I guess since there is only 3 choices I will pick designer. And my designer and creator of the carbon atom would be known as the billion trillions of stars, including the past and future ones. But when you really look at things, there is nothing all that special about the carbon atom. After all, they are just made from the super simplistic hydrogen atom with it's lonely one proton,neutron and electron. No magic needed. Pretty benign if you ask me.
@thybigballs You need to study the carbon atom and its characteristics. It is unique and special beyond imagination. Without that uniqueness there would be no life on earth. Its made of particles that are unique and special beyond imagination. Ditto water. Of the billions of compounds, there is only one that has the qualities that could support life.
@stevebee92653 I agree with your post except for the part where you said the carbon atom was "special beyond imagination" as this seems to indicate a necessity of what is commonly known as a god that spoke to humans. On a completely different note, check out "hypothetical" types of biochemistry. It's purely hypothetical but so are a few things in this video. Maybe science can one day get past all the hype's and have actual answers(even if it proves "god"). The theory of everything, if you will.
@thybigballs I hope someday we will get the answer. There are so many amazing Puzzles. My guess is we never will. It will drive those of us who are interested crazy for our whole lives. But thinking about it, and trying is sure fun.
Carbon has nothing to do with god that spoke to humans. I don't get that one.
Thank you for this great video. I think many people have something like a God complex. They must feel like living forever when you hear them speaking about the "stupidity of godliness and spirituality".
Wouldn't it be way more designish if there were no atoms and everything was just simple different kinds of matter, like skin, stones and water as we perceive them?
Why the unnecessary complexity if everything is "clearly" designed?
Why do you obviously believe in the christian god whom ID is accredited to, but constantly refuse to discuss the matter by deflecting and accusing? You are obviously just trying to sound like a reasonable scientist.
@ac1th Deflecting? Accusing? I don't deflect intelligent questions. But, really, there aren't many in this science, because it's nothing but fable and conjecture.
Unnecessary complexity? According to who? You? Atoms show unbelievable design. The building blocks are designed as well as all of living nature's systems.
Me: not religious. Sorry. You evos are bad guessers.
@stevebee92653 You request and imply authority in many comments and videos, that's what religious people do because they can't wrap their head around falsifiability and haven't yet left their childhood mindset for fear of losing something important. The 99% of all species that went extinct did so because their "design" was bad. In nature, only well functioning organisms survive, hence why the ones left look designed to fit their surroundings. You can't demonstrate your claim.
@proofandevidence Everything. Talk is cheap. Evolution uses talk, not proof. "There is mountains of evidence." "Biology is nothing without evolution." "Everything has been debunked." Your comment. Of course, all bullshit. Bye
@stevebee92653 Evolution uses talk? not proof? then what is the Genome project? what is the fossil record? <<< LITERAL MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE FILLED WITH DATED FOSSIL EVIDENCE! I never said everything has been debunked, I asked you a question, lets ask it again, name one topic on your channel which you present against evolution, that is not completely false, and has not been thoroughly debunked? Channel FAIL?
@proofandevidence Don't rag on other people's IQ when yours is so hurting. The genome project has nothing to do with evolution unless you can show genomes of past species/fossils from millions of years ago and compare.The genome is part of genetics. The fossil record shows no sign of evolution within species, or growing limbs, eyes, wings.
No point of my site has been debunked or it wouldn't be there. I would remove any part proven false. So if you are so smart, have at it. Make me edit.
This was a 10/10 video until the multiple choice part, I really liked this video. But the multiple choice was off, look at how the carbon atom was formed, your looking at the effect of many causes and saying, it must be designed, look at how atoms are formed, it is then you should make your judgement. I choose B, no design what so ever because their is no evidence leading to a supernatural diety, that and we have natural explanations of how atoms formed.
@proofandevidence You have natural explanations? Right. Einstein didn't, I am glad to hear you do. So you think the carbon atom shows no design? Astounding. Ever taken a math/physics class and studied the math needed to understand the carbon atom? It's beyond astounding. So, blind yourself all you want. I can't.
@stevebee92653 "you have natural explanations?" you are referring to how the carbon was formed correct? and you think it was "designed"? You understand what took place in the early universe correct? the carbon atom was formed after protons and neutrons, <<<these were formed after quarks and gluons were formed. So again, to look at the carbon atom and say "god dun it" is akin to looking at a pretty flower and saying "god dun it", well there are natural explanations, and none pointing to a diety.
@proofandevidence If you want to keep on ignoring the beyond genius level of intelligence that was required for the universe and life, fine. Your story of gluons and quarks, then protons is a story of ingenious invention and assembly. Each one of those parts is an invention. Inventions coming together to form newer inventions, then coming together to form newer ones. If you think intelligence was not part of the equation, your choice. It took man tens of thousands of years to figure it out.
@stevebee92653 So your basically saying, I don't understand it, therefor, God dun it. Great theory, you should write a paper Im sure it will go places. Now, the real question is, why is there something other then nothing? Your answer is the same as our primitive ancestors, that being, God dun it. Now not only is there ZERO empirical evidence of this diety. There is also the distinct possibility that the energy, in which we know to be eternal, hence conservation of energy, has always been.
@proofandevidence Now your responses are disingenuous and trite. The god-dun-it thing is disappointing. And copy-cat commenting. I thought you were better than that. To try your put-down jargon on me because I see intelligence where you should be seeing is bat strategy. Zero evidence? Entities that are more intelligently designed than anything any man could invent design and assemble show no intelligence? You are on the side of zero evidence........
@proofandevidence Gawd, another copy paste comment. "I don't understand it therefore God dun it" is a completely dishonest and horribly corny translation used commonly by indoctrinated evolutionauts. Try being original. You keep looking worse. Reality is evolution's story is impossible. It has nothing to do with me not "understanding" and you know goddam well. Your comments are getting so repetitive, probably time to say adios. I have heard all your stuff before from your fellow believers.
@stevebee92653 Now your going to say, well the energy may be eternal, (because how could it appear or disappear into nothing!) but that doesn't mean a diety or dietys couldn't have ordered the energy to follow rules. Of course it doesn't mean that, but it certainly implies that its possible with out dietys. Now lets say these dietys or diety exist/s. Who "designed" them? could they prove that no diety created them and then just disappeared? Just like you claim it is in our case?
