The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

[Joshua Brooks]

We know that dinosaurs(i.e. Behemoths, Job 40:15-18) existed alongside mankind. The Allied Atheist Agenda invented the concept of carbon dating as a direct attack against morality, order, and justice. We can never let ourselves forget that atheist have no morals and guiltlessly engage in rapes, murders, theft, etc. in the name of "free thought".

Atheist claim that there are atoms. Hydrogen, the simplest and most basic atom, is supposedly made up of one electron and one proton. All other atoms are supposedly just hydrogens added together. Perhaps you've heard of water being referred to as H2O. This represents one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms. For argument's sake we'll just say an oxygen atom is two hydrogens placed together; thus two protons and two electrons.

Here is the problem: Given what we know about atoms, that they are supposedly all made up of the same particles, protons and electrons(the occasional neutron), it strikes any keen intellect as absurd to state that completely different forms of matter can form out of the same parts. Water and Iron are made of the same material according to atheists.
That is akin to stating that if you put a basketball and a marble together it forms hydrogen, but if you place two basketballs and two marbles together you get oxygen. And to top it all off if you place five basketballs and five marble together you get water. But any rational person can clearly see that they are all still basketballs and marbles no matter how many of them you have or how they are arranged.

On this basis alone one can completely rule out the very possibility of carbon dating. The entire concept of atoms, much less carbon dating, is evidently a hoax designed by atheists to promote homosexuality, lawlessness, and the collapse of civilization.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

Excellent work, Joshua. You cut those atheist myths to the quick and showed how ridiculous atomism really is. Those jokers will believe anything, no matter how ludicrous, except for the Truth of the Bible.

Bless you, Brother.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

I’m with Pastor Billy-Reuben on this. Your’ fair and balanced article Josuha unmasks the fallacy of naturalistic reasoning. Jesus knows how much damage this myth of radioactivity has done. For instance radioactivity is used to justify how the earth can be so hot after the ridiculous age the secularist give it; magic rocks in the earth make it hot. Radiation is all very convenient for the atheists since you can only detect it with instruments they came up with! The whole Darwinist house of cards is based on radiation.

[JennyD]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

Mr. Brooks, your brilliant dissection of the very foundations of "science" has only whet my appetite for learning! One taste of your swollen intellect has left me drooling for more . . . Truly, a mind IS a terrible thing to waste!

What are your thoughts on electricity?

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

Radiation is all very convenient for the atheists since you can only detect it with instruments they came up with!

Or with a Scientology E-Meter.






I like to turn mine up to 11. And I love the way the put a "test" setting on it.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

In 1905, Albert Einstein wrote "On the Movement of Small Particles...", his analysis of Brownian Motion, and developed a hypothetical mathematical model of molecule theory. The same year, the first, unsuccessful, Russian Revolution broke out. Coincidence? I think not.

[Joshua Brooks]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

Mr. Brooks, your brilliant dissection of the very foundations of "science" has only whet my appetite for learning! One taste of your swollen intellect has left me drooling for more . . . Truly, a mind IS a terrible thing to waste!

What are your thoughts on electricity?

I am very please that my counter argument to the fallacy of atomic theory watered your appetite for learning, Jenny. Although thinking is a male orientated field it is refreshing to see a woman eager to learn in silence with all due humility just as Jesus teaches us in His Holy Word. I don't think we've meet. I've been so busy with college and my duties at the Creation Science Museum that I haven't had time to introduce myself to any of the new faces in Freehold. I would be glad to share my wide breath of knowledge and throbbing enthusiaism for creation physics with you.

OK, Electricity.

The Atheist Claim: The Allied Atheist Agenda would like us to believe that opposites attract. They claim that protons(one component of a so-called atom) carry a positive charge and electrons(another component of a so-called atom) carry a negative charge. The ultimate power source and origin of said "charged energy" is conviently left out by the atheist. They claim that if you load one end of a circuit with positrons(positive charged stuff) and then load the other end with negatrons, that the negatrons will flock to the positrons. The flow of electrons is referred to as electricity.

