Talk:Atom

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is over atoms. Atoms are theory, not a fact. Information presented in this article should be critically interpreted and taken with an open mind. There are true challenges to this debated theory including the intelligent matter theory. Comment by User: Garklieo

This entry clearly illustrates the inconsistency of the Conservapedia approach to science. The theory of evolution, which has an enormous range of experimental and observational support is reported skeptically. But the theory of quarks (QCD) is reported as simple fact though it has little experimental support. It would be easy to fill the page with quotes from quark skeptics at major universities as they do with evolution.

Who are the quark skeptics? I never heard of any serious dispute about the theory of quarks. RSchlafly 13:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
[1] [2]
I couldn't find anyone contradicting basic quark theory. A 1981 paper seemed to want to address some philosophical issues, I'm not sure. The 2003 story said that some observation was 10% different from what was expected, but no one is doubting quarks. Quark theory is rock solid science. (So is most of evolution, but that is for another page.) RSchlafly 23:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Most elementary particle physicists believe there are elements of truth in the quark model but none of them think its completely correct. The most serious criticisms are that (i) it has very few new experimental verifications, (ii) it is not renormalizable (the mathematics behind it don't really make sense), and (iii) it is inconsistent with Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity).
However, you and I both know that if there were something in the Bible contradicting quark theory, there would be a "Discovery Institute" dedicated to debunking it. Anyone expressing any reservations (such as lamenting the lack of experimental data) would be dragged out as a hero of the opposition.
Sure, the standard model needs extended. So did Newtonian mechanics and SR. It's still rock solid in its domain of application. The part about lack of experimental verification is about as wrong as it could be; basically every particle physics experiment involving hadrons generates vast quantities of data supporting the quark model. Tsumetai 10:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
The anonymous comment is wrong on every count. QCD is renormalizable. Bible quotes about quarks would have no effect on the Discovery Institute. RSchlafly 12:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I misspoke (miswrote?). QCD is renormalizable but the need for renormalization indicates that the theory has fundamental mathematical problems. Read Feynman on this point, for example. You might like the experimental support for quark models, but observational support for evolution is ten times stronger. You insist on calling evolution "just a theory" but have no problem saying the quark model is a fact. Are you seriously saying that the funders of the Discovery Institute are not motivated by religion? Are you seriously saying that they are scientists who happen to have a different opinion about evolution? -Lgm
You are getting way off-topic here. I have no problem saying evolution is a fact. I don't know who funds the Discovery Institute, and I wouldn't try to read their minds anyway. I am not saying that those funders are scientists; they probably are not. They do seem to have a different opinion about evolution, but so what? They are entitled to their opinions. And none of this has anything to do with atoms. RSchlafly 21:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
It may have nothing to do with atoms, but it has much to do with the conservapedia. Sometimes they dredge up uncertainty where there is none (evolution). In other places, they report more certainty than there is (quarks).
At the level of support the central theories of modern science enjoy, I'm not entirely sure attempting to rank them in terms of strength is even particularly meaningful. Tsumetai 11:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


Biblical Discussion

I don't see why the Bible quote was removed; it is a direct statement from the Bible on the nature of matter. Tomservo 07:00, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

As a general rule, I'd get RSchlafy's ok first before putting the information back in. It is unclear God is specifically directing that verse towards the atom or that all people of faith would necessarily take that position. Learn together 08:45, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Sure, I will remember that next time. Thanks! Tomservo 11:03, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
I think that the Bible quote is silly in this context. Are you trying to say that Christians don't believe in gluons? Can you point to some source that uses that Bible quote to help explain which particles are held together and which are not? RSchlafly 11:53, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp AngusF 16:18, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Theory, not fact

I have tried to make mention of the point that theories are by definition not facts but for some reason I have been told not to point out on the article page that atoms are just a theory. Can anyone please explain the discrepancy? I want to flesh out the Christian perspective of the "theory" of atoms the same way it is done on the evolution page. There are real objections to this "theory" and I don't see why you won't allow equal time for both points of view to be expressed. I don't mean to be rude but Genesis clearly says Adam was made out of dirt and sand, yet that is clearly contradictory to this "theory" of the atoms. How do I go about obtaining permission to place a Christian section in this article? I can use the talk or a sandbox first if you like. Thank you. --Stephlieze 18:45, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

You've been blocked many times for this same edit, under different user names, establishing the fact that you'd rather be a liar. Atoms are fact, not theory; theories don't photograph at all. We would all appreciate the fact that you don't come back. Karajou 19:16, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
Adam is made of dirt and sand, but nowhere does the Bible say that dirt and sand aren't made up of atoms. So... what's the problem exactly? HelpJazz 17:43, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
This is an interesting one and something that is heard quite a lot in many other debates such as evolution. Things can be both fact and theory. Take gravity, for example. Gravity is a fact. It exists. If it didn't... well, you know.
But there are theories of gravity. At the moment, it is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity that explains it; before that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
Atoms exist, of that there is fundamentally no doubt. But there are various theories that explain what atoms are, how they are made up, how they react, etc.
Fact and theory.
Hope that helps. Ajkgordon 11:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Unfortunately, there seems to be no such thing as "intelligent matter theory," which is what this guy keeps trying to add to the article under different usernames. HelpJazz 19:27, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Personal tools