@proofandevidence Nothing can be infinite. And you are exactly why I don't claim any labels. I don't argue deities. I argue intelligence requirements in the formula for the universe and life. I don't know the source, so don't bother asking. But it is there. You turn to deities, another stupid argument. You are an evo-CD.
@stevebee Not infinite, eternal, two very different concepts. Im why you don't claim labels? ? You don't argue dieties? good, so you reject religion.because there is as much evidence for dieties as there is for spiderman, and if you don't believe in a specific one then your a deist with exacly the same amount of evidence. Yes I believe in evolution, I aslo believe in gravity and the speed of light, not magic. Evolution is a fact of reality, do some non biased research and get over it.
@proofandevidence I'm glad you recognize evolution is a "belief". I couldn't care less what you "believe". You're indoctrinated. You believe on a track you can't get off of.
@stevebee92653 "You believe on a track you can't get off of" well said...well said...are you a monkey by the way? Just wondering. Actually I believe, I can also use the word know, I know evolution is a fact, why? because of the overwhelming amount of proof supporting it. Its either evolution is a fact, or theres a magical being, who, for some reason made it look in every aspect imaginable like we evolved. Hmmm....Yeah evolution seems more logical. Your stupid.
@proofandevidence So I take it you believe in evolution? You've said that so many times it's barf inducing. I truly feel sorry for you for being so gullible. Bye
@stevebee92653 And you didn't attempt to touch my arguement on who created the diety that created us? could he be eternal? if he is why can't we? If he is eternal and uncreated could he prove it? or would he be like us, against all logic and evidence he still resorts to claiming, maybe a god created me? lets say there is, then who created the God who created our God? and could HE prove that no diety created him? it comes down to, we just exist, energy is eternal, until a diety shows himself...
@proofandevidence You think you are so smart, and evos are smarter that the religous? Why are your comments all copy/paste. Old and tired out.
I told you I am not religious, and you are so dense you argue as if I am. The religious people on my channel are far more intelligent that you for sure. Better go back and check that poll you spouted.
@laflugantabastardo There is no religion in this vid or me. Do you think the carbon atom shows no design? The denialism is in the fact that it's so obviously incredibly designed, and you can blind yourself to that fact.
@laflugantabastardo My religion is that I think the carbon atom shows design? What a laugh. Your indoctrination makes you unable to see it. Actually you do see it, but you block it out. How can you be so dishonest with yourself? I was, but the day came that I had to be honest with myself.
@laflugantabastardo You are so afraid of religion, that alone overwhelms your ability to think and reason. Has nothing to do with religion. Atoms have tremendous design. Period. That's just the way it is. You don't have to read a holy book or pray or even sing. Religion has nothing to do with the fact that atoms are a designed, incredibly designed entities at that. So keep fooling yourself. And pretending you don't see what you do see.
"The atom is designed". That, right there, is religious rhetoric. You saying it's designed "and that's the way it is" is a bit silly, as is your bringing in of reading holy books, praying or singing.
Intelligent Design is a religious statement, not a scientific one. Though with the denialism you have going on it's not all that surprising you try to pass it off as one.
@laflugantabastardo So you choose to blind yourself. Obviously. Fine with me. I could care less. But don't tell people what they think. "Tis bad technique. You are not powerful enough to read people's thoughts and reasoning.
@laflugantabastardo So your point is the atom, particularly the Carbon atom, shows absolutely no design? And the incredibly complex math we need to understand the function of the C atom shows no design as well? And the fact the that the form and math of the atom, which is the same all over the universe, also is a demonstration of no design? It shows complete randomness? Is that your thinking?
My point is that you could've come across as a much more honest person if you left out the claim of there being an intelligent designer. Those claims ruined it.
I have no interest in debating the subject of design with you since you aren't even willing to admit to ID being a religious statement. I don't expect anything useful to develop out of such a debate.
@laflugantabastardo So your point is the atom, particularly the Carbon atom, shows absolutely no design? And the incredibly complex math we need to understand the function of the C atom shows no design as well? And the fact the that the form and math of the atom, which is the same all over the universe, also is a demonstration of no design? It shows complete randomness? Is that your thinking?
Answer this question. Simple yes or no. Does the C atom show design or is it random?
I don't have to answer that question, as it's not the subject of the conversation. The subject is that you ruined a good video by closing with a statement of ID.
@laflugantabastardo It IS the subject of this conversation, and one you can't be honest enough to answer. I am asking what you honestly see. You don't have the answer to what you yourself observe? So block out, play pretend, fool yourself, as you wish. But realize that that makes honest and intelligent conversation impossible. adios
Haha, sure buddy, whatever your fantasy tells you it means. You try to spin my refusal to give you an answer - simply because I don't care to get drawn into such a debate with a person like you - any way you like. You'll just show yourself to be an ass even more than you already have.
@laflugantabastardo Agreed ! this douche bag comments on his own retarded videos under a 2nd account ! named Copsweet.. What a total and utter failure...
@laflugantabastardo said:" you ruined a good video by closing with a statement of ID."
Why did you even bother making this statement you stupid little moron. If you have that much bigotry toward intelligence, it surprises me, you haven't committed suicide yet the smarter you got growing up. I guess dumbing you down with public school indoctrinated science has you comfortable living in your own skin, with your head comfortably up your ass where it is more likely dumb natural selection put it
@laflugantabastardo said:"I have no interest in debating the subject of design with you since you aren't even willing to admit to ID being a religious statement. I don't expect anything useful to develop out of such a debate."
This is absolutely the biggest cop out Darwits continue to use to slide out of the bold faced facts facing them directly in the eye. The idea that intelligent design or anything designed using (God forbid) "intelligence", has religion behind it.
@laflugantabastardo said:My point is that you could've come across as a much more honest person if you left out the claim of there being an intelligent designer"
How would leaving out his honest opinion that it has intelligent design, make him more honest? Are you suggesting he should lie before you consider him honest? Who is lying to whom? I suggest you are lying to yourself about evolution and like most Darwits you believe your own bullshit irrespective of the facts before you.
Perhaps my choice of words was poor in that sentence. He could've come across as more trustworthy. He is closing a completely factual video with a religious opinion. He's entitled to that opinion, of course, but it's sadly out of place.
I'm not going to go into your blatant name calling as they have no message or substance to them at all.
@laflugantabastardo Really? can you tell me what religion this intelligent designer attends in Church or just what exactly do you have to cite as a religious opinion or is it a pre-requisite that all intelligent designers beings, entity, what ever it is, has a religious back round.
The idea of an intelligent designer does not need to be owned by one specific church, branch or even religion. Many religions have an intelligence behind the creation of the earth (and the universe if people were aware of everything outside of the earth at the time).
I think the better question is, what is NOT religious about the statement of an intelligent designer for nature?
@laflugantabastardo said: "I think the better question is, what is NOT religious about the statement of an intelligent designer for nature?"
I just asked what is religious about it and you've answered with another question implying their isn't a THING that is NOT religious about it. and again, all I am asking you to confirm, whether you think some of it, or ALL of it is religious,
WHAT or WHO makes it religious? If you do, then that's YOU, not science, not the evidence but YOU add that
The whole idea of "intelligent design" in this case is that it's nature designed by a supernatural intelligence. A supernatural intelligence is, by definition, a god, and thus it is - again by definition - a religious statement.
I'd also appreciate it if you would not paint every atheist with such a broad brush. You have your anti-theists, yes, but I do not happen to be one of them. I was merely commenting how out of place a statement of faith was after so many factoids.
@laflugantabastardo I don't see him suggest a supernatural intelligence anywhere in this video. Can you show me where I missed it?
I can paint every atheist with that brush and will continue to do so until you can show me the majority of atheists don't fit the profile and are just fine mixing religion and science. That statement of faith you speak of at the end?? can you quote me what statement of faith he is making
Yes: where he said that he believes the carbon atom was intelligently designed.
I hope you understand that a the designer of atoms can not be made of atoms and is thus by definition supernatural.
I was talking about the "absolute disdain". Plenty of atheists out there who do not have an "absolute disdain", and the importance of separation between religion and science is acknowledged by theistic scientists as well (eg Ken Miller), so it's not just atheists.
@laflugantabastardo said:"I hope you understand that a the designer of atoms can not be made of atoms and is thus by definition supernatural."
I wouldn't know as I have not met the designer of the atom but it is drop dead obvious the atom displays astounding elegance and incredible design. The meaning of that albeit might have religious implications, it is evidence like this, science will either ignore the obvious design like they run from bio-genesis when that comes up but Facts don't care
You mean it's "drop dead obvious" to you. To me not so. It's tiny, sure, but we humans aren't trying to figure out the nature we are part of. We aren't that great, so saying that "it's too complex, there must be a designer" is just an egocentric statement (which is inherent to humans, so that's okay).
Fortunately science has gone way past the point where it is interested in accepting subjective opinions as valid theories. :-)
@laflugantabastardo Atheists in their absolute disdain of religion, for what ever the reason have this idea that intelligent design is a religion and if any scientist who has any religious convictions puts forth anything that would suggest intelligent design, naturally they are going to assume it is God. SO WHAT!
Science doesn't care about speculations like that. Atheists do but it has NOTHING to do with the FACTs if the facts suggest intelligent design was employed, REGARDLESS of religioun
Remarkably well researched video. I´ll choose option a). Reason: Not only do we understand how the carbon atom is synthezised, but also do we understand and are able to quantify the nuclear forces involved. Carbon is formed like a ball falling into a pit. The point where it comes to rest is determined by gravity and the shape of the pit, not by anyone putting it there.
One question remains: Where did you get the size of an electron? It should be a point-particle according to particle physics.
@rhominus Actually, an electron is both a wave and a particle. There's really no concrete "all the time" description of an electron. You understand HOW the carbon atom is synthesized? Of course by fusion of lighter elements. Understanding WHY of: the incredible relationship of the forces involved, it's design is not doable.The complex math it takes to comprehend C is beyond incredible. You know HOW, I want to know WHY."Nothing" existing would be much more logical. Anyway, thanks for the look.
(If my english seems a little awkward, please bear with me)
Thanks for the answer. I understand the concept of particle-wave duality, but if seen in this light, your statement from the video still is, while not fallatious, a little unclear. Since a spatial extent can be assigned to the nucleus, given by the separation between the constituent quarks, the context makes it seem like you were talking about a physical extent, not the "extent" of the waveform.
@rhominus You obviously are very well educated on particle physics. This vid is made for those not educated on the subject: the general public. So I didn't want to get deeper than what would keep an average person interested. Your English is very good BTW. C obviously shows incredible design. It is the way it is for some reason, considering that it could be any of billions of possible designs, or not exist at all. The source of that design then is whatever we make it.
@rhominus Pt. 2. You say there is no source. In doing so you are taking a carbon atom with its incredible design, as we know the whole world of particle physics is designed way beyond our ability to comprehend, and the beyond belief forces and their relationship that rule its world, and say there is no source. And here we have to go with our gut feelings. I say intelligent (non religious) source, you say nothing. And neither of us can be right or wrong. Kind of like the uncertainty principle.
@rhominus And sorry I couldn't get this in pt. 2, but I do appreciate your intelligent comments. They are so rare. Yours are well written and well thought out. I wish there was more of you.
Secondly: The maths required to describe C is very complex, because interactions between the individual electrons lead to elementary unsolvable integrals. This is also true for everything above He, but that´s what experiments and approximations are for. We can even say _why_ C has the mentioned properties. It is exactly what happens if you take Si and add an electron.
@stevebee92653 The reason for it´s 4 electrons on the outer shell lies in that there are exactly two options for the eigenvalue of an electron´s spin, if there were more, but everything else stayed the same, we would have a different C-like element. The fact remains that the formation and properties of Carbon can be fully explained by the intereaction of elementary fields. If anything must be designed, which I do not believe, it´s these.
The argument that the propensity for carbon to form complex chains as being a result of design is akin to the water in a pothole seeing "design" in the shape of the pothole because it conforms PRECISELY to its own shape. Clearly the reverse is true. Similarly, organic molecules are the upshot of the physical properties inherent in the arrangement of six protons, neutrons, and electrons in three dimensional space -- not the intent of it.
The suppositions here are questionable right out of the gate. The idea that all matter in the universe is atomic hasn't been a valid scientific position since the discovery of the electron in 1897. Much of the matter in the universe is subatomic. For instance, most of the mass of a given star is plasma, ionized hydrogen stripped of electrons, which, by definition, cannot be considered atomic.