The Problem: Seeing that atheist claim that all matter is composed of atoms, which we previous simplified to hydrogen, which is broken down further in electron-proton...

1.) Wouldn't a load of positrons be non-matter without an electron to make it a complete hydrogen?
2.) If it already has electrons and is matter, then why would it need to draw more electrons?
3.) Wouldn't this positronic stuff suck the electrons out of the very circuit board parts immediately surrounding it instead of a bunch of electrons way on the other side of the circuit?

Let's face facts here. At some point the positrons are gonna get enough electrons to stop being a positron. Then what? Atheist say this is how a battery runs out of juice. Fair enough. But what about objects that don't use batteries? They counter with the concept of "earth ground". But even the earth in all its 6,000 years is gonna eventual get enough electrons to loss its positive disposition. And if it's so positive why isn't it sucking the electrons out of everything on the surface? Why isn't there a huge electrical spark betweeb earth and the moon? If the moon is also positively charged then why isn't it getting flung away since like pushes away like? Are talking about electricity here or magnets? Make up your mind secular science!

The Test: I placed a battery on the ground with the negative side toouching the earth. It did not get drained of usefulness. Nothing magically went to this supposed "earth ground". And with that yet another secular myth is laid to rest.

The Truth: God makes the lighting and the lightning is electricity. It goes where He wants it to go and powers what He wants it to power. Who are we, as mere mortals, to possibly understand His mysteries? God controls it just like you controls the wind, the oceans, and the suns light. And through His grace we also get power from windmill, dams, and solar panels. Clearly "power" does not equal electrons so much as it equals GOD. GLORY!!!

[Joshua Brooks]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

Or with a Scientology E-Meter.






I like to turn mine up to 11. And I love the way the put a "test" setting on it.

The only thing that is good for is detecting stupidity and craziness.

[Newton]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

That doesn't make any sense.

"The Allied Atheist Agenda invented the concept of carbon dating as a direct attack against morality, order, and justice. We can never let ourselves forget that atheist have no morals and guiltlessly engage in rapes, murders, theft, etc. in the name of "free thought"."

Carbon dating was not invented. Are you aware of the concepts of carbon dating? Well, isotopes of carbon are radioactive, and we can measure the rate of radioactive decay to determine the age of something. Carbon dating SUPPORTS your opinions! Don't dispute it! Carbon dating can only date things up to thousands of years, not millions as people think. Carbon dating is responsible for proving how old many religious documents are and help Christians sort out fact from fake documents! What you want to dispute, as someone with your opinions is other dating methods, such as lead isotope dating. Most atheists have morals, and do not freely go around raping and murdering people. Only a few people do that, and let us not forget, some Christians rape and murder to.

"Atheist claim that there are atoms. Hydrogen, the simplest and most basic atom, is supposedly made up of one electron and one proton. All other atoms are supposedly just hydrogens added together. Perhaps you've heard of water being referred to as H2O. This represents one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms. For argument's sake we'll just say an oxygen atom is two hydrogens placed together; thus two protons and two electrons."

Atheists are the majority of humanity, Christians or otherwise, believe that there are atoms. Seeing is believing, and we can see atoms! Not in the traditional sense, perhaps, but we can. What is wrong with atomic theory in terms of Christianity? It doesn't go against any Biblical principles!
Two hydrogens = H2, not water. Hydrogen has an Ar of 1, oxygen has an Ar of 16. Last time I checked, 1+1 = 2, not 18, which is the Mr of water. The above comment you made is a scientific shambles, well, actually, just a shambles generally.
Lets take a quick look at the Periodic Table. Oxygen is in group six. To have a complete electron shell oxygen wants to bond with two more electrons to make 8 (a complete election shell). Hydrogen is in group one, and has one electron, two hydrogens would make up the difference. Similary, NaCl, or table salt. Na (sodium) is in group 1 so it wants to LOOSE an electron to give it 8 outer electrons (on another electron shell). Cl (Chlorine) is in group 7, and wants one electron. So if Na donates an electron to Cl you get full electron shells on both, and they ionically bond.

