[geocentrism] Re: Atoms & Electrons
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:16:05 +0000 (GMT)
Jack L
Jack, you really need to think about what is happening here. You do not know or
understand atoms. If you did you would not ask an open question to a general
audience. It also follows that you are not capable of assessing the reliability
of any answers you might receive. My answer was from memory of superficial
knowledge only and one of Philip's posts contained comments you should ponder.
If you use this information to illustrate a creationist book on geology, then
it will in all probability at some time in the future be quoted or cited as
irrefutable and incontrovertible evidence of the falsity of mainstream science
knowledge.
I think you must be able to see that this is true. Given that you can, and
having an inside knowledge of how such 'irrefutable and incontrovertible
evidence' comes into existence, just what confidence can you then place in the
existing creationist reference material? And will you be including caveats
concerning the reliability of the data you will be presenting together with the
manner in which those data were obtained?
It wasn't that I meant to insult you, but I rather thought that you might have
gained a somewhat different meaning from my post -- at least as regards the
last point.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 7 February, 2008 10:48:50 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Atoms & Electrons
Thanks for the info Paul it was really appreciated.
I realise nobody has ever seen one but I have to observe current convention and
illustrate what has been asked for. Incidentally the illustration is one of a
total 69 that I'm doing for a new creationist book about geology.
Some scientists have lied but most postulate or theorize when they don't know
the answer. Is this a technical way to cover-up a lie? I suppose the difference
is between knowing the theory is wrong because the alternative is unthinkable
and believing the theory to be right in spite of the unthinkable.
Jack
Paul Deema wrote:
Jack L
The number of electrons equals the number of protons (unless it's ionised).
The number of neutrons depends upon whether it's an isotope (and which isotope).
The number of electron orbits depends upon which element you're talking about
(and from memory, something to do with energy levels such as in hydrogen where
there is only one electron but in one of two orbits). The number of electrons
in each orbit depends upon which element you're talking about and on the
maximum number which can fit in that orbit.
You could do worse than go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom and do a quick
self-help exercise. (If that's not enough detail, the article has 119
references plus many embedded links).
But why bother? It's all the work of those lying scientists and no one has ever
seen one, so they probably don't exist anyway.
Paul D
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
Other related posts:
