Not only was your prior argument fallacious, but I refuted it. Now you're ignoring that and cherry picking your replies here. Seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me?

Alright, Ill answer your "refutations" then:

"Why shouldn't you suspect that decay rates could change?"

If you read my post, I explained why : Because there is no evidence that suggest it is changing, and no known physical mechanisms that can produce such change. The moon could suddenly start orbiting the other direction relative to earth tomorrow, but there is no signs, no evidence, that suggests or implies that it will, and also physics dont allow it unless it is pushed or pulled by some very large force etc.
Bottom line, change in the decay rate is an assumption of something for which there is no evidence. Thats why scientists dont waste their time suspecting this.

As for the line "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense". Well thats a poetic thing and all, but its not really true when you think about it for a little bit: for the most part, this is how we exclude things from our reality, and separate what is real or not. It is perfectly consistent to say "I really dont think this thing exist" while remaining, in principle, open minded. There might be green hairy monsters hiding under my bed, I can never know for absolute certain, but I dont THINK so, the absense of evidence convinces me there are none.

The same is true in say, particle physics, there may be thousands of different "higgs-bosons" of different kinds doing all sorts of crazy shit in physics, but again, in the absense of evidence... you cant just build your ideas around fantasies.

Do you know the geologic column doesn't actually exist in reality?
Are you alking about illustrations of the geologic column? Then yeah, I'm aware that it doesnt look like that in real-life, but the term is definately real, and yes, erosion and things like that can expose old layers to fresh air, this is of course well know in biology and geology. When I say fossils are layed down in order, I dont mean that they are all physically on top of eachother, but that the dating of the layers match with the kind of animals found in that era. IE: there are no "fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian" as one biologist replied when asked what would truly disprove evolution.


Caylor: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

MB: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

Hahaha, if that was said by an actual molecular biologist capable of finding his own ass, I'll eat my hat. This is so obviously Creo-speak from here on to hell. The first thing an actual biologist would do would be to question the use of the word "information" (I'm assuming he's asking about the information contained in DNA) in this context. Because we refer to DNA as a language and "it contains all the information needed to assemble a human" and so on, Creationists think of DNA as some sort of literary masterpiece, it seems. The truth is of course that its 4 acids spelling 95% repetetive gibberish intersped with some interesting bits that code for proteins and do actual useful stuff.

They also seems to think that (perhaps because they believe it themselves) humans existed from the get-go, and that DNA somehow evolved inside us or some shit like that. (Like one creationist who asked Richard Dawkins how we humans peed before our penises and vaginas evolved..) Anyway, like our penises, our DNA is of course much older than humans themselves, We are simply the latest iterations of a nearly endless line of attemps by nucleic acids to clone themselves by way of making an animal that does the reproduction.

I highly suspect that interview was faked by creationists , but even if it wasnt, it'd just mean that there's a molecular biologist out there who doesnt know fuck all about molecular biology and hold some strange beliefs, and he's wrong. Simple as that.


You then have the obligatory list of quotations, and what can I say?.. I can see how you think these are somehow indicating a plot or something against creationist, but honestly this is just plain quotemining.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'LHC, Hard, On, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson' to 'LHC, higgs boson, Hard On, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson' - edited by xxovercastxx

I would title it, "The Only (Other) Cat Video I Will Ever Sift" and justify it by saying it's actually the same video, just in a different quantum state.>> ^Mauru:

Now if a feline scientist suddenly found a way to harvest the higgs boson particle for a clean source of energy and documented it on youtube ...
AND messenger would be the first one to find it...
Sifting it would make him a hypocrite amirite?

Now if a feline scientist suddenly found a way to harvest the higgs boson particle for a clean source of energy and documented it on youtube ...
AND messenger would be the first one to find it...

Sifting it would make him a hypocrite amirite?

At first I was like, "Oh no, not another Higgs boson video", but this one focused more on the Higgs field and some interesting stuff I haven't seen in other videos, glad I watched it.

Thank you for the quality!
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*quality

>> ^oohlalasassoon:

First the Higgs Boson discovery...now this. These are exciting times.


I knew that the God Bag was right around the corner after the Higgs.

First the Higgs Boson discovery...now this. These are exciting times.

This is the best layman explanation of the Higgs boson and its discovery I've found so far. Cool drawings.

Cool, informative.

The ominous music made me expect a huge Higgs boson to show up and bludgeon them both, or just Athene at least.

>> ^VoodooV:

so did they or didn't they?
every article I've read announces they've found it! but in the article itself they backpedal and say that they're pretty sure they found it.
I loves me my science but they are notorious for hyping up stuff like this only for the hype to not measure up.


They found a blip which is a particle that resembles the Higgs, they have yet to determine if it is a boson. Bosons are usually the force carriers, so this is important if it is the fit into the understanding of what the Higgs is in the standard model (a force carrier for mass). If it turns out to be a fermion, or crazy worse, a lepton (very improbable), then we will have to go back to the drawing board for the standard model. Also, the Higgs is seemingly lighter than predicted, this causes some math issues with zero-point energy. With as much as a full gigaelectron volt difference between the 2 detectors for the Higgs, there is still a lot of work to do. That isn't to understate the importance of this, there is something going on.

Discovering Higgs Boson = groundbreaking. Seeing Stephen Hawking crack a sly grin = priceless.

Your video, Is it the Higgs Boson? - Sixty Symbols, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Payback:

I call bullshit. Where's the Xen level?


In Episode 3.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'higgs boson, discovery, type 13 planet' to 'higgs boson, discovery, type 13 planet, lexx, tales from a parallel universe, 790' - edited by Grimm