A nice presentation up until your conclusion, which is an utterly unconvincing argument. The patterns within atoms show no evidence of deliberate invention by a person, on the contrary, they are typical natural forms. Humans have evolved to perceive the work of "persons" behind most every action- it is purely an adaptation for survival, that the sound of grass blowing in the wind may be a predator and so forth. You are a victim of you own evolutionary tendencies.
Assume carbon atoms are designed. Then what? What about asking question like "why is red color red?" is this apparent design, no design, or design? Does it matter?
Would you accept the Weak Anthropic Principle as an answer to these questions? (I know this statement is a tautology but any theories must necessarily contains at least one postulate.) If you do not accept this as a qualified answer then why do you dismiss it?
Have you considered the other alternative answers as well?
Stevebee, just checked back to your channel after a long time, and watching this video I am somewhat dismayed to find that you apparently moved from a form of belief in Intelligent Design, to what I can only interpret to be a form of outright creationism.
So let me just, superfluously, ask the 64000 dollar question, Steve: who designed the carbon atom? And what is he made of?
Yea, that's a brilliant question, since the design of the C atom is unimaginably intelligent. Except in they eyes of evolutionauts who are so so blind to design.
My point is that you evos think you have all the answers for how complex bioelectromechanical devices formed, but you have no idea how the carbon atom or life came to be. Pretty amazing. Best to admit you don't know, just like me.
Oh that's easy to admit. I don't think anyone in their right mind will say that we know why the carbon atom is the way it is, or why the universe is as orderly as it is. Phycisists have some interesting theories on it, but no-one has ever claimed to know the answer.
Except of course believers in design (of all kinds), who simply remit the problem to some unexplained, invisible 'designer.'
Well, let me repeat one important argument against it. You've probably heard it so often that you don't even think about the question anymore, but please think about this cliché one more time:
Who designed the designer? In what universe does he exist, and what is he made of?
I like your choice of words btw. 'Seems to be designed.' No argument there. :-)
You see with me believing God always existed doesn't break any rules because I believe in the super natural. But you have the problem if you say everything is the cause of natural laws, something logically had to happen and it had to come from somewhere, you can not ignore this.
Your other two question I have really no idea, and I'm not sure if I really care. Id say God exist everywhere that has been created and who says God has to be made of something?
I was raised atheist, but as a teenager I was really convinced of the existence of a 'supernatural.' By now the term has lost its meaning and relevance to me again. Where does the natural end and does the supernatural start? If the supernatural has an influence on 'our' world, then where is the border between the two? I don't think there is one. What we like to call 'supernatural' is also part of our universe, and not outside its laws and characteristics.
(Cont'd) The natural world is large, complex and bizarre enough to accomodate all the weirdness that we can imagine. I think our attempts to place certain things outside it is just a construct to make the universe more understandable to us and the questions we ask, but has no basis in fact.
Dutch, what it sounds like you may be doing is replacing an instinctive knowing of the super natural with denial. You said you were raised "atheist" but you were convinced of the super natural, why were you convinced of the super natural as coming from an non believing home you had no reason to think there was the super natural, so why did you?
Romans 1 through Chapter 2 describes exactly what you've done, in my opinion. It just confirms the Bible for me.
Oh I've read that book you're referring to, I know it better than most christians I know. And no. I had to make my own search but am sure of what I believe by now. I'll just make sure to have my own children find out in a different way.
(My parents were frustrated ex-christians trying to keep me away from everything religious. Nothing made religion more interesting to me than that. But in the end, after making my own assessment, it turned out I agreed with them.)
If you want to put it that way: yes. And don't tell me that I 'reject' anything or whatever. I'll go with the majesty and mystery of a naturalistic world too beautiful and complex for us to understand. No need to give that mystery a name and a face and connect it with a book or the notion of eternal life.
There would be no other need to give the beautiful mystery of life and this world a Name other than it being the truth. I honestly think you do not believe what you are saying, you are not convinced there is NO GOD but I'm sure you don't care what I think. People can suppress and say anything that sounds good but I have no doubts, in your mind you still wrestle with the reality of a Creator. Am I off the mark for saying so?
Yes you are off the mark. As I said, the notion of a supernatural personal god no longer makes a whole lot of sense to me. If there was a 'higher consciousness' at all (which I don't believe but which I nonetheless find an acceptable thought), he would have to be part of the universe and not its creator.
No I'm not off the mark, you are not convinced there is no God, you're just being dishonest, no debate there.
You say He would have to be part of the Universe and not it's Creator, you have stepped into the realm of belief and philosophy.
Yes, I have a far more detailed view of God, simply because I don't suppress the reality of there being a God and the fact that the Bible is testable, reliable, and produces what the Gospel says it will produce, which is belief, repentance and change.
You're twisting my words. I entertained the notion of a superior being for argument's sake and then said he couldn't possibly be at the beginning of all things because that doens't make sense. Where does that make me a believer and dishonest?
The Bible, for that matter, is neither reliable nor testable; it's a collection of Jewish stories, followed by a sequel which mainly consists of four conflicting accounts of the life of an anti-Roman prophet who dies in the end.
Oh, and the plot-twists 'He came to life again!' or 'He died for a good reason: our sins!' are absurd, and anyone with some investigative sense will recognize it for what it is: an attempt by the author to give some positive angle to an otherwise very unhappy ending.
Dutch, you have no grounds to claim the Bible isn't reliable nor testable, I am speaking of spiritual matters.
It seems you are another scoffer of Christianity, discussing it with someone who denies the reality of sin would just be a waste of time. If you can't see that your are sinful, I see how Christianity would be foolishness to you. But I think we both know denying sin is impossible but I'm sure you will give some "clever" explanation to suppress this reality.
I do deny the reality of sin, so maybe we really are wasting our time. Sorry for being a little malicious about the Bible, it was not meant to scoff you, I wrote it while annoyed with your reinterpreting my words.
Dutch, you don't need to apologize to me, I don't deny sin and I have no doubts about Yahweh being God and Creator of everything. I can understand why you would be annoyed. Take care.
@Dutchmaster81 said:"he would have to be part of the universe and not its creator."
Nice you have such an intimate knowledge of this creator but if he were to create the universe, then that would suggest was around BEFORE it was created therefore proving he doesn't have to be part of it
Am I, in my turn, off the mark to assume you have a far more detailed and specific view of god than him/her just being the creator; a view which involves him sending his son to take up our sins, and which involves a certain book being inspired by him?
