I did not ask for an explanation of quantum mechanics, nor a story about gravitational forces... I asked about the numbers ascribed to the various elements on the periodic table. In one of the opening writings where I mentioned the Chemogenesis website, I also plainly stated that the website did not answer the question in its entirety, and I even had to taunt the members on this forum in assisting me in finding the answer ... Well so far, the Lewis Theory is the only closest answer I have been able to find; and even now, instead of answering that question, you attempt to diminish what I have stated without offering an answer to my questions regarding where those numbers came from. Truly, at the time the periodic table was first developed, there were no high powered microscopes which would allow those extremely close up inspections of the internal operation of substances, as such devices did not exist. Even those of today still have not been able to photograph a single hydrogen atom and show its internal parts. So, without the use of equipment that might have given the author of the periodic table a clue as to what was happening inside that atom, what gave him a notion of what the atom was composed of? The article (website) also relates to the Lewis Theory (which is still operational today) as being a form of Numerology. So instead of sinking to that level of attacking the messenger, why don't you attempt to answer the question that the messenger brought to the table of discussion.
Then you likewise cannot believe in the electron theory. That is why it is still referred to as theory... because, at present time, it cannot be proven... it can only be accepted or rejected.
You're ether misunderstanding (and even then wouldn't be willing to accept a proper explanation) or you know exactly what you're doing and are indeed trolling. There is no actual numerology involved here - that was a throw-away term used by one random website. There have clearly been lot of ideas regarding how atoms actually work, based on observation and hypothesis, many of which don't perfectly fit with further observations.
My whole point is laid out in the emphasized text above. You claim that "based on observation and hypothesis" that even "a lot of ideas regarding how atoms work.." Well, show me where at the time of the first publication of the periodic table, there was an observation of a hydrogen atom. For that matter, show me where in this modern world where there has been an observation of a hydrogen atom. You cannot, because it has not been done. So clearly, the authors of that periodic table violated the rules of science by falsifying their required claim of having 'observed' a hydrogen atom. Example: "The atomic number corresponds to the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom of that element. It also corresponds to the number of electrons in the neutral atom." The atomic number of hydrogen is 1. Without observation, where did that number come from? Clearly, the number did not come from 'observation' of the inner workings of the hydrogen atom. Trolling on my part???? No! Just a wild attempt at rationalization on your part. You are now finding a desperate need to find an excuse or other justification for your continued confidence in those 'magic numbers' that just appeared out of nowhere. Show me documented proof of where those numbers came from. You still have not made any attempt at doing that.
Hold on, are you trying to tell me that you believe evolution has not been proven? Seriously? What about the compressed layers of rock which show how species either became extinct or evolved? Why is our DNA similar to that found in a chimpanzee? I'm not saying we evolved from a chimpanzee, but we certainly share the same ancestor. And what of natural selection?
Do you know how to read? I said 'electron theory': Did not mention 'evolution'. Nice try at a diversion.
Well, doesn't your god love a tryer? lol. The electron theory will become a law in my opinion, from the research i have done into the subject.
Yes! my God does love those that 'try', meaning that He loves you also. As for the electron theory... perhaps one day it will become a "law" of physics... but not until that electron mentioned in the electron theory can be observed. At present, all that is being observed is the effect of what is BELIEVED to be the electron or massive groups of electrons.
It doesn't require direct observation of the atom. Atomic weights were initially established based on the relative masses of compounds (leading to the law of conservation of mass). You can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory as a starting point if you really care. I had to look this up to be sure I was using the right terminology and it took about five minutes so I'm surprised you couldn't do the same.
Applying those same standards {no need of direct observation}, then it can be equally stated that there is no need of any direct observation of God to believe that He is present ... all around us and all through us and in everything that was created. Are you going to continue in that set of double standards? By the way: Where was the information regarding the 'masses' acquired. As an example: I have 1 microgram of pb. How many atoms are required to make that 1 microgram? What you have to do is to first establish the size and weight of a single atom of pb. So where did that number representing the size and weight of a single atom of pb come from? Looking things up in the Bible also takes less than 5 minutes using the internet and the various on-line versions of the Bible. I am surprised that you have not spent as much time (5 minutes) doing any research in the Bible. After all, learning is a life long process... if you doubt me, ask any scientist.
