a question about atomic theory and faith

[Drogheda]

hey guys, I'm new here and was advised by a friend to come here with my question. there are a number of forums and after some debate decided this was the best one to post this in.

I'm going into science, astrophysics actually(at this time)

I have never really had a problem blending science and religion into one, but some do. I'm not talking about anything really controversial here but my general question is where do most people of faith see the world of science and how it should effect them as a person

so I guess the question is, what does the church feel about atomic theory. do you believe it, is it supported by the bible etc...

for those that do not know, atomic theory says that everything is composed of electrons and protons(and neutrons, but they are more a shadow of protons). that the fuel for the sun is hydrogen(1 proton, 1 electron) and through nuclear fussion(getting really hot) 2 hydrogen atoms combine to form helium, 1 helium and 1 hydrogen fuse to form lithium and so on(all the way down the line of the periodic table).

in essence, what separates hydrogen and silver is 46 protons, electrons and neutrons. that everything is pretty much how you stack protons and electrons together. then you get into chemicals(chemistry) and that is more or less how the cogs of electrons spin to attract atoms together. and that what we see isn't protons but the constant layer of electrons(trillions and trillions) radiating out to us(the electromagnetic spectrum) and that our vision and radio waves(again, something that proves atomic theory is correct is the simple radio) are essentially just one in the same.

to me this is true and has to be and, as I said, I have no problem mixing it with religion(obviously). it absolutely has to be true because everything we do is based around it. the reason we can make plastic is because we understand this and can manipulate it exactly. that polyethylene(a type of plastic) is c2h4=ch2. it has to be exact or else we don't get plastic or whatever else we build from atomic theory/chemistry.

however I have met some people who either don't understand this, can't understand this or whatever. they absolutely do not want to believe any of this and it's frustrating. they say that god created everything just so, and I reply "yes, he created everything with proton's and electrons". yet they don't believe. I explane that without this knowledge nothing we have and take for granted now would be possible. not the telephone, not television, not computers.... not even the wrapper of a McDonald sandwich(and the sandwich itself, McDonald sandwiches are full of synthetic chemicals). they still refuse to believe, that god and only god made everything and we are unable to effect the world/universe in such a way.

I then point out simple history. that this world was more religious in 800AD yet we had none of this. that it was the combination of the 3rd and 4th scientific revolutions (that was starting roughly in the 1500's and is still going on to this day). the response is the same....

I really don't know where to go. I don't know where these people think things come from(not to mention they think I am wasting my time and money). so I guess my question is a multiple question

1: do you believe in atomic theory, chemistry and quantum theory(that makes the power in your house possible)
2: if not then why, please be specific
3: for those that do believe, how do you biblicaly get through to these people. because I love them to death but I also want them to respect me and stop saying that I am waisitng my time energy and money on this en-devour

 

[Greg1234]

Change - the presence of atoms and its constituents

Random mutation/epi genetic inheritance/intelligent adaptation - atomic models

Universal common descent - atomic reductionism

 

[juvenissun]

My advise is to leave them alone. They are really blessed people. I wish I could be one of them.

Use your energy on those who know the theory but do not believe. Or on those whose faith is shaken by the theory (such as: if we have atoms, why do we still need God?)

 

[Assyrian]

But then you have the people whose faith is shaken when they discover atoms are real, shouldn't we be concerned about them?

 

[ianyoung]

Someone's been studying science. And I believe you are right. All life is interconnected, including protons and electrons. We are all one in the same.

In the church of myself, I do believe in atomic theory. Atomic theory is like getting closer to God. The more we research and learn the closer we get to achieving nearly anything by harnessing this energy. I'm talking creating something from essentially nothing. Maybe even doing things like shrinking in Honey We Shrunk The Kids.

Keep the faith my friend.

 

[philadiddle]

Drogheda,

Where do you live that there are people like that around? I've never met anyone who denies the particles we're made of.

 

[Greg1234]

Drogheda,

Where do you live that there are people like that around? I've never met anyone who denies the particles we're made of.

Or the change of allele frequency in a population.

