Talk:Atom

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)