If you can come up with a clear hypothesis about the nature of God and a set of repeatable experiments to support that hypothesis you could establish God as a scientifically demonstrated fact. This is explained in the Wikipedia link. Atomic Weight isn't the weight of a single atom, it's a relative measure between the different elements. It isn't saying a hydrogen atom is 1g and a carbon atom is 12g, it's saying a carbon atom is 12 times heavier than a hydrogen atom. It was established by experimenting with different compounds. For example, if you break down Carbon monoxide (1 part carbon, 1 part oxygen) and carbon dioxide (1 part carbon and 2 parts oxygen) you can establish the relative difference in mass between 1 part of carbon and 1 part of oxygen. What makes you think I've not read the Bible? What does reading the Bible have to do with questions about the history of science? You're asking very basic questions that the answers to are clearly presented in countless places already (I know because I needed to find them to provide clear answers). I'm not really qualified to answer in any more detail but there are plenty of people and sources that could do so much better than I. I can only recommend that you go out and find them (the Wikipedia link remaining a good starting point).
And again, we are back at square one. It is not me or any other Theist that needs a scientific demonstration of the existence of God. We believe and therefore, we KNOW that God exists. It is you and others like you that need that scientific demonstration, so likewise, it is up to you and others like you to provide that scientific demonstration. Have at it. Relativity. One compared to another. OK. Take any of the other elements, where were the numbers originated. In that comparison between one element and another, there is required to be exactly what I stated before,,, A measurement of size and weight of any and all that are subject to that comparison analysis. What weighs more ; a ton of feathers or a ton of coal? a microgram is a microgram... However, because of density, one element will require more space to make a microgram than another element. Thus my question, how many atoms of pb are required to make 1 microgram. The atoms do occupy space (according to the scientists) and they do have weight (according to the scientists) and they therefore do form 'mass'. Where did the numbers come from? That still does not answer the question regarding the weight of a single atom of pb, its size, or the number of protons and electrons occupying the space that is restricted to that one atom. Where are those numbers and where did those numbers come from? Just a hunch. What does the questions about science have to do with whether or not God exists? If those answers are so prominently placed within our society then give me a hand and show me where they are at. Remember, this whole discussion started out with a question from me. I am seeking an answer and so far, you and all the other wannabe scientists on this forum either cannot or refuse to give the answer to my question in a manner that will satisfy my 'scientific' curiosity. I specify 'scientific curiosity' because when it comes to matters of science, I also demand empirical evidence of the claims made. The claims made by the periodic table are definitive numbers associated with the various elements... right on down to the number of protons and electrons within an element. Where were those numbers obtained? Those component parts of an atom cannot be seen (observed) so how is the initial count of those component parts accomplished?
I don't need anything regarding the existence of God - I'm comfortable with not knowing either way. You suggested a hypothesis for God should have the same principals applied to it as atomic theory and I suggested how that could be (theoretically) achieved. I honestly don't know. You've exhausted my implicit knowledge of the subject and I'm bored with looking up stuff you're perfectly capable of looking up yourself (though I'd suggest a decent academic text book rather than relying on websites). I've no idea, I didn't bring them up. You were demanding answers to your scientific questions and I felt sorry for you that you weren't getting any response so gave it a go. I still think you're trolling to a certain extent though.
No! You suggested a hypothesis for God. All I have been seeking is an answer to the questions that I have posed regarding the magic numbers that suddenly appeared out of nowhere to accommodate the scientific community in their design of the periodic table. Your theoretical approach does not constitute proof. Then by admitting that you don't know in response to those questions, then your trust, confidence, reliance, faith in such teachings as are presented by the scientific community is an exercise in ignorance and blind faith. You have served your purpose in demonstrating why all the others have failed to give response. They too are ignorantly and through blind faith accepting those fairy tales of science as being fact, when they have no proof of the stories that are told. The religion of science has a hold on their minds.... The old religion of alchemy.... revitalized in this new world under differing names (branches of science) that attempt to hide the truth of their nature; and the old religions that incorporated such practices as numerology. Way to go guys... and gals.