 

[chilehed]

...so I guess the question is, what does the church feel about atomic theory. do you believe it, is it supported by the bible etc...

"The church" is an ambiguous term here. I guess the best short answer would be that it has no position on it at all (that would be the position of the Catholic Church), or that there are differing opinions among Christians, depending on how you define the term.

...1: do you believe in atomic theory, chemistry and quantum theory(that makes the power in your house possible)
2: if not then why, please be specific
3: for those that do believe, how do you biblicaly get through to these people. because I love them to death but I also want them to respect me and stop saying that I am waisitng my time energy and money on this en-devour

1. To the extent that they make valid predictions and are useful tools, yes.
2. Because the evidence is that they are acceptably accurate explanations of reality.
3. I've never met anyone who denies the existence of atoms, but I'm thinking that you can't get through to them. Just smile as you plant seeds, and let God take care of the results. Studying the sciences is a waste of time? *rolleyes* Give me a break - maybe a case could be made for the limited job market and absence of practical applications of theoretical astrophysics, as opposed to something like physical chemistry, but an actual pointless waste of time?

 

[Greg1234]

"The church" is an ambiguous term here. I guess the best short answer would be that it has no position on it at all (that would be the position of the Catholic Church), or that there are differing opinions among Christians, depending on how you define the term.

Well some seem to take issue with certain aspects of it.

1. To the extent that they make valid predictions and are useful tools, yes.
2. Because the evidence is that they are acceptably accurate explanations of reality.

So you seem to be saying that we need to accept reductionism in order to use atoms much in the same way one must accept Universal Common Descent in order to adapt. Quite the notion I must say.

3. I've never met anyone who denies the existence of atoms,

Ah, then you may have heard someone deny that "the strong survive," or deny "any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." See that?

Cue the strawmen.

but I'm thinking that you can't get through to them. Just smile as you plant seeds, and let God take care of the results. Studying the sciences is a waste of time? *rolleyes* Give me a break - maybe a case could be made for the limited job market and absence of practical applications of theoretical astrophysics, as opposed to something like physical chemistry, but an actual pointless waste of time?

Hm. So were you there when a Christian Darwinist scolded a Creationist for going beyond atoms and saying spirit is life? Wanna see?

 

[miamited]

hi drogheda,

You wrote: I have never really had a problem blending science and religion into one, but some do. I'm not talking about anything really controversial here but my general question is where do most people of faith see the world of science and how it should effect them as a person

so I guess the question is, what does the church feel about atomic theory. do you believe it, is it supported by the bible etc...

As for me, I don't have any problem with science so far as science being able to tell us about the creation in the here and now and what things are made of. My problem with science is when it claims to 'prove' things that are miracles. The very definition of a miracle, and I'm not speaking of those who see a dog catch a frisbee 6 feet off the ground and say, "Wow, that's a miracle.", but true miracles are events that God causes to happen that are not going to be explanable by any scientific method.

For example: How did the shadow on the steps of Ahaz back up ten steps. How is it that in one single night all the thousands of first born Egyptians, and only first born, died? How is that a sea parted allowing hundreds of thousands of people to walk right through a wall of water on either side of them and then nearly instantly close back up and swallowed up an egyptian army sent to capture the escaping Hebrews? How is that in six days God created this entire realm of creation in which we live? These are miracles and no amount of scientific theory or reasoning will ever provide us the answers.

I don't have any problem with the sub-atomic particles that all things are made of, unless the teaching of such a fact is then, as someone else said, used to deny that each and every one of those sub-atomic particles was made by God. As phil said, I've actually never met a believer who denies the science of what we see right now and explaining how things are right now, or even in the very recent past. However, when science begins to try to answer questions regarding events that happened a few thousand years ago, there have to be some assumptions made that may or may not be correct.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Drogheda]

Drogheda,

Where do you live that there are people like that around? I've never met anyone who denies the particles we're made of.

the heart of the bible belt. from my job I get to hear a lot of silly things.

most I have to say are older people, and that does not exclude the people I am talking about(1 word, relatives).

