Will LHC destroy many theories held sacred by the science community?

The fact is...science doesn't work. IT is the tool of killers. The countless poisons and toxic wastes science has dumped have killed and made sick countless people, spent billions in lawsuits and other damages. Erin Brokovitch from the movie, Kevin Trudeau and others are after the products of "science" on behalf of the damaged subjects...so are lawyers. Science doesn't work. IT has fatal or near fatal side effects. Every medicine you can be given is almost as likely to kill you as the illness you have.

Science always comes with a warning...may cause this and that, including death. You must sign waivers and releases of responsibility to use science as they don't want to pay out money to your estate or you if it hurts or kills you.

Like all of man's things, it is merely hit or miss. Not to be trusted or faith put in it. Maybe it will help, maybe it won't, maybe it will be on your headstone as what killed you.

Just plain fact and honesty!

Bible faith is not blind nor credulity...it is based on sound evidence and lines of reasoning. Hebrews 11:1 Evidence of various lines of reason, not wishful thinking. Many refuse to examine it though

"Many people put their "faith" in science."

what?

"But they make assumptions that they depend on to keep that faith."

HOLD on a second kid. Science is not about faith. It is about FACTS.

"One that they depend on lately is that there is a Supersymmetry which "explains" all the forces and particles in the Universe."

But supersymmetry is not a highly held theory in science. Not as highly held as other more solid theories such as evolution, plate tectonics, gravity and so on. It's a PROPOSED EXTENSION. So your ranting about how you believe that scientists think that it is a full explanation is totally full of bulls.

"And here is the reason it is here in R&S. Many claim that all their 'theories' are supported by science, but if such a major flaw exists and proven by "Science", will their "faith" be an empty one? Won't their faith become more of a "religion" than a "science"?"

Look kid; a theory supported by many evidences for it (such as evolution, plate tectonics, etc) cannot be fallen by one evidence against it. Sure, no theories are infallible. Theories are being corrected and modified every day based on newer and newer data. But that is no reason to call science a religion.

The difference is - Rick - that science does not dictate how you should live your life. Another difference is that science starts with facts and goes from there with logic. A third difference is that if science makes a mistake, it admits it. A fourth difference is that science has objectively and undeniably made our lives better, through improvements to medicine, agriculture, manufacturing and communication. A fifth difference is that nobody goes to war over science.

Unlike religion which is entirely about dictating how people should live, which makes statements based on nothing and defends them with abject nonsense and lies, and will never, ever admit to being wrong. While claiming to make our lives better, it is very, very difficult to measure it - but it has definitely made life more difficult for people, such as homosexuals and people belonging to another religion than the prevalent one. As for the fifth difference... well...

LHC was not built to destroy anything, but to confirm or falsify certain theories about the behavior of elemental particles. Particularly the elusive Higgs boson. Which has since been found.

When you say "many people" I assume you mean scientists that are working on those hypothesis. Or are you assuming that every average Joe puts faith in mentioned supersymmetry hypothesis? Average Joe don't give a rats ars for it.

As for the faith in science...well you are using a computer to post this so that other millions of users that visit this site via internet can read it and respond to it in a matter of seconds/minutes. I am writing from a completely different part of the planet probably to something that you posted just a couple of minutes ago.

So as you can see, no faith necessary, science works.

Don't know what this have to do with your perosnal gods though.

If such a flaw really exists, then science will change. It won't stubbornly hold on to disproven ideas, like religion (and just because there are gaps in some theories, doesn't mean those gaps can be filled in with 'god'). After all, we've accepted that Pluto isn't a planet, haven't we? If it was written anywhere in The Bible that Pluto actually is a planet, I bet you Christians would still be trying to find outlandish ways to 'prove' that Pluto is a planet.

Whatever we find out from the LHC, it will be good for science. If some ideas have to be changed as a result, then clearly those ideas weren't correct.

If a hypothesis is proven wrong, that means that the scientific method is working. It's not a flaw; it's what's supposed to happen.

@debbiepittman

>Science doesn't work. IT has fatal or near fatal side effects.

So I expect this will be your last post, seeing as how you're clearly going to have to get rid of that dangerous computer in front of you.

It would be neat if it did. Scientists love gathering data and making better conclusions.

There are no talking donkeys and talking snakes in science. There are no angry gods who demand little boys' foreskins. Science says nothing about whether or not it's ok to boil a goat in its mother's milk. But the bible has all those things. Somehow that makes the bible more accurate, more believable, right?

Firstly, science isn't a being. It can't 'hold theories sacred'.

Scientists don't hold theories sacred, either. Some of them achieve Nobel Prize recognition by disproving theories.

Lastly, if theories are disproven at CERN, that doesn't mean that God exists.

Just in case you were wondering.

I'm not particularly interested in theoretical physics, thanks just the same. Whether the supersymmetry supporters are right or wrong makes no difference to the existence of gravity, combustion, the kinetic theory of gases or evolution. I might remind you that theories, rightly named, are not supported by science, they are supported by facts. Your attempt to sneer would be more comical if it were not so pathetically and obviously ignorant.

Well, this is what's good about science.

If a theory doesn't match the evidence it can be tossed.

No problem here.