@Dutchmaster81 :"I think our attempts to place certain things outside it is just a construct to make the universe more understandable to us and the questions we ask, but has no basis in fact."
Mmmm yes yes, a lot like the construct of evolution makes for an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Dawkins
@Dutchmaster81said:Who designed the designer? In what universe does he exist, and what is he made of?"
All good questions about an area of our existence, science rarely braves exploration with its religious implications and Science current hatred and bigotry of religion in general, I doubt we will ever know much less know whether we are talking about a designed designer or not moreover, I wouldn't know what universe but I would assume he isn't from this one
Is there some reason you are calling one scientist by his last name, and the other by his first name?
STM was invented by Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer.
Most of the rest of the video is good, if only you had ended it at 5:54.
The use of the term "invention" with regards to carbon's atomic structure is a bit silly. Carbon is formed by radioactive decay and fusion. Does it need to be "invented"? Did the number 12 need to be invented?
Eh, joemark. Hows it goin? Well, I know Heinrich very well, ergo, first name basis. Lucky me.
So, from nothing to the incredibly astounding carbon atom is not invention or design? Just happenstance? Freak of luck that if it was 3 or 4 times larger, still unimaginably tiny, we would all be pancakes? Another one in a trillion? Line up them one in a trillions, and what are the odds?
Well, glad you liked it up to 5:54. Can't please everybody all the time, but I'll take the 5:54.
Thanx stevebee. These youngsters need to be aware of these things that you are teaching. I guess when they are at school, they are treated like database whereby they get stuffed with info's (some useless like evo supposition) without ever contemplating on them. They need to spend more time pondering about the meaning of life and God, without being influenced by peers who are Godless. So, this is a good forum where you ask them a simple question, and they don't have to fry their brain to think.
good for you, peasized brain. btw, why do you have to deliver your inane comment directly to me? you shouldn't have. u r a noisome, peewee herman-sized tofu brain boy. pleaz keep ur drivel to urself, tanx.
@S00perSizedBrain said:"Carbon is being formed every day as a result of actions in the core of stars. You left that part out."
Yes which makes its obvious designed qualities much easier to take for granted.
" Must God be personally involved in that process?"
Don't know, why don't you try to design something as complex having as much utility and purpose without you being personally involved in the process and let us know when you've done it. If deaf dumb blind nature can do it, be easy 4 u
I often thing the same. I see various theirsy trying to twist science and reality to fit their preconceived views on the world. It must an exhausting mend binding exercise. I do not have the energy!
those who deny God deny the spiritual characteristic that is inherent in all of us. To those who deny the Creator, human being is nothing more than a perishable product made of organic matter, whose main constituent is C-12, 666 (p,n,e). Bible says that anyone who denies Christ is an antiChrist, and NT says that there are already many of them in the world. So, this could imply that humans who deny God are themselves antiChrist, and their designation is the numbers of proton, neutron, electron.
In spiritual realm, numbers have inherent meaning. Further, carbon-12 has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons. Place the three numbers in sequence, you get 666. Famous number in Revelation. Many interpret that one AntiChrist who has that designation will come soon. Then, there are those who interpret 666 differently. It is a mysterious number. However, we can think like this: Humans are organic matter in the physical sense. We are in fact hybrid of spirit and matterm, but....continued
Carbon-12 is used as a reference to define 1 atomic mass unit or dalton: 1 amu = 1/12 of carbon-12. Carbon is the MOST encountered (Not most abundant) atom in the whole world. That is, all organic matters are composed of hydrocarbons as main constituents. Why does it have to be carbon and why carbon has mass number 12, we don't know. But, Bible talks about number 12 in terms of 12 tribes and important numbers that are divisible by 12. Coincident?
Do you mean (A) religious causes, or (B) ultra strong natural intelligence and abilities that we are not close to comprehending, or able? I'll take (B) on this one.
So you think natural selection designed the carbon atom? I think you aren't thinking. Natural selection then becomes a form of God. Which it is to evolutonauts. Natural selection requires life.
My apologies, that is not what I meant. Although it is what I said!
Natural selection is not a form of God as far as I am concerned. It is merely a natural process which occurs. It does not demand worship, punish or reward anyone, nor does it offer promises of life after death which most religions have.
So you think NS designed all living species and systems? Sounds like a form of god to me.
What then designed the carbon atom which made NS possible? It's pretty hard to say you know what formed everything in nature after life began, but you have no idea what formed the building blocks for life.
I do not think NS designed them as such as there was no initial planning or objective. There was merely a reactionary process - however if that is what you define god as then it will be god to you. No arguments from me there!
What designed the carbon atom. I am afraid I do not know, although someone probably does. If not, I am sure that someone will soon.
I think this is normally where theist jump in and exclaim "God did it!" and create the famous God of the gaps argument.
NS doesn't come into it - at least not in the biological sense, as individual atoms do not reproduce themselves.
The atoms we find are those that are possible given the natural forces - in this case the electromagnetic and weak forces...as far as we currently know.
Why we perceive those forces in the universe is perhaps a more salient question.
I put the salient question down in the vid. Try giving it an answer, instead of changing it to what you think is "more salient". You guys don't know what caused life, what caused the perfect building blocks, but you do know how species and systems evolved,? If you don't know A, and B, then you don't know C.
We do know, as I said, why the atoms are arranged as they are. Ergo, answering whether they appear designed or not is moot. We need to take a step away from that and look at the next level down. Do the four known forces show design or are they just manifestations of the natural world...or are they just figments of our collective imaginations?! I quite like figments of imagination, but I'd go with natural causes, given the history of scientific discovery.
So, A, B, or C? It's not moot. It;s huge. How brave of you to say 'natural causes". That means absolutely nothing, since everything in the universe comes from "natural causes".
I don't think it shows invention. And I certainly don't think it as incredible - we know they are there - hence it's all credible.
However, I also think that labeling it as designed or not designed is of no use other than to limit avenues of inquiry. You obviously think it's designed, and possibly invented. Where does that lead us in terms of learning more about the workings of the natural world?
So, going from nothing to the incredibly unimaginably unlikely design of an atom that takes astoundingly complex math to even understand isn't invention.
And the unbelievably complex design of the carbon atom isn't design.