 

[Drogheda]

hi drogheda,

I don't have any problem with the sub-atomic particles that all things are made of, unless the teaching of such a fact is then, as someone else said, used to deny that each and every one of those sub-atomic particles was made by God. As phil said, I've actually never met a believer who denies the science of what we see right now and explaining how things are right now, or even in the very recent past. However, when science begins to try to answer questions regarding events that happened a few thousand years ago, there have to be some assumptions made that may or may not be correct.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

this right here is another part of the problem, I think. My world is science, music and literature(movies and acting included). the few people I have described in my op are really the giant exceptions, people who just all and out refuse to believe in atoms and electrons. really in all my years in the ozark region I have just met a couple of them (and a few happen to be related )

however having a deeper understanding(not yet as eurodite as I would like it, give me time guys) of science and living where I do, some things that I hear people say give me pause. one is the moon and gravity(made famous by billy boy). when you say that god and god alone controls the moon and tides then you really throw every scientific law out the window, I mean there are only truly 4 scientific laws and when you break the law of gravity everything is shattered.

or lets say time dialation and the red/blue effect. when people say none of this can happen they don't understand how many fundamental understandings of the way the universe work they just destroyed. they have to work because the very reason we have things like... the internet and light/electricity is because of some of these concepts. I mean, the Doppler radar works (even though sometimes weather gives it the middle finger and goes north when it was going south).

science is, the pursuit of it anyway, is that you have to abandon some illusions that we all naturally have because the first 10 or so years that is how we understand the world. like time for instance, space time is very different than what we would of used to know what time is. I mean, when you move and someone else doesn't you are aging less than them(relativity, another subject that some people say is hoowie). but if it wasn't for relativity and space time life would not exist in the current condition it does. space time and relativity are what make the world the fundamental place it is. if it wasn't for either or those then the universe would be a fundamentally different place.

if we didn't account for space time then satelights would be impossible, atleast the way they are now. but no space time exists because you have to put in every little peice of the puzzle and space time is a (very) little piece of the puzzle but if you don't account for it the satelight would either crash into the earth or buzz off into space in a few days.

sorry I'm ranting and most of that was aimed at real life people

 

[chilehed]

Well some seem to take issue with certain aspects of it.

So you seem to be saying that we need to accept reductionism in order to use atoms much in the same way one must accept Universal Common Descent in order to adapt. Quite the notion I must say.

Ah, then you may have heard someone deny that "the strong survive," or deny "any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." See that?

Cue the strawmen.

Hm. So were you there when a Christian Darwinist scolded a Creationist for going beyond atoms and saying spirit is life? Wanna see?

What in the world are you raving about?? It sounds like you've been eating cactus or something.

 

[Drogheda]

I'm going to post something rather controversial(politicaly, not religiously) that is one of the key sticking points, but I will explain it in an entirely different way.

first a personal anecdote, the reason I got into astrophysics is because of this. I have asthma and the pollution problem in our world is of dire importance to me. I just wasn't interested enough in the medical field and saw way to many straw men being flailed about, so I decided to actually understand the problem.

most people don't understand that carbon dioxide isn't the real problem to either pollution (or the more controversial bit I will get down to in just a second) global warming (and I do want you , the reader, to put both on a separate category because they very much are, I am talking directly about pollution and it's effects on our health at the moment).

carbon emmisions, no matter where they come from are just the facilitator and are not the main problem.

however, I said they where the facilitator. in most discussions about pollution (and global warming) this is where the discussion ends but it is actually where it begins. people with health problems and lung specialists (asthma, emphysema, copd etc...) get really ....mad at polititions because the emmisions are not the problem. what is the problem is when the emmisions react to the sun(photochemical reactions) and produce ozone (3 oxygen atoms). this is frankly where both the global warming and pollution discussion should begin but neither EVER reach this stage.

ozone is good, in the upper atmosphere. however it is a horrible poison to all living life. it is so poisonous that people without a lung problem in their life's can die by breathing in a bunch of ozone. ozone is the number 1 concern of every person that has a lung problem, it's not carbon dioxide it's when the dioxide splits and forms ozone.

