[ChurchLighteningRod]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

I'm not the one claiming molecules exist. Semi-conductors exist, I admit that. Where did I ever say I could build one?

Well, I believe your logic goes something like this;

I don't believe in atoms. (Or molecules, radios, bats, etc.)

So, well, says I, how come this computer works (given that scientists came up with the idea of the semiconductor through using atomic theory) if atomic theory is wrong? You said something like,

I don't need no scientists telling me how semiconductors work, I can buy them and plug them in.

So, well, this is missing the point. I'm asking how you could make a computer work, without using the atomic theory of matter. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that my computer works is proof a plenty that the atomic theory is right. I'm asking for you to prove me wrong.

[Deaner]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

So, well, this is missing the point. I'm asking how you could make a computer work, without using the atomic theory of matter. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that my computer works is proof a plenty that the atomic theory is right. I'm asking for you to prove me wrong.

I don't have to prove you wrong; you have to prove yourself right. All you've done is show blurry pictures of God knows what and link to some obscure scientific hooey. You've done nothing but sit on your ass like you know it all. You will rot in hell.

[ChurchLighteningRod]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

I don't have to prove you wrong; you have to prove yourself right. All you've done is show blurry pictures of God knows what and link to some obscure scientific hooey. You've done nothing but sit on your ass like you know it all. You will rot in hell.

Firstly, I'm not sure that belief in atoms grants me a guaranteed pass to hell. But if it does, then I'll happily rot for eternity, although I'm not sure that's possible.

Like I said, I think the fact that this computer works is proof that I'm right. Your turn.

[Deaner]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

Like I said, I think the fact that this computer works is proof that I'm right. Your turn.

The fact that your computer works or anything else works for that matter is proof that God exists. Your turn.

[ChurchLighteningRod]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

The fact that your computer works or anything else works for that matter is proof that God exists. Your turn.

Okay, so build me a computer out of cardboard, and pray for God to make it work. I'm guessing it doesn't load Windows Vista quite so fast.

[Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S.]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

Okay, so build me a computer out of cardboard, and pray for God to make it work. I'm guessing it doesn't load Windows Vista quite so fast.

I can't believe I'm having to quote such a passage of the Bible that is nearly as ubiquitous as the homosexuality verses, but here goes:

16 Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. It's one of the most important verses in the Bible!

[ChurchLighteningRod]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

I can't believe I'm having to quote such a passage of the Bible that is nearly as ubiquitous as the homosexuality verses, but here goes:




Seems pretty straightforward to me. It's one of the most important verses in the Bible!

The point wasn't really that I was asking for a God test (although, just out of interest, what exactly counts as testing God, and what happens if we do test Him? They did that prayer testing http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/ in New York, and I don't remember a locust plague, or anything like that). What I really want is some kind of argument for this idea that the atomic theory of matter is incorrect. The piece of evidence that I was using (although there are loads and loads more), was the fact that our computers are clearly working. I want to know how you can get round this?

[Remy Lebeau]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

A Naphthalocyanine molecule image taken with an electron microscope (works on the same principles as an optical microscope)

You do know how a optical microscope works right? No, of course you don't. Otherwise, you would not have made such an ignorant and idiotic statement.

Let's take a closer look at the atomic model.

You have a tini tiny proton/neutron combo which we will call the nucleus. Orbiting this are even smaller electrons. The distance between a nucleus and the electrons, relative to our own concept of distance, is 10 miles. With that in mind, in order to take a picture of a complete atom(much less a so-called molecule) you would have to be "far enough way" to take a picture from "20 miles way"(note the diameter).

So let's imagine a flat barren dessert. A basketball and a soccer ball are glued together. 10 miles from these two there is a marble. What do you think that picture is going to look like from the satellite up in orbit? My guess would be a 20 miles of flat barren dessert and nothing more. You're not going to be able to see the marble or basket/soccer ball.

Oh, did I mention the marble is zipping around the basket/soccer ball so fast that the human eye cannot perceive it and no one can predict where it will go next?

So explain to be how you are going to capture the image of a molecule which would be equivalent to spotting basketballs and marbles within an image consisting of hundreds of miles of dessert?

: http://www.vladimirpetkovic.com/blog...8/22262wss.jpg (NOT A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE)

Yes, it is a computer image, numbnuts. And they wouldn't be perfectly distinct spheres either because the electrons would be shared by the various nucleus, idiot.

But I guess some of you don't believe in microscopes...Really, you do make me giggle (not with you),

Giggling is for girls, faggot.

Also, a quick thought on your `proof' against the atomic model: Yes, matter is made out of different re-arrangements of the same things (protons, neutrons and electrons) - but why should a different arrangement have the same properties? Butter, cheese, and cream are all made from exactly the same thing, but you wouldn't make coffee and put cheese in it. Well, maybe some of you do...

Electrons, protons, and neutrons. That only allows for 3 possible substances. Therefore, the atomic theory is incorrect. Your analogy is nonsense and pure idiocy.

Also, you may not know this, but the computer you are using to read this message was built by scientists using the atomic model in it's most explicit and sophisticated form. If the atomic model was wrong, the computer wouldn't work...

There is no such thing as an atom, my computer works; Therefore, your assertion is wrong.

You don't honestly think you can match wits with me, a Master Debater, do you?

[ChurchLighteningRod]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

You don't honestly think you can match wits with me, a Master Debater, do you?

An interesting style of argument.

First: Tell me please, where the milk/cream/cheese argument goes wrong. If we're talking nonsense, then I'd say comparing a marble/basketball combo to the fundamental strucure of matter gets you a good way there, don't you think?

