Yes, exactly. It's called the God particle because it helps explain how the universe works, not how it was created. It has nothing to do with bringing new or original things into being. You just helped correct yourself.
Let me clarify what the God Particle is
The "God particle" is the nickname of a subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. In laymans terms, different subatomic particles are responsible for giving matter different properties. One of the most mysterious and important properties is mass. Some particles, like protons and neutrons, have mass. Others, like photons, do not. The Higgs boson, or God particle, is believed to be the particle which gives mass to matter. The God particle nickname grew out of the long, drawn-out struggles of physicists to find this elusive piece of the cosmic puzzle. What follows is a very brief, very simplified explanation of how the Higgs boson fits into modern physics, and how science is attempting to study it.
The standard model of particle physics is a system that attempts to describe the forces, components, and reactions of the basic particles that make up matter. It not only deals with atoms and their components, but the pieces that compose some subatomic particles. This model does have some major gaps, including gravity, and some experimental contradictions. The standard model is still a very good method of understanding particle physics, and it continues to improve. The model predicts that there are certain elementary particles even smaller than protons and neutrons. As of the date of this writing, the only particle predicted by the model which has not been experimentally verified is the Higgs boson, jokingly referred to as the God particle.
Each of the subatomic particles contributes to the forces that cause all matter interactions. One of the most important, but least understood, aspects of matter is mass. Science is not entirely sure why some particles seem mass-less, like photons, and others are massive. The standard model predicts that there is an elementary particle, the Higgs boson, which would produce the effect of mass. Confirmation of the Higgs boson would be a major milestone in our understanding of physics.
The God particle nickname actually arose when the book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Leon Lederman was published. Since then, its taken on a life of its own, in part because of the monumental questions about matter that the God particle might be able to answer. The man who first proposed the Higgs bosons existence, Peter Higgs, isnt all that amused by the nickname God particle, as hes an avowed atheist. All the same, there isnt really any religious intention behind the nickname.
Currently, efforts are under way to confirm the Higgs boson using the Large Hadron Collider, a particle accelerator in Switzerland, which should be able to confirm or refute the existence of the God particle. As with any scientific discovery, Gods amazing creation becomes more and more impressive as we learn more about it. Either resultthat the Higgs boson exists, or does not existrepresents a step forward in human knowledge and another step forward in our appreciation of Gods awe-inspiring universe. Whether or not there is a God particle, we know this about Christ: For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible . . . all things were created by him and for him (Colossians 1:16).
Why did you pull from wikipedia?
Clarity
That's great, but we already know it isn't true. The human race isn't descended from Adam and Eve, and the people who wrote the Bible didn't know science like we do now.
No one knows, who the original man or woman is/descendants...It could be Adam and Eve...just because its in the Bible does not mean its false...and just because it science does not mean its true...the truth is somewhere in the middle...
Nah, they don't, breh. "Receiving" has nothing to do with who came first, nor does dependence or independence. In ancient organisms, self-reproducing females evolved first, then males came along much later when the act of reproduction split between them.
LOL...science tries to explain nature...understand that...If for some reason...I keep a chick for 1 million years living, maybe she would evolve...only God knows...but, 1 million years she then turn into a dude? and her vagina, will turn into a penis? ah ha
sure God created self-reproductions...but all science can do theorize, some science might catch onto Gods plan...however its mainly explaining the complexities of the world, not replace God...
Nah, they don't. This is not how evolution works. Regardless, the man having greater physical strength than a woman is not evidence that they came first. Anyway, though, there's a contradiction here- according to the way you've described it, organisms evolve to become stronger, right? That means the weaker organism, woman, came first, even by your own logic.
society even shows men are stronger, tho women can be just a strong if they wanted..humans were designed with ability for some evolutions...not soley a sex change evolutions but some evolution...
Nah, they did have sex. If you mean pre-human organisms, they were able to self-reproduce. If you mean humans, modern females had sex with pre-modern males for thousands of years. Eventually modern males emerged out of that process.
which is first man or woman...my theory is they were both created at the same...God created them with room for evolution, same with chicken or the egg, God created the chicken and the egg...and science is mostly reactionary...if you understand science you understand science does not explain everything and the concept/hypothesis/finding of science has a lot of holes...because nature itself is mystery...now science can spend another 100 billi on how man and women, were created: skin, eyes, brain, thoughts, etc