because of the nature of ozone and how it is formed the desert is the best place to live if you have lung problems (and a lot of asthmatics move to California and Nevada for this reason. notice this because this is important, California, LA. there are more cars in LA than you can throw a stick at but yet ozone doesn't form. there are two reasons. 1 is the natural climate, the other.... regulations.. LA and california have the strictest enviromental regulations in the nation and because of this reason ozone doesn't form near as bad as..... as.... another desert that should be the best place for asthmatics to live. texas. California has a bigger economy than texas, has more cars, jets and ships(ships produce a LOT of Co2 emmision, look it up, you will be surprised) and can rival Texas for smokestacks and industry, however because of texa's completely Lax regulations concerning air quality it is the worst place in the modernized world to live if you have lung problems. there is a graphic that I could link to that shows this (just google ozone graph united states).

 

[Drogheda]

now to get down to the more controversial bit that will ruin my reputation forever

the global warming discussion never gets to the real meat and potatoes of what is happening. it's always about Co2, but.... that really isn't even in the ballpark of what is going on. Co2 alone would actually cause the reverse of global warming. I bet you have never heard that.

Co2 is a pretty big molecule with an atomic weight of 22. it's a nonmetal so it's a bit smaller but it's still big. thats why you can see it in the air(ever wonder what the purple coloring in the sky was, that's pollution, namely Co2, 100 years ago there was no (very little depending on where you lived)purple in the sky). it's just kind of chilling out with the clouds.

that isn't harmful really. neither does it (really) contribute to the global warming debate even though thats all either side will ever talk about.

what happens is the photo chemical reaction that tears carbon dioxide apart; we talked about what happens to the oxygen molecules, but you are left with that piece of carbon.

also let me put this in. this is why this entire thing is bad in both the ozone and the carbon part. you might ask, why is this a problem, if Co2 isn't a big deal in the atmosphere and photocemical reactions bond and unbond chemicals in the air all the time why does this matter.

remember buoyancy? when carbon dioxide is broken IMMEDIATELY oxygen(8) sinks and carbon(6) rises. this happens again and again until you wind up with all the oxygen where we are and the carbon just sort of floating around way above the oxygen. this is why you can see layers of haze, fog, pollution/smog. they are all layers of chemicals/atoms sorting themselfs out. this is also why fog doesn't/smog doesn't dissipate at night that well, because you need the suns energy to create the photo-chemical reaction so the atoms can sort eachother out.

anyway, so now you have a bunch of carbon atoms just flying around. carbon doesn't really bond to itself it the atmosphere because it lacks the proper pressure(amongst other things) to bond. one of traits of nonmetals is they are tightly compact and don't want to give up electrons without proper pressure. this is also why ozone accumulates because the oxygen IS under proper pressure.

so, now you have all these carbon atoms 100-1200 feet in our atmosphere (this entire process is also why it's harder to breath on HIGH mountains, because there is less oxygen).

now carbon is a small atom, but it's not small enough. when the suns rays fly into our atmosphere they are relatively small and the carbon atoms can provide no insulation (it can't stop the ray's of the sun in other words) imagine a doorway and you shining a flashlight through the doorway. that's what happens. however, something interesting happens when the suns rays hit the earth and reflect back, the flashlight becomes a splotlight. the rays of the sun hit the earth and reflect back a much WIDER ray of energy.

the carbon wasn't thick enough to stop the rays of the sun coming, however they are thick enough to stop the rays of the sun going. the carbon reflects the energy at the earth again(actually everywhere) and the process keeps going.... and that is called...................................................

the greenhouse effect. your local greenhouse does this. your CAR does this. the plastic inside the windshield of your car is mostly made out of carbon. have you ever gotten into your car on a cold sunny day and it's hot? it's because the plastic that makes your car windows/windshield safe are made is made out of carbon, plastic generally(as a rule) is mostly carbon.

go to your local greenhouse and ask them how they do it. they have several sets of windows they replace (strategicly, they don't have to replace all the windows, but the ones facing the sun in that part of the year) through the year. the difference in those windows? they have a slightly thicker row of carbon plastics in the middle of them. some greenhouses just use forms of plastic.