And it's "not incredible" even though it's incredible beyond imagination. (Did you watch the vid?)
You must get tired trying to pretend as much as you need to in order to believe what you do.
bee, no problem, looking forward to the next vid on this. Also I visited your web site and there is some great stuff there- Looks like u got cool kids as well.:) I've got 3 myself.
It's such a pity that you have to dig so hard for criticism. Most people haven't taken the science that this vid covers, no matter what their school level, or they have forgotten it. It's not geared to college professors or students currently in physics, et al, classes. Nice try.
very clever video steve...a bit over my head to be honest, i will watch a few times to see if i can try to understand a bit of it....but it seems all so intelligent, it's an insult to see it any other way.
if a God or any designer made life, i wonder how they would feel about the thoughts of some who just laugh in the face of such a beautiful gift as life.
If we agree that God created everything, doesn't that leave us pondering which God? Every religion claims it is correct with equal amounts of proof and belief.
Or even if the true creator God has ever been discovered?
Or even if the true creator God is still monitoring this place? If he is, does he ever intervene? If so, what is his objective? Perhaps he is an alien child and he views us like his pets?
Never did I see anything about "Why wont the electron fly into the nucleus?" If there is such a high force, and the electrons are allreaddy keept in place by the posetive protons, why wont they melt togather? What keeps them from doing that? Will you pu that on pt. 2? or did I miss it?
That will be in part 2. A well thought out question. If you want the answer: The velocity of the electrons is so great that their momentum prevents them from being sucked into the (+) protons. Much like the earth, traveling around the sun at 66,000 mph doesn't get sucked in by the sun's gravity. It's mo bro.
I guess since there is only 3 choices I will pick designer. And my designer and creator of the carbon atom would be known as the billion trillions of stars, including the past and future ones. But when you really look at things, there is nothing all that special about the carbon atom. After all, they are just made from the super simplistic hydrogen atom with it's lonely one proton,neutron and electron. No magic needed. Pretty benign if you ask me.
thybigballs 2 months ago
@thybigballs You need to study the carbon atom and its characteristics. It is unique and special beyond imagination. Without that uniqueness there would be no life on earth. Its made of particles that are unique and special beyond imagination. Ditto water. Of the billions of compounds, there is only one that has the qualities that could support life.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 I agree with your post except for the part where you said the carbon atom was "special beyond imagination" as this seems to indicate a necessity of what is commonly known as a god that spoke to humans. On a completely different note, check out "hypothetical" types of biochemistry. It's purely hypothetical but so are a few things in this video. Maybe science can one day get past all the hype's and have actual answers(even if it proves "god"). The theory of everything, if you will.
thybigballs 2 months ago
@thybigballs I hope someday we will get the answer. There are so many amazing Puzzles. My guess is we never will. It will drive those of us who are interested crazy for our whole lives. But thinking about it, and trying is sure fun.
Carbon has nothing to do with god that spoke to humans. I don't get that one.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
Thank you for this great video. I think many people have something like a God complex. They must feel like living forever when you hear them speaking about the "stupidity of godliness and spirituality".
DexterTheMaster 8 months ago
b.
Wouldn't it be way more designish if there were no atoms and everything was just simple different kinds of matter, like skin, stones and water as we perceive them?
Why the unnecessary complexity if everything is "clearly" designed?
Why do you obviously believe in the christian god whom ID is accredited to, but constantly refuse to discuss the matter by deflecting and accusing? You are obviously just trying to sound like a reasonable scientist.
ac1th 8 months ago
@ac1th Deflecting? Accusing? I don't deflect intelligent questions. But, really, there aren't many in this science, because it's nothing but fable and conjecture.
Unnecessary complexity? According to who? You? Atoms show unbelievable design. The building blocks are designed as well as all of living nature's systems.
Me: not religious. Sorry. You evos are bad guessers.
stevebee92653 8 months ago
@stevebee92653 You request and imply authority in many comments and videos, that's what religious people do because they can't wrap their head around falsifiability and haven't yet left their childhood mindset for fear of losing something important. The 99% of all species that went extinct did so because their "design" was bad. In nature, only well functioning organisms survive, hence why the ones left look designed to fit their surroundings. You can't demonstrate your claim.
ac1th 8 months ago
b.
Gorteenminogue 1 year ago
P.S name one thing on your whole channel about evolution that has not been thoroughly debunked LOL
proofandevidence 1 year ago
@proofandevidence Everything. Talk is cheap. Evolution uses talk, not proof. "There is mountains of evidence." "Biology is nothing without evolution." "Everything has been debunked." Your comment. Of course, all bullshit. Bye
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Evolution uses talk? not proof? then what is the Genome project? what is the fossil record? <<< LITERAL MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE FILLED WITH DATED FOSSIL EVIDENCE! I never said everything has been debunked, I asked you a question, lets ask it again, name one topic on your channel which you present against evolution, that is not completely false, and has not been thoroughly debunked? Channel FAIL?
proofandevidence 1 year ago
@proofandevidence Don't rag on other people's IQ when yours is so hurting. The genome project has nothing to do with evolution unless you can show genomes of past species/fossils from millions of years ago and compare.The genome is part of genetics. The fossil record shows no sign of evolution within species, or growing limbs, eyes, wings.
No point of my site has been debunked or it wouldn't be there. I would remove any part proven false. So if you are so smart, have at it. Make me edit.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
This was a 10/10 video until the multiple choice part, I really liked this video. But the multiple choice was off, look at how the carbon atom was formed, your looking at the effect of many causes and saying, it must be designed, look at how atoms are formed, it is then you should make your judgement. I choose B, no design what so ever because their is no evidence leading to a supernatural diety, that and we have natural explanations of how atoms formed.
proofandevidence 1 year ago
@proofandevidence You have natural explanations? Right. Einstein didn't, I am glad to hear you do. So you think the carbon atom shows no design? Astounding. Ever taken a math/physics class and studied the math needed to understand the carbon atom? It's beyond astounding. So, blind yourself all you want. I can't.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 "you have natural explanations?" you are referring to how the carbon was formed correct? and you think it was "designed"? You understand what took place in the early universe correct? the carbon atom was formed after protons and neutrons, <<<these were formed after quarks and gluons were formed. So again, to look at the carbon atom and say "god dun it" is akin to looking at a pretty flower and saying "god dun it", well there are natural explanations, and none pointing to a diety.
