a start) and nothing else? Know which one has more base in reality...

 

[Was not Was]

Dawkins is a moron. There is a ridiculous amount of holes in a lot of his arguments, some of which are frankly childish.

The internet's a big place, look around and you will find plenty of factual sites that show that a number of his arguments hold little to no water whatsoever.

Well, this wasn't about Dawkins, but feel free to give examples. I bet that his arguments on evolution have far fewer holes than the only other explanation available - creationism. So the Earth's only 6,000 years old and we were created by a supreme being

The main problem here is that evolution is so accepted by scientists that they've stopped bothering to explain it to us - you get more taught more RE than evolution in school, but it's evolution that explains who we are!

That's what makes it possible for the creationists to take information and communicate it as though it's a flaw in evolutionary theory - just like the example Simster gave.

 

[Mellotron]

Most creationists are NOT New Earth Creationists. That is a specific set.

I see no reason why you cannot be a Christian and an Evolutionist. Christian Evolutionists. Look 'em up, there are plenty of them, along with Christian Scientists.