[EmmaSea]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

Hello, you were saying how there isn't an atomic microscope or pictures of atoms around? Please Google it! Or visit your local library, or look it up in any appropriate resource.

Here are some links (the last nasa one is slightly less magnified, i just thought it was interesting ot get that perspective too )

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17699-microscopes-zoom-in-on-molecules-at-last.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020120050.htm

http://gizmodo.com/5346964/ibm-takes-first-3d-image-of-atomic-bonds

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/press/AFM_Tips.html

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

Hello, you were saying how there isn't an atomic microscope or pictures of atoms around? Please Google it! Or visit your local library, or look it up in any appropriate resource.

Here are some links (the last nasa one is slightly less magnified, i just thought it was interesting ot get that perspective too )

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17699-microscopes-zoom-in-on-molecules-at-last.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020120050.htm

http://gizmodo.com/5346964/ibm-takes-first-3d-image-of-atomic-bonds

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ph.../AFM_Tips.html

Those are all secular websites, hosted by satan.

We rely on God's LITERAL Word.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

Hello, you were saying how there isn't an atomic microscope or pictures of atoms around? Please Google it! Or visit your local library, or look it up in any appropriate resource.

Here are some links (the last nasa one is slightly less magnified, i just thought it was interesting ot get that perspective too )

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17699-microscopes-zoom-in-on-molecules-at-last.html

U

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020120050.htm

http://gizmodo.com/5346964/ibm-takes-first-3d-image-of-atomic-bonds

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ph.../AFM_Tips.html

And none of those organizations have a vested interest in lying to you and making stuff up that just ain't so in order to get gullible people to cough up taxes? Critical thinking isn't your strong point, right?

You really ought to not blindly trust in what authority figures tell you.

[Didymus Much]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

Hello, you were saying how there isn't an atomic microscope or pictures of atoms around? Please Google it!...

Please try understanding what you read.

These are not "microscopes" in the traditional sense, and they do not yield "pictures", per se, so much as (for want of a better word in English) "visualizations".

The problem when you get down to tiny scales, such as these instruments deal with, is that the wavelengths of visual light are so much larger than what you're trying to see. Where a classic (film) photograph is composed of a record of chemical interactions between photons (which the human eye can detect) reflected from a surface and photosensitive chemicals coating a polymer substrate, and digital photographs record the arrival of photons on a CCD (charge-coupled device) detector, electron microscopes bombard the target a beam of high-energy electrons and record the deflection caused to that beam by whatever it hits. Because this beam can be focused much more narrowly than the shortest wavelength of visible light, you can use them to investigate the structure of much smaller things, but you are not "seeing" them so much as seeing a "map" of the effect they have on a beam of electrons.

This new generation of "atomic force microscopes" go one step beyond that, even. They measure the force between the target and the detection tip. Imagine an old-style record player where the stylus doesn't even touch the record (it actually can't, at these scales, due to the Van der Waal's force). It's kind of like two really tiny magnets that can't touch each other, but you can use one to detect the presence of the other due to the repulsion between them. The "pictures" in the articles you linked are reconstructed maps of those forces, NOT PICTURES OF ATOMS OR MOLECULES, but that's what they call them rather than taking the time to properly explain these things to the (usually not very smart) reporters who call them and just want a "cool" story about the fancy new gizmo.

[speedyburp]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

I was unable to keep from laughing at the idiocy of this passage. I seriously hope this is a spoof, but sadly I doubt it. Can you guys really be denying this? If you deny the scientific fact that your God doesn't exist I suppose it's not that much harder to just deny everything that science has ever discovered.

Please Christians, read some science. It will do you good. Anyway, why shouldn't you read books that you think are evil? You guys have so much blind faith that all the logic in the world won't make you think there is no God. really if there was actually a God and you truly believed it you would be able to read any of these books and just not be philosophically effected at all. The only thing you risk from not looking at the ideas of others is being correct. If you actually acknowledge that you might not be correct then we will all learn - other religions have followers just as faithful as you, so how do you know they're wrong? I know I don't know everything, but I know your God doesn't exist.

[speedyburp]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

Try applying the same advice to yourself. You don't know you're right. Anyway, if pi=3 then... hmm. Things aren't looking too good for logic. pi isn't 3, pi is about the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference, and the ratio needed isn't 3.

Imagine a circle cut into wedges, laid end on end in a rectangle shape, the radius of the circle down one side, the outer edge of the circle down the perpendicular sides. The length of the radius is r, the length of the sides made up of edge segments of the circle are pi times r. pi isn't 3, It's about 3.415 or something. ( I don't know the exact value but it ain't three)

The claims I come across on this site just get more and more ridiculous. Your God is this much of a bitch with evidence that, even if somehow you're right, I wouldn't worship him for allowing this evidence to even exist. Any intelligent person will refute the things you say that are mathematically and physically incorrect. (I also wouldn't worship God for allowing so many natural disasters and sending people to hell and stuff. I won't worship out of fear, I will do what I KNOW is morally right, not what God says is morally right. I'd rather go to hell to be tortured than live eternity with a psycho called Yaweh)

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

*** blah blah blah the scientific fact that your God doesn't exist blah blah blah ***

Please link to a peer-reviewed and published scientific paper that unequivocally proves that God does not exist.