notice how with the greenhouse they just have to do it strategically. they replace 3 or 4 panels and that means the difference between 60 degree's and 80 degree's.

well, one of the biggest arguments against global warming is that man can not have a direct impact because the earth and life is a much bigger supplier of co2. the second half of that sentence is absolutely correct. with all the industry on the planet we account for maybee 10% of co2 immisions if that (actually I think it's lower). but think for a second what the greenhouse people do when it turns a harsh winter and they have 80 degree greenhouses, they just inject 5-10% more carbon into the window matrix and that tiny bit of carbon is what makes all the difference in the world. in places in russia, sometimes it means life or death.

if global warming was not real then greenhouses could work because they both run on the exact same principle. if global warming was not real then your car would never be warm on a cool day because they both run on the exact same principle.

I could go on but I will be amazed if anyone read all of that

 

[Drogheda]

actually I will go on just another 3 paragraphs, because this is actually a part of global warming that most people don't think of.

because the carbon reflects the energy in this giant matrix of carbon in the air that means the air is full of energy. ever notice that it doesn't cool off at night? most of global warming debate is focused on daytime temps, but thats not the best way to see direct evidence. we are seeing drastic changes in night time temperatures because the energy just can not escape the matrix.

also if global warming is true then parts of the world will cool off for 70+ years. this has to do with how the earth spins and the convection currents spin. while the arctic tundra of Greenland melts the jetstream and rotation of the earth pushes all of that moisture to the east, namely europe. look what has happened to europe the past 30 years.

the last point is this. the majority carbon is is mostly trapped in high pressure systems(not really true but it will do for this, I don't want to right 4 more paragraphcs :o). these high pressure systems have an amazing amount of energy stored inside of them. when a cold front hits these high pressure systems(and again, the cold front has more energy than it used to) it destabilizes the air to catastrophic extremes. look at all the storm systems that have hit the us(and world) the last 10 years, it's crazy. 120 tornado's in one storm system?

also, and think about this. the united states has had one of the warmest winters ever. in February we had a storm system that produced more than 15 tornado's across the united states that started in OK and ended in New york. that much energy across that much of a crossection of the united states this early when it isn't even the start of spring is unheard of. and it's all because of how warm this winter has been and because that energy has been stored in our atmosphere thanks to carbon.

 

[juvenissun]

actually I will go on just another 3 paragraphs, because this is actually a part of global warming that most people don't think of.

because the carbon reflects the energy in this giant matrix of carbon in the air that means the air is full of energy. ever notice that it doesn't cool off at night? most of global warming debate is focused on daytime temps, but thats not the best way to see direct evidence. we are seeing drastic changes in night time temperatures because the energy just can not escape the matrix.

also if global warming is true then parts of the world will cool off for 70+ years. this has to do with how the earth spins and the convection currents spin. while the arctic tundra of Greenland melts the jetstream and rotation of the earth pushes all of that moisture to the east, namely europe. look what has happened to europe the past 30 years.

the last point is this. the majority carbon is is mostly trapped in high pressure systems(not really true but it will do for this, I don't want to right 4 more paragraphcs :o). these high pressure systems have an amazing amount of energy stored inside of them. when a cold front hits these high pressure systems(and again, the cold front has more energy than it used to) it destabilizes the air to catastrophic extremes. look at all the storm systems that have hit the us(and world) the last 10 years, it's crazy. 120 tornado's in one storm system?

also, and think about this. the united states has had one of the warmest winters ever. in February we had a storm system that produced more than 15 tornado's across the united states that started in OK and ended in New york. that much energy across that much of a crossection of the united states this early when it isn't even the start of spring is unheard of. and it's all because of how warm this winter has been and because that energy has been stored in our atmosphere thanks to carbon.

It seems you are quite interested in the weather/climate and the atmosphere. Have you been formally trained on this subject? Or have you taken any formal or free online course about it? Just curious, since you wrote so much about it.