Thats it in a nutshell...There is a bit more than that in reality, though.

"Here is the problem: Given what we know about atoms, that they are supposedly all made up of the same particles, protons and electrons(the occasional neutron), it strikes any keen intellect as absurd to state that completely different forms of matter can form out of the same parts. Water and Iron are made of the same material according to atheists.
That is akin to stating that if you put a basketball and a marble together it forms hydrogen, but if you place two basketballs and two marbles together you get oxygen. And to top it all off if you place five basketballs and five marble together you get water. But any rational person can clearly see that they are all still basketballs and marbles no matter how many of them you have or how they are arranged."

The occasional neutron? No no no...Neutrons are present in every element except hydrogen. Neutrons are fundamental and very important. Now, there is more to it than that. We are made up of quarks, which are made up of smaller particles yet, such as Z-particles. Anyway, thats irrelevent. Chemistry is the transfer of electrons, thus creating a chemical reaction to create new compounds. All elements want a complete electron shell, so loose or gain electrons to achieve this. This is why we get water and other compounds. Without going on for a long time its hard to demonstrate this. Its easier to think about it in terms of bonds, not particles. A compound called epoxyethane has very strained bonds between carbon and oxygen, and thus is very reactive because the bonds break. This can be demonstrated by using models.
There is a distinct difference between basketballs and atomic particles. Atomic particles have charges, which dictates how they will react. Sodium chloride (table salt) has a very high melting temperature because of strong ionic bonds, formed by a +1 charge (on sodium) and a -1 charge (on chlorine). This obviously means they are attracted to each other in exactly the same way magnets are attracted to each other. So we need to put in a lot of energy to break the bonds.

On this basis alone one can completely rule out the very possibility of carbon dating. The entire concept of atoms, much less carbon dating, is evidently a hoax designed by atheists to promote homosexuality, lawlessness, and the collapse of civilization.

This makes no sense at all. Carbon dating is due to radioactive decay...Again, this can be observed, easily, as the radioactive decay of uranium and plutonium provides energy for nuclear reactors. We can measure the ratio between carbon 13 and carbon 12 and thus determine how much the carbon has decayed to determine the age of something. Carbon dating does not undermine anything, as I said previously, its supportive of Creation science as it only gives ages of thousands of years, not millions! Carbon dating does not promote homosexuality or anything bad! Its just a useful technique and is crucial to our knowledge of our own religion!

[Brother Temperance]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

Most atheists have morals, and do not freely go around raping and murdering people.

What a strange idea. Where would they get these so-called "morals" from?

Only a few people do that, and let us not forget, some Christians rape and murder to.

A Christian is a follower of Christ, one who obeys Christ's commands. Did He tell us to rape and murder?

Atheists are the majority of humanity, Christians or otherwise, believe that there are atoms. Seeing is believing, and we can see atoms! Not in the traditional sense, perhaps, but we can.

In what sense can we "see" atoms, if not with our eyes?

Its just a useful technique and is crucial to our knowledge of our own religion!

I get my knowledge of my own religion from God's word, not secular science.

[Joshua Brooks]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

Carbon dating was not invented.

So you're telling us that carbon dating has existed since before the creation of Adam?

Are you aware of the concepts of carbon dating? Well, isotopes of carbon are radioactive, and we can measure the rate of radioactive decay to determine the age of something.

Yeah, right. As Bobby Joe so elequently put it, radiation is very convient for the atheist in that you can only detect it with equipment they've invented. Such equipment is no more accurate or trustworthy than a scientology e-meter. That cult of weirdos is named after secular science for a reason you know.