You have one hour.

Yours in Christ,

Z. Smyth

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

Please link to a peer-reviewed and published scientific paper that unequivocally proves that God does not exist.

You have one hour.

Yours in Christ,

Z. Smyth

Ten hours later....

.... still waiting for this scientific proof.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Ten hours later....

.... still waiting for this scientific proof.

Jesus-haters aren't known for their punctuality. I'm glad I have God guiding my way!

(Proverbs 16:9) "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps."



YiC,

Zech

[Joshua Iglecias]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

How can gravity be false? I just don't understand.

[Didymus Much]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

How can gravity be false? I just don't understand.

It's covered in the OP. Did you have English problems? Landover does not provide translation services, but you're welcome to try Google Translate.

[IBelieveInMyself]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

Interesting way to look at it I must say. Did you actually go into space yourself or did you just read or hear about it? For now I will assume you read or heard about it. What makes you say that what you read or heard about space travel is true yet what is in God's Holy Bible is false? Would it not be far more logical to assume it is the other way around?

Interesting way to look at it I must say. Did you meet anyone from the bible, like jesus, noah, adam etc, or did you just read or hear about it ? For now I will assume you read or hear about it. What makes you say that what you read or heard about jesus is true yet what science hold as evidence is false ? Would it not be more logical to assume it is the other way around ?

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

Interesting way to look at it I must say. Did you meet anyone from the bible, like jesus, noah, adam etc, or did you just read or hear about it ? For now I will assume you read or hear about it. What makes you say that what you read or heard about jesus is true yet what science hold as evidence is false ? Would it not be more logical to assume it is the other way around ?

For True Christians(tm), the Bible is evidence. But thank you for admitting that science is on such shaky ground!

[Kewlcat]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

For True Christians™, the Bible is evidence. But thank you for admitting that science is on such shaky ground!

I can most definitely vouch for the 'shaky ground' that science is on. As an ex-atheist, I learnt a lot about science, and now that I have realised the error of my ways, and accepted Christianity, I look back and see how silly 99% of science is.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: The 10 worstly mistaken fields of secular science!

For True Christians™, the Bible is evidence. But thank you for admitting that science is on such shaky ground!

I think of it like a tree, Mr Smyth.

For things we need to work out for ourselves, evidence is necessary. For example if were preparing food for The Pastors, a pie to share perhaps, I might ask them what they fancied. Beef maybe, or pork. For me that would be evidence but if I told you what they said that would not be evidence for you because they told me and I told you what I heard them say, which is hearsay and that is not evidence.

Some things do not require evidence. Like if I accidently slip over and slide down a muddy bank and bounce off a tree I don't have to work out if I'm in pain.

Sometimes people query whether God is a "substance" or whether His gifts are real. The gift of Salvation is particularly questioned by heathens who simply want to sin away their lives, with no hope for the future and instant gratification their only objective (although if it's instant it can't really be an objective but they don't know that because their logic has been warped by false beliefs).

HEBREWS 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
KJV .. context

God has explained that faith is evidence, the substance of things hoped for. That is how we know they are real. Secular science applies "rules of evidence" to realms far beyond any need for proof. God encourages us to use the reason He created:

ISAIAH 1
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
KJV .. look up

That does not mean applying reason inappropriately. Trying to work out whether I am in pain, say, or born wretched in sin. Which brings me back to the tree. At the top we have God. Next we have His Revealed Word, through which He speaks directly to each one of us. Lower down there are questions for which evidence is required, such as what to cook for The Pastors in my example, and at the bottom things which aren't even questions.

O
G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D

\ | /
The Bible
|
|
evidence
|
|
|
|
|
|
the
obvious

By reason we know that our sins, although scarlet, shall be white as snow. The existence of sin in the first place belongs to a higher category, we are informed of this fact in The Bible. We know that ours is no forlorn hope because of evidence & it is substantial evidence: Faith.

Not all evidence is a substance. The Holy Ghost witnesses in the world today and is first hand evidence for The Apostles, for Peter, for me and also first hand evidence for everyone else. This isn't some idea I've just cooked up; Peter was familiar with the concept in the 1st century as he explains here:

ACTS 5
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
KJV .. context

How does this equate with the testimony of The Holy Ghost being direct evidence for all from God and thus belonging to the top stratum of the tree of evidence? God explains this in easy-to-understand terms as follows:

HEBREWS 10
14 By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
KJV .. context

God Himself interacts directly with our hearts and minds. He says so Himself. Anything contradicting Him is therefore false, especially in matters of so-called "scientific investigation" and opinion is altogether unnecessary to demonstrate that. God has explained how some of the world works in The Bible. Comments from geologists and astrologers, geneticists and evolutionary biologists or the wild speculations of nuclear physics and philology are completely unnecessary.

The evidence is in and they are all wrong.