Monday, September 8

Political science

Large Hadron Collider, the world's largest and energy particle accelerator complex, will recreate conditions of the earliest universe that might just answer missing links in physics and science.

However, The Independent reported that some scientists trooped to the European Court for Human Rights to put a halt in turning on the collider. It said that some scientists are seeking a restraining order for fear that it may create a black hole that will suck life.
In other news, presidential candidate Barack Obama, upon hearing of the development by scientists at the Hadron Collider, released a statement decrying their "black hole" remarks as racist and more Republican mud-slinging, declaring instead John McCain sucks Nittaly chunks.


Difster said...

Personally, I think they're just afraid that some evidence for God will be found.

Elmo Q. Shangnaster said...

I think you're right. They (scientists) were so excited to find evidence of water on Mars to support their theories about intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

I hope their stupid multi-billion Euro collider will provide conclusive evidence of a Creator.

OCEntertainment said...

"I hope their stupid multi-billion Euro collider will provide conclusive evidence of a Creator."

I don't.

Elmo Q. Shangnaster said...

Always one to be contrary, right Bob?

Notice I said Creator, not necessarily the biblical God. Robert Jastrow and others like him, are already convinced, even though they don't necessarily point to the God. It would be a good starting point to have Einstein shown wrong.

OCEntertainment said...

"Always one to be contrary, right Bob?"

Always, on purpose, and without regret.

Near as I can tell, our God isn't too big on "conclusive proof". He shows Himself quite mightily, but there's always room for a choice, for one to not so much believe because there is no alternative, but to believe because they've made the choice to believe.

"Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I'd certainly accept some strong evidence. Or a rather dramatic inkling. But conclusive proof? Somehow that would feel remarkably outside of God's usual method.

Elmo Q. Shangnaster said...

Always, on purpose, and lacking consideration of what's written, you mean.

Read the comment, Bob. I said conclusive evidence, not proof. That's two different things. Try looking them up or if you need help try this: evidence and this: proof