Let us face the facts. Lets stick to pure objective reasoning here and not your subjective desire for your scientist gods to be all knowing and all seeing as the True God is. No matter how many protons you have, no matter how many electrons you have, and no matter how many neutrons you have; in the end all you have is a bunch of protons, neutrons, and electrons. How can piles of the same stuff make completely different forms of matter. It's a ridiculous concept.

[Joshua Brooks]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

What a strange idea. Where would they get these so-called "morals" from? A Christian is a follower of Christ, one who obeys Christ's commands. Did He tell us to rape and murder?

In what sense can we "see" atoms, if not with our eyes? I get my knowledge of my own religion from God's word, not secular science.

This reminds me of the secularist's newest "anything but Jesus" theory.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy. They say it doesn't emit light and they cannot see it... but it's there. There is an unknown force in the universe shaping planets and stars that is invisible. Instead of just admitting it is Jesus, they pull crazy ideas out of their behinds. Anything to deny the All-Encompassing power of God. Secular science is so pathetic.

[Newton]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

I'm saying the means of carbon dating has existed since the dawn of Time. The fact we have now developed the equipment to measure the radioactive decay of carbon does not mean we invented carbon dating. In a similar way, we have not invented animals, but we discover new ones.

Radiation can be MEASURED with equipment invented by scientists, but we have known about radiation and known its existed before the equipment was developed. Besides, tell victims of Chernobyl or Hiroshima and other such related disasters involving a lot of radiation, that it does not exist.

Have you not understood my stance? I am a Christian, but that does not mean that science is all wrong! If you were to get ill and you were perscribed some medication, that would be developed by science. The fact you are using a computer is the fact you are appreciative of science. Interestingly enough, computers are explained by quantum theory, which of course, you won't believe in.

A ridiculous concept would be dark sucker theory. I won't bore you with the details, but that is a ridiculous concept. Atomic theory is not ridiculous.

Right, how to explain this...Lets put it into a bigger perspective. Electrons are golf balls, protons are basketballs and neutrons are footballs. If you have a single basketball and it is glued to a golf ball you can no longer call it a basketball or a golfball. Its something new.

If you have 6 basketballs, 6 footballs and 12 golfballs glued together, you have something new. Its now much bigger, and so it will be much harder to kick a long distance, it won't be able to fit through small gaps. Whilst they are made up of the same things, when you add them together they form different things which have different properties.

Or an even better way of explaining it. If you have some identical peices of wood. Now, they are all the same, but glue them together in a certain way and you will end up with a cube, which is 3D, rather than 2D (lets not be pedantic at this point). A cube is not a square, its a cube, but its made up of squares.

We can see atoms not in the traditional sense in that I can see the letters I am typing on the screen, but we can see it in different ways. Lets look at the picture below:



This is a flea, its an actual representation of a flea. However, we cannot call this a photograph, a photograph takes an image with light. This was taken with electrons. The electron microscope works by firing a beam of electrons at an image and we then see the image, its all to do with wavelength and resolution. The flea picture, is not a flea as we'd see it with a normal microscope, but its still certainly a flea!

With atoms its a little more complicated. I'm not sure of the exact prodedure. In a particle accelerator we can send two samples whizzing around a giant tube in opposite directions and then collide them together. If two cars crash you get a variety of visible effects. In a similar way we can capture the effects of a collision. As I said, I'm not sure of the exact procedure, I'm not a partical physicist.



Image courtesy of CERN.

What you are looking at now is odd. Its a computer representation of the collisions between a partical and an anti-partical. The lines you see are the paths taken by the various constituents of a particle. The two downward white tracks are Z-particles (pure energy, and the smallest particle we know of today). Ignore the red cuboids, these are used for mathmatical analysis of the images, and that is far beyond my scope. The yellow lines are quarks, which come in six flavours; up, down, spin etc. Other lines are other sub atomic particles such as measons (J p =0}) and baryons ( p =3/2+, 1/2+).

