camanintx
Well-Known Member
Another pigeon flies the coop.Good lock........!
BY from...............................!
THE CUP
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The dishonesty of creationists.
- Thread starter tumbleweed41
- Start date
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
I wonder what "you folks" you're talking about.PAINTED WOLF i HAVE A LAST WORD FOR YOU...!
OK........
If you say so; however, everything relative to the explained evidence throughout all efforts HERE ON THESE POSTING BOARDS comes from OTHER people who have a much deeper KIND OF hold and understanding on many of the subject matters you yourself and others have stated and also used bash my postings here, from the start. I simply called attention to recorded historical records, one can find but you folks can't seem to research it for yourselves.
But, I'll take your so called "warnings" to heart here and here is mine: I leave and let you folks go all about your own more often angury and confused ways, through life...? It's your choices, just as my choices are all mine. that you or no other person here can bash me over...!
To be honest, of all of my travels around the world I found you folks are perhaps the absolute most self centered and most unsocialized people I think I have ever come in contact with, But I do have to say this in the favor of the majority of the people here, many here are very good (better than me) at bashing people's belief system, using with your unfounded understandings and weaken belief system; and the major portion of this board is better than me at judging others, although wrongly...!
Good lock........!
BY from...............................!
THE CUP
I was trying to do you a favor so you wouldn't get banned...
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Well, don't let them make you discount evolution just because you don't like their attitudes.
I'm not an expert on Human Evolution (I've only got my Bachelors) but, I know enough of the basics to have a decent understanding of the subject.
I know enough to caution you about some of your sources... They may seem like godly men, but deception often cloaks itself in righteousness.
wa:do
ps... I'm also a theist and I can speak first hand to the compatibility of faith in God and acceptance of scientific knowledge.
All those closed-minded damn Newtonist, Gaussian and Shroedingerite!
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Atoms are theoretical models and the way they behave is all based on math.... no one has ever seen one.
wa:do
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Atoms are theoretical models and the way they behave is all based on math.... no one has ever seen one.
wa:do
Actually, there are devices that image them. It is called an atomic force microscope.
I saw an image in which atoms had been shoved around to spell a word.
That's beyond the point. The million dollar argument is that "I have not seen them with my bare eyes"
Looncall
Well-Known Member
That's beyond the point. The million dollar argument is that "I have not seen them with my bare eyes"
Ah, bare eyes. OK. There are lots of things that we cannot access with bare senses, but they exist all the same.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Exactly... and even with the most powerful scope, we still can't see any detail about the atom. Which is why we have so many theoretical models of what they look like (ie. electron cloud model).
Yet today we all accept the existence of them. Creationists don't bother with the existence of atoms anymore (unless it's relation to YEC).
wa:do
Looncall
Well-Known Member
As a chemist, i would be interested to hear of these different models. I have been under the impression that atoms are pretty well understood. I seem to remember doing lots of pretty accurate calculations about them as an undergrad almost 40 years ago.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
You've never heard of the Rutherford, Thomson, Bohr or Electron Cloud models for atoms?
Thomson's model is also called the "plum pudding" model... which is just cute.
All of them allow for accurate predictions... that's why they are all still in use. But the actual totally fun reality of atoms is that they don't actually seem to fit any of the models exclusively.
wa:do
Looncall
Well-Known Member
You've never heard of the Rutherford, Thomson, Bohr or Electron Cloud models for atoms?
Thomson's model is also called the "plum pudding" model... which is just cute.
All of them allow for accurate predictions... that's why they are all still in use. But the actual totally fun reality of atoms is that they don't actually seem to fit any of the models exclusively.
wa:do
There is some nice history here, but all still in use? Can you steer us to some current examples?
I do recognize the Rutherford description, which is only really concerned with the scale of the nucleus, and the diagram with the orbitals is familiar.
In a sense there is no 'correct' atomic model (disclaimer: not promoting academic wishy-washyism). An atom doesn't 'look' like any of those...supposing that quantum mechanics is right, it's just a bunch of wavefunctions (or vectors in some abstract space) that give you certain results depending on what measurements/experiments you perform on it.
David M
Well-Known Member
And by not attributing the statements to their actual authors you have committed plagiarism, which is against the rules of the forum.
I suggest that you edit you post to properly show the original authors for any statements not made by yourself.