proofandevidence 1 year ago
@proofandevidence If you want to keep on ignoring the beyond genius level of intelligence that was required for the universe and life, fine. Your story of gluons and quarks, then protons is a story of ingenious invention and assembly. Each one of those parts is an invention. Inventions coming together to form newer inventions, then coming together to form newer ones. If you think intelligence was not part of the equation, your choice. It took man tens of thousands of years to figure it out.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 So your basically saying, I don't understand it, therefor, God dun it. Great theory, you should write a paper Im sure it will go places. Now, the real question is, why is there something other then nothing? Your answer is the same as our primitive ancestors, that being, God dun it. Now not only is there ZERO empirical evidence of this diety. There is also the distinct possibility that the energy, in which we know to be eternal, hence conservation of energy, has always been.
proofandevidence 1 year ago
@proofandevidence Now your responses are disingenuous and trite. The god-dun-it thing is disappointing. And copy-cat commenting. I thought you were better than that. To try your put-down jargon on me because I see intelligence where you should be seeing is bat strategy. Zero evidence? Entities that are more intelligently designed than anything any man could invent design and assemble show no intelligence? You are on the side of zero evidence........
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@proofandevidence Gawd, another copy paste comment. "I don't understand it therefore God dun it" is a completely dishonest and horribly corny translation used commonly by indoctrinated evolutionauts. Try being original. You keep looking worse. Reality is evolution's story is impossible. It has nothing to do with me not "understanding" and you know goddam well. Your comments are getting so repetitive, probably time to say adios. I have heard all your stuff before from your fellow believers.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Now your going to say, well the energy may be eternal, (because how could it appear or disappear into nothing!) but that doesn't mean a diety or dietys couldn't have ordered the energy to follow rules. Of course it doesn't mean that, but it certainly implies that its possible with out dietys. Now lets say these dietys or diety exist/s. Who "designed" them? could they prove that no diety created them and then just disappeared? Just like you claim it is in our case?
proofandevidence 1 year ago
@proofandevidence Nothing can be infinite. And you are exactly why I don't claim any labels. I don't argue deities. I argue intelligence requirements in the formula for the universe and life. I don't know the source, so don't bother asking. But it is there. You turn to deities, another stupid argument. You are an evo-CD.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee Not infinite, eternal, two very different concepts. Im why you don't claim labels? ? You don't argue dieties? good, so you reject religion.because there is as much evidence for dieties as there is for spiderman, and if you don't believe in a specific one then your a deist with exacly the same amount of evidence. Yes I believe in evolution, I aslo believe in gravity and the speed of light, not magic. Evolution is a fact of reality, do some non biased research and get over it.
proofandevidence 1 year ago
@proofandevidence I'm glad you recognize evolution is a "belief". I couldn't care less what you "believe". You're indoctrinated. You believe on a track you can't get off of.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 "You believe on a track you can't get off of" well said...well said...are you a monkey by the way? Just wondering. Actually I believe, I can also use the word know, I know evolution is a fact, why? because of the overwhelming amount of proof supporting it. Its either evolution is a fact, or theres a magical being, who, for some reason made it look in every aspect imaginable like we evolved. Hmmm....Yeah evolution seems more logical. Your stupid.
proofandevidence 1 year ago
@proofandevidence So I take it you believe in evolution? You've said that so many times it's barf inducing. I truly feel sorry for you for being so gullible. Bye
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 And you didn't attempt to touch my arguement on who created the diety that created us? could he be eternal? if he is why can't we? If he is eternal and uncreated could he prove it? or would he be like us, against all logic and evidence he still resorts to claiming, maybe a god created me? lets say there is, then who created the God who created our God? and could HE prove that no diety created him? it comes down to, we just exist, energy is eternal, until a diety shows himself...
proofandevidence 1 year ago
@proofandevidence You think you are so smart, and evos are smarter that the religous? Why are your comments all copy/paste. Old and tired out.
I told you I am not religious, and you are so dense you argue as if I am. The religious people on my channel are far more intelligent that you for sure. Better go back and check that poll you spouted.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
Wow, great video, I learned a lot :D
Moshikashitenai 1 year ago
This video was a good atomic theory 101, until the religious bullshit and evolution denialism came in.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo There is no religion in this vid or me. Do you think the carbon atom shows no design? The denialism is in the fact that it's so obviously incredibly designed, and you can blind yourself to that fact.
PS Thanks for the compliment.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Yeah, and that's your religion right there.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo My religion is that I think the carbon atom shows design? What a laugh. Your indoctrination makes you unable to see it. Actually you do see it, but you block it out. How can you be so dishonest with yourself? I was, but the day came that I had to be honest with myself.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Uhuh. Because a designer for the atom is not a religious concept. :')
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo You are so afraid of religion, that alone overwhelms your ability to think and reason. Has nothing to do with religion. Atoms have tremendous design. Period. That's just the way it is. You don't have to read a holy book or pray or even sing. Religion has nothing to do with the fact that atoms are a designed, incredibly designed entities at that. So keep fooling yourself. And pretending you don't see what you do see.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Oh yes, totally. Religious rhetoric about design isn't religious at all, is it?
And everyone who doesn't agree with your religious rhetoric is in denial and is afraid of religion. Right? :-)
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo What religious rhetoric? There is none here. =D
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
"The atom is designed". That, right there, is religious rhetoric. You saying it's designed "and that's the way it is" is a bit silly, as is your bringing in of reading holy books, praying or singing.
Intelligent Design is a religious statement, not a scientific one. Though with the denialism you have going on it's not all that surprising you try to pass it off as one.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo So you choose to blind yourself. Obviously. Fine with me. I could care less. But don't tell people what they think. "Tis bad technique. You are not powerful enough to read people's thoughts and reasoning.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Perhaps not, but I AM powerful enough to understand what certain phrases (such as "the atom is designed") suggest.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo So your point is the atom, particularly the Carbon atom, shows absolutely no design? And the incredibly complex math we need to understand the function of the C atom shows no design as well? And the fact the that the form and math of the atom, which is the same all over the universe, also is a demonstration of no design? It shows complete randomness? Is that your thinking?
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
My point is that you could've come across as a much more honest person if you left out the claim of there being an intelligent designer. Those claims ruined it.