That image you have just seen is very rare and spectacular. This is how we see atoms, but not in a traditional sense. Its incredible!

I admit the forces are totally dependant on Jesus Christ. Have you NOT understood? I think I made myself quite clear. As a Christian I am not trying to invent something that is a replacement of God. That, as we would agree, is foolish. I, however, look at how God works in the world. Secular science requires a lot of faith, something I lack. I cannot have faith in science if God is not at its heart.

Dark matter and energy - very interesting, not something I even try to understand. Dark matter is something we cannot see, but we know its there. Its best to explain it in terms of black holes, because they are far more simple. A black hole has an incredibly massive gravitational pull. So massive in fact that light cannot escape it. So we cannot see it, because we can only see light (we cannot use electrons to see it because an electron microscope requires a vacuum to work or the electrons will hit something thats in the way, distorting the image). So when we observe a particular area of space which has a black hole in it we "see" a huge dark patch, there is no light so we cannot physically OBSERVE a black hole, but we know its there. We can see black holes because of things like, erm, say microwaves or x-rays, that are not pulled in by the black holes gravitational field.

Dark matter and energy is not something I am willing to tackle until you have a sound knowledge of physics. I would no way call myself and expert, but I have sufficient knowledge to understand the concepts.

Hope this helps.

Remember, keep an open mind.

[Talitha]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

I'm not sure of the exact prodedure.
As I said, I'm not sure of the exact procedure,
I'm not a partical physicist.
these are used for mathmatical analysis of the images, and that is far beyond my scope.
I admit the forces are totally dependant on Jesus Christ.
not something I even try to understand.
Dark matter and energy is not something I am willing to tackle until you have a sound knowledge of physics.
I would no way call myself and expert

Not wishing to spoil you in your outbursts of Non-understanding................ but:

The Bible is simple to follow and understand. Even for me as a Woman.
If there is something I don't understand I ask a Pastor.

You don't need a knowledge of Physics just the power of Faith.
I am an expert in my own Faith.

[Joshua Brooks]

Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked

Radiation can be MEASURED with equipment invented by scientists, but we have known about radiation and known its existed before the equipment was developed. Besides, tell victims of Chernobyl or Hiroshima and other such related disasters involving a lot of radiation, that it does not exist.

Oh, so now whenever God smites a sinful people with afflictions that they rightly deserved it is attributed to "radiation"? I guess the Black Plague, the AIDS, cancer, the Great Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, death of every first born in Egypt, and every time Jesus has felt the urge to smite someone within the pages of the Holy Bible KJV 1611 it was all "radiation", right?

A ridiculous concept would be dark sucker theory. I won't bore you with the details, but that is a ridiculous concept.

I'd rather not discuss the theory of the inherent nature of negroidial homosexuality. It really isn't all that ridiculous once you see their women.

Right, how to explain this...Lets put it into a bigger perspective. Electrons are golf balls, protons are basketballs and neutrons are footballs. If you have a single basketball and it is glued to a golf ball you can no longer call it a basketball or a golfball. Its something new.

If you have 6 basketballs, 6 footballs and 12 golfballs glued together, you have something new. Its now much bigger, and so it will be much harder to kick a long distance, it won't be able to fit through small gaps. Whilst they are made up of the same things, when you add them together they form different things which have different properties.

No, it's just a bigger cluster of balls. Your failed attempt to explain the unexplainable has only demonstrated the smaller objects can fit in places that larger objects cannot. When are you going to accept the fact that just because some homosexual scientist tells you something it isn't necessarily true? Water is a light weight clear liquid. Lead is a heavy opaque solid. But they are the made of the same stuff? Riiiiight

Remember, keep an open mind.

Translation: Be willing to believe in the wild theories of man, but not in the Holy Word of the God who created EVERYTHING.