There's no shame in a giggle - and what is it with this forum and talking about being gay? If you're so anti-gay why do you go on about it so much?

If you read the full article: http://www.vladimirpetkovic.com/blog...d-transistors/ and look at the caption underneath, it says quite clearly ``actual electron microscope image''. So unless IBM are compulsive liars (not in their interest, really, having to sell stuff and all), I'd say that it wasn't computer generated. I've seen many pictures like it, and looked through the `eyepieces' of these microscopes, and, yes, I've seen the molecules.

The white blobs you can see are the atoms (which make up the molecules), the resolution of the microscope is not good enough to pick out the individual electrons, protons and neutrons, so you just see the blur of the outer electrons whizzing about outside the nucleus. This is similar to when the writing on road signs in the distance looks grey and blob-like - your eyes don't have good enough resolution.

This is the strangest argument I've ever read,

There's no such thing as an atom + my computer works = the computer can't possibly work by using atoms!

But it was made using the principles of atomic physics! Tell me how it does work, if atoms don't exist...

[Star Finder]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

all this atom stuff is just gibberish....

when is the LHC going to shorten my travel time between the stars? I mean what else would it be good for? right now it takes me several days to travel, and when I return I always find myself on the floor behind the couch!

Will this LHC make the trip faster and I want to be SEATED ON THE COUCH when I return....

who is in charge of this thing?

[Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S.]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

You don't honestly think you can match wits with me, a Master Debater, do you?

I can support this claim! I've never seen someone toy with his opponents with such care for detail. He will tease them and tug them around for a good length of time, until just the right moment when he will kick it into another gear and come with the good stuff in a veritable shower of information. I suggest you get some Kleenex to clean yourself up when he's done with you!

[Krank]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

I'm curious.

What does God believe makes up things in the world.

For example, rocks. What are rocks made of according to God?

Is there a part of the bible that i can read to learn more about this topic?

[Talitha]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

I'm curious.

What does God believe makes up things in the world.

For example, rocks. What are rocks made of according to God?

Is there a part of the bible that i can read to learn more about this topic?

Are you REALLY so stupid?
Rocks are made of ROCK, that's why they are called Rocks.
God doesn't have to explain everything in detail just for the benefit of Hellbound Scientists.

[Teflon©]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

Are you REALLY so stupid?
Rocks are made of ROCK, that's why they are called Rocks.
God doesn't have to explain everything in detail just for the benefit of Hellbound Scientists.

Actually, a rock isn't made out of rock, it can be made out of various materials like iron ore, silica's or numerous other substances.

And concerning the Atoms, would those who oppose that theory provide a model of how things are build up if there aren't any atoms? (and please, no quotes or some guy on a youtube video but really a model)

[Remy Lebeau]

Re: THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER - SATAN'S STARGATE!

An interesting style of argument.

First: Tell me please, where the milk/cream/cheese argument goes wrong.

The existence of milk, cream and cheese only proves the existence of milk, cream and cheese. They do not validate atomic theory.

If we're talking nonsense, then I'd say comparing a marble/basketball combo to the fundamental strucure of matter gets you a good way there, don't you think?

Well, the basket/soccer ball represents a proton/neutron nucleus. The marble represents an electron. The 20 mile diameter represents the electron field. Are you by chance a retarded?

Would you rather I added more realism by using a grain of salt to represent the electron? Or are you admitting that the atomic model is nonsense?

There's no shame in a giggle - and what is it with this forum and talking about being gay? If you're so anti-gay why do you go on about it so much?

If flamboyant homersexsurals like yourself didn't come here flaunting your abominable debaucheries lifestyle choice, we wouldn't have to rebuke you, now would we?

If you read the full article: http://www.vladimirpetkovic.com/blog...d-transistors/ and look at the caption underneath, it says quite clearly ``actual electron microscope image''. So unless IBM are compulsive liars (not in their interest, really, having to sell stuff and all), I'd say that it wasn't computer generated. I've seen many pictures like it, and looked through the `eyepieces' of these microscopes, and, yes, I've seen the molecules.

How can I make this any more simpler for your less-than-negroidial intellect? An atom is supposedly 99.9% empty space. Using the "20 mile model" it would be physically impossible to spot a marble and a basketball in a satellite photo covering a 10 mile radius. Did the doctor drop you on your head when you were born?

The white blobs you can see are the atoms (which make up the molecules), the resolution of the microscope is not good enough to pick out the individual electrons, protons and neutrons, so you just see the blur of the outer electrons whizzing about outside the nucleus. This is similar to when the writing on road signs in the distance looks grey and blob-like - your eyes don't have good enough resolution.

So where are the other molecules? If physical matter is composed of molecules then shouldn't that picture be a sheet of white blobs? How can you isolate a single molecule in what should be a jumble of blobs? Even the air is made of atoms according to your scientists. I think you've just been caught in a lie, son.

Come on, if the very microscope is made of atoms how can you possible use it to see other atoms? Wouldn't it magnify its own lens? How gullible can you be?

This is the strangest argument I've ever read,

There's no such thing as an atom + my computer works = the computer can't possibly work by using atoms!

If atoms don't exist then nothing can work by using atoms... because they don't exist! duh!!! You are definitely 12 cans short of a 12 pack.

But it was made using the principles of atomic physics! Tell me how it does work, if atoms don't exist...

Lightning, force and pull. God created energy. God created metal. God created all matter. Metal is made of metal. Water is made of water. The Lord changes and recreates as He sees fit. It's that simple. Stop trying to complicate things. I thought you atheists were fans of Occam's Razor.