Keith M. Ryan Hilarious Christian Propaganda... I found this whi

Keith M. Ryan Hilarious Christian Propaganda... I found this while reading one of the various "Books of Truth and Wisdom": As a proof of creationism over evolution: "What is the binding force of the atom? We know that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second. Also that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. The neutrons have no electrical charge and therefore neutral. But- the protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is that: like charges repel each other! Being that all of the protons in the nucleus are positively charged- they should repel each other and scatter into space. Therefore, by physics very own laws, molecules can not exist. The only possible binding force is God and Christ... The proof of this can be found in Col.1:17 "[Christ] is before all things, and by him all things consist ( are held together)" and John 1:3 "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. " Since God exists, we have prooved that God created man, and he was not evolved..." The author is not quoted. However, there is this: "My deepest appreciation to Dr. Davidheiser, Pd.D, John Hopkins University, for helping to make this book possible.... Count the inaccuracies for fun... And if you think too long about this, shame on you! :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh wow man!! God and Christ are synonymous with the strong nuclear force! That must mean that the cult that worshipped the 'Bomb' in "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" was right. I'm converted. Praise the Bomb! -- R. Bruce Rakes, Software Systems Manager ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> "What is the binding force of the atom? We know that the electrons >> of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth >> of a second. >Something of an overestimate on speed, there. Also, as I understand it, >an 'orbital' is really just an expression of the uncertainty principle; >it's not 'moving' so much as 'you don't know where it is from moment to >moment.' But that could be wrong. Yes, the particular passage is evidence that the author is using the Bohr model of the atom. In elementary chemistry, it can still be a quite useful model of predicting which elements will bond. However, modern subatomic physics has not actively used the idea of a solid electron "ball" flying around the nucleus in orbits for quite a while. The model does not predict the quantum levels of the electron excited states, etc. Meaning, on a sophisticated level, it is an unadaquate model. [ I am still a lowly physics undergraduate, so excuse any errors ] >>> Also that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called >>>neutrons and protons. The neutrons have no electrical charge and >>>therefore neutral. >Right so far, for all the good that it does. :-] They are trying to drown the incorrectness with tokens of truth... >>> But- the protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is >>>that: like charges repel each other! Being that all of the protons in the >>>nucleus are positively charged- they should repel each other and scatter >>>into space. > > True, but only if we ignore the strong and weak nuclear forces, two of >the 'fundamental forces' of the universe. The strong force is *many* orders >of magnitude stronger than gravity and electricity, as a binding force... >but drops off so rapidly with distance that it barely makes it out of the >nucleus. The weak nuclear force has more range, but is weaker than the >strong force (but still stronger than electromagnetism and gravity). > Note that most of the energy released in the explosion of an atomic bomb >is via the electrostatic repulsion of nucleus fragments that have fissioned. Correct. Some may say that "God" and "Strong and Weak nuclear forces" are the one in the same. However, on closer examination, this is not true. While some may try to dismiss the forces as only a definition of what holds it together, modern science has done extensive experiments. In this sense, they are as true as the more evident law of gravity. If you believe rocks fall due to gravity, then one ought not have any problem accepting the fact that nuclei do not fly apart due to the nuclear forces. And, we can predict these forces, measure their strengths etc. Unlike the all answering "God" factor. This only shows the lack of knowledge of simple physics by the author. [ that's as technical I'm going to get during finals.... :-) >>>The only possible binding force is God and Christ... > > Oh, really? Why not the telekenesis of alt.atheism's own Invisible Pink >Unicorns (tm)? (I don't want to talk about speculative stuff like the >'strong and weak nuclear forces' here... :-> ) Correct. Even if we can not explain *why* the protons do not fly apart [ but we can! ], does not lead credulence to the conclusion that the only possible binding force is God. >>> The proof of this can > ^^^^^ > This is proof? :-) >>> Since God exists, we have >>>prooved that God created man, and he was not evolved..." > A true gem. Nowhere have they shown God exists, unless you count the the >circular 'scripture => God => scripture' bit. Also, even *if* God exists, >it does not automatically follow that humankind didn't evolve... What I do not understand is, how does this prove that evolution is incorrect? God's existance only allows the possibility that evolution is incorrect. Meaning, if God existed, and God created the universe 20 billion years ago; evolution on the Earth could STILL of happened! I have no problem if people want to credit the "Big Bang"(tm) to God. Besides, disproving one thing in science does NOT disprove everything else in science... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cosma Shalizi To: All Msg #12, Dec-08-92 03:44PM Subject: Re: Hilarious Christian Propaganda... Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu (Berkeley Tentacle) From: lizi@soda.berkeley.edu (Cosma Shalizi) Message-ID: <1g3c1aINN61a@agate.berkeley.edu> Newsgroups: alt.atheism In article schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes: [Argument, complete with Biblical references, that the intra-nuclear binding force is Jesus Christ deleted] >This same argument was advanced in one of those little Chick Publications >pamphlets that was stuck in my high school locker nine (??!?) years ago. >The pamphlet was titled "Big Daddy?" with a picture of an ape on the cover >and remains one of the most hilarious cases of anti-evolution propaganda >that I have ever encountered. This _is_ from "Big Daddy." One of the people in the Society of Physics Students here got handed it by a passing Cretin for Christ. It had us rolling on the floor laughing, when not nausated. The "Jesus is the strong nuclear force" part is now posted on the door. Just think, this means that J.C. was first hypothesized by Yukawa in the 1920s, has a mass of around 140 MeV and - most importantly - a lifetime on the order of 10^-8 (or is it -10?) seconds... Cosma "Pions are a trinty, after all" Shalizi In Real Life: lizi@soda.berkeley.edu larval physicist -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adam Trent Phillips To: All Msg #23, Dec-08-92 04:25PM Subject: A "DISPROOF" OF GOD ? Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) From: bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) Message-ID: <1g3edoINNrp3@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> Newsgroups: alt.atheism Hmmmmm...... There are some chri$tians who claim that god holds atoms together.. But then they claim that god is all powerfull (omnipotent). God=omnipotent God=force that holds atoms together then.... the force that holds atoms together=omnipotent=God WAIT !!!!!!! Atoms can be split. Therefor the force that holds them together can be overcome ! then..... God=the overcomeable force that holds atoms together. if the force of god holding atoms together can be overcome, then you can overcome god, at least at that one thing. If you can overcome god at ANYTHING then he/she/it (god) is not PERFECT ! Well...I know it is flawed, but I might as well take theistic logic to a consisten concludion :-) -- "Speak to me in many voices, make them all sound like one. Let me see your sacred mysteries. Reveal to me the unknown tounge."--B.O.C. A. Trent Phillips | bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu | alias: White Rook aa1439@freenet.lorain.oberlin.edu | NWROC Email: usr6418a@tso.uc.edu