Try reading the whole sentence - neither of us suggested a hypothesis. You said the same principal could be applied to the existence of God as is applied to atomic theory and I agreed, on the condition that all the other scientific principals were also applied. Not entirely blind but there is an element of trust in the people and processes. It is supported by actual achievements though - they've not just said "It works like this" but have also gone on to produce things on the back of those theories. I guess the entire scientific community could have been lying to us for a couple of hundred years but I see no reason to assume they are. I have a similar faith that the people who built my house followed all the necessary regulations so it won't fall down and the people who fixed my car did what they claimed and it won't blow up on the motorway. To be honest, trusting theoretical physicists is the least of my worries. It isn't as if atomic numbers form a guide for every decision in my life, a fundamental basis for my morality or how I interact with other people. Anyway, you've yet to demonstrate that the information you're seeking isn't available - that there isn't any scientific support for atomic numbers. Just because I've trusted what I've been told doesn't mean you have to. Of course, that assumes you're honestly interested in finding out. Or they suspected that you would take any answer and respond exactly like this. You had this conclusion set in stone and had no intention of taking the line of questioning in any other direction.
Problem no. 1: Make a prediction so that your god can be observed. And that's only problem number one. Oh, and if I may add a small prediction of my own concerning your prediction: You will find that it doesn't matter one little bit whether the observation is direct or indirect; what matters is that the observation must be discernable from any arbitrary explanation.
That is an unrealistic demand for a prediction. Why? 'Arbitrary explanation'. Meaning that regardless of the prediction, you would be able to say any arbitrary thing to refute the prediction. "arbitrary Arbitrary describes something that is determined by judgment or whim and not for any specific reason or rule. (adjective) An example of an arbitrary decision would be a decision to go to the beach, just because you feel like it. An example of arbitrary behavior would be getting mad at someone even when they haven't done anything wrong."
Meaning that regardless of the predicted occurrence, you're still stuck in the same place as you were before making a prediction. And no, it is not an unrealistic demand, it is the ONLY demand for prediction. If any arbitrary explanation fits a prediction then the prediction has no worth. If you predict an earthquake will happen because someone has pee'd on your godbeliefs and the earthquake does indeed occur then any arbitrary explanation will do just as well as yours, making your prediction absolutely worthless. How can you know it didn't occur because someone insulted Shiva. Perhaps it's because Mars was aligned with Uranus some time during the last decade. Whats your argument? Maybe Zeus was shagging Afrodite? Who can tell? If you want to make a prediction to support X then you have to make sure that it actually supports X, not A, B, C or D. And if it's a good one then it doesn't matter one bit if it represents an indirect or a direct observation of X.
Your statement above proves the point that your daddy is the devil.. the father of lies... 'any arbitrary prediction' means that you would resort to fabricating any intentional lie just to prove a point. Hello LIAR. BTW: Quit telling lies...
I am surprised you did not catch my error FW. So since you did not catch it, then I will correct it by posting again what you said and then emphasize the correction that I am making. My previous response was supposed to have read in relevant part "any arbitrary explanation": All other text from my previous post would remain the same, correcting only that one phrase.
The relevance of my input in this thread, is that you cannot refute my claims made on this thread pertaining to the origination of the numbers on the periodic table of element by showing any valid empirical evidence to counter my claims. Those numbers are sheer imagination, and the Lewis Theory (still taught today) is based on ancient religions that utilized numerology.
Hello pseudoscientists (wannabe scientists): Where is the evidence that the numbers on the original periodic table were not (and still are not) anything more than imagination at work or the practice of numerology?
It seems that this ultimate truth about modern day science and its roots is a bit much for many of you to swallow. I will have to conclude that your silence on the subject is in FACT an absolute acquiescence to the claims that have been made. Thus rendering science to be nothing more than another branch of those religions of olden days, being disguised with the more modern sophistry (labels generated by intellectualism) to make the religion to appear more appealing while attempting to hide its true nature.
