Re: GOD and ATOM...Nobody has seen them and everybody says it's present.

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 09/07/04 

Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:41:02 +0200

ashok wrote:

Your thread title is wrong. Atoms can indeed be detected, e.g.
using a scanning force microscope (well, one could quibble if one
could call that "seeing" the atoms).

> First THEY THOUGHT there was only matter.
> Then THEY THOUGHT and said that matter is made from smallest
> particles.

And about 2000 years later, they provided experimental evidence for that.

> THEY called it atoms and molecules.

The term "molecule" came up, AFAIK, only long after the term "atom",
probably only after there was already experimental evidence for atoms.

> Then THEY THOUGHT that is the dead end.No more smallest thing than
> atom.
>
> Then again THEY THOUGHT and said the atom consists of electrons ,the
> negatively charged particles.

Absolute utter nonsense. No one ever said that.

> Then THEY THOUGHT only negative particles doesn't make any sense.There
> should be positive particles.So they called them as protons.

And again, that has nothing to do with what actually happened.

What actually happened was that there was *experimental evidence*
(not simply a thought!) that atoms contain negatively charged particles.
It was proposed that they are embedded in a positive charge cloud.
Rutherford then showed that there is no such cloud, but that the
positive charge is concentrated at the center of the atom.

> Now THEY worried about the weight of the atom.So THEY added neutrons
> and make the atom worth its weight.

And provided experimental evicedence for their existence as well.

> Now THEY are again thinking and saying that electrons are also made up
> of small elements.

Most physicists think otherwise. There are only very few people who say
that.

> Sorry gentleman for taking your time to read this stupid commentry.

Yes, it is indeed stupid. It shows that you neither understand science
nor know the history of science.

> But really whenever I read any thing related to atoms and molecules
> and nucleas and so on, I get the feeling that is it a mere
> speculation.?

Then you don't know about the evidence for all that, plain and simple.

> Forget about the electron ,Nobody has seen the atom.

Wrong. See above.

> Then how come THEY can go about saying the smallest thing inside the
> electron.?

Because one can indeed measure electrons and examine them closely.
And this is done routinely.

> Nobody has seen the atom or at least molecule but everybody knows how
> it looks, what are its ingredients.

Wrong yet again. See above.

> Just like God ... Nobody has seen HIM but everybody trust in HIM.

No, not in any way like God. There is a huge heap of evidence for the
existence and shape of molecules and atoms. Objective facts, which can
be verified by anyone using the same equipment.

Oh, BTW, which god? You *do* know that several thousand different ones
are believed in on Earth, don't you?

> And the real eternal knowledge means without any questions you start
> feeling HIS existence.

If you like deluding yourself, feel free to do so. I don't need that.

> I am confused about existence of GOD and as well as ATOM.

The latter can be cured: get an education.

> (Only because of fear I say GOD do exist and only because of exam-fear
> I say ATOMS do exists.)

So, in none of your courses, about which you have to take exams, you
were shown the evidence for the existence of atoms? Sounds like rather
bad courses.

> Can somebody give me the real eternal knowledge?

Nothing in science is "eternal knowledge".

Bye,
Bjoern

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Intelligent design"
    ... > nor supportable by evidence. ... > wouldn't expect atoms to be made up of littler atoms. ... Perhaps "Intelligent Design" ... By comparing the complexity of human beings with the ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Heres a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit
    ... Atoms can be studied in ways that produce ... >>hallucination courtesy of your brain. ... >>objective, repeatable evidence. ... display consistency, objectivity, and repeatability? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ok my pets. Lets look at complexity.
    ... Consider how atoms form a rock. ... evidence of design and suggestive evidence for the supernatural. ... given no metric for recognizing complexity, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ok my pets. Lets look at complexity.
    ... living and nonliving things by examining their molecular structure ... Consider how atoms form a rock. ... evidence of design and suggestive evidence for the supernatural. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ok my pets. Lets look at complexity.
    ... living and nonliving things by examining their molecular structure ... Consider how atoms form a rock. ... evidence of design and suggestive evidence for the supernatural. ...
    (talk.origins)