I have no interest in debating the subject of design with you since you aren't even willing to admit to ID being a religious statement. I don't expect anything useful to develop out of such a debate.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo So your point is the atom, particularly the Carbon atom, shows absolutely no design? And the incredibly complex math we need to understand the function of the C atom shows no design as well? And the fact the that the form and math of the atom, which is the same all over the universe, also is a demonstration of no design? It shows complete randomness? Is that your thinking?
Answer this question. Simple yes or no. Does the C atom show design or is it random?
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
I don't have to answer that question, as it's not the subject of the conversation. The subject is that you ruined a good video by closing with a statement of ID.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo It IS the subject of this conversation, and one you can't be honest enough to answer. I am asking what you honestly see. You don't have the answer to what you yourself observe? So block out, play pretend, fool yourself, as you wish. But realize that that makes honest and intelligent conversation impossible. adios
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
No, it's not the subject of the conversation. You're throwing me a red herring. Get over it.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo Translation: YES you can see that the C atom has design, and NO you won't admit it. Thanks.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Haha, sure buddy, whatever your fantasy tells you it means. You try to spin my refusal to give you an answer - simply because I don't care to get drawn into such a debate with a person like you - any way you like. You'll just show yourself to be an ass even more than you already have.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo Translation: YES you can see that the C atom has design, and NO you won't admit it. Thanks. Bye
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Translation: You don't get to define me. I do. :-)
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo Agreed ! this douche bag comments on his own retarded videos under a 2nd account ! named Copsweet.. What a total and utter failure...
younwhosarmy 1 year ago
@younwhosarmy Gee, wrong again. Are you ever right?
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo said:" you ruined a good video by closing with a statement of ID."
Why did you even bother making this statement you stupid little moron. If you have that much bigotry toward intelligence, it surprises me, you haven't committed suicide yet the smarter you got growing up. I guess dumbing you down with public school indoctrinated science has you comfortable living in your own skin, with your head comfortably up your ass where it is more likely dumb natural selection put it
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
Is ad hom all you can do or are you going to make a point?
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@laflugantabastardo said:"Is ad hom all you can do or are you going to make a point?"
No no,, I can do more ad-hom's if you like in addition to making it a point to do it
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo said:"I have no interest in debating the subject of design with you since you aren't even willing to admit to ID being a religious statement. I don't expect anything useful to develop out of such a debate."
This is absolutely the biggest cop out Darwits continue to use to slide out of the bold faced facts facing them directly in the eye. The idea that intelligent design or anything designed using (God forbid) "intelligence", has religion behind it.
Christaphobic imbecile
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo said:My point is that you could've come across as a much more honest person if you left out the claim of there being an intelligent designer"
How would leaving out his honest opinion that it has intelligent design, make him more honest? Are you suggesting he should lie before you consider him honest? Who is lying to whom? I suggest you are lying to yourself about evolution and like most Darwits you believe your own bullshit irrespective of the facts before you.
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
Colour me surprised. You are asking a question!
Perhaps my choice of words was poor in that sentence. He could've come across as more trustworthy. He is closing a completely factual video with a religious opinion. He's entitled to that opinion, of course, but it's sadly out of place.
I'm not going to go into your blatant name calling as they have no message or substance to them at all.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo Really? can you tell me what religion this intelligent designer attends in Church or just what exactly do you have to cite as a religious opinion or is it a pre-requisite that all intelligent designers beings, entity, what ever it is, has a religious back round.
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
The idea of an intelligent designer does not need to be owned by one specific church, branch or even religion. Many religions have an intelligence behind the creation of the earth (and the universe if people were aware of everything outside of the earth at the time).
I think the better question is, what is NOT religious about the statement of an intelligent designer for nature?
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo said: "I think the better question is, what is NOT religious about the statement of an intelligent designer for nature?"
I just asked what is religious about it and you've answered with another question implying their isn't a THING that is NOT religious about it. and again, all I am asking you to confirm, whether you think some of it, or ALL of it is religious,
WHAT or WHO makes it religious? If you do, then that's YOU, not science, not the evidence but YOU add that
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
The whole idea of "intelligent design" in this case is that it's nature designed by a supernatural intelligence. A supernatural intelligence is, by definition, a god, and thus it is - again by definition - a religious statement.
I'd also appreciate it if you would not paint every atheist with such a broad brush. You have your anti-theists, yes, but I do not happen to be one of them. I was merely commenting how out of place a statement of faith was after so many factoids.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo I don't see him suggest a supernatural intelligence anywhere in this video. Can you show me where I missed it?
I can paint every atheist with that brush and will continue to do so until you can show me the majority of atheists don't fit the profile and are just fine mixing religion and science. That statement of faith you speak of at the end?? can you quote me what statement of faith he is making
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
Yes: where he said that he believes the carbon atom was intelligently designed.
I hope you understand that a the designer of atoms can not be made of atoms and is thus by definition supernatural.
I was talking about the "absolute disdain". Plenty of atheists out there who do not have an "absolute disdain", and the importance of separation between religion and science is acknowledged by theistic scientists as well (eg Ken Miller), so it's not just atheists.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo said:"I hope you understand that a the designer of atoms can not be made of atoms and is thus by definition supernatural."
I wouldn't know as I have not met the designer of the atom but it is drop dead obvious the atom displays astounding elegance and incredible design. The meaning of that albeit might have religious implications, it is evidence like this, science will either ignore the obvious design like they run from bio-genesis when that comes up but Facts don't care
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp
You mean it's "drop dead obvious" to you. To me not so. It's tiny, sure, but we humans aren't trying to figure out the nature we are part of. We aren't that great, so saying that "it's too complex, there must be a designer" is just an egocentric statement (which is inherent to humans, so that's okay).
Fortunately science has gone way past the point where it is interested in accepting subjective opinions as valid theories. :-)
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo Atheists in their absolute disdain of religion, for what ever the reason have this idea that intelligent design is a religion and if any scientist who has any religious convictions puts forth anything that would suggest intelligent design, naturally they are going to assume it is God. SO WHAT!
Science doesn't care about speculations like that. Atheists do but it has NOTHING to do with the FACTs if the facts suggest intelligent design was employed, REGARDLESS of religioun
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
Very well made video.
I bet the 6 yr olds find it very informative
DreddDwarf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DreddDwarf said:"I bet the 6 yr olds find it very informative"
Why? Just because you did doesn't mean all the other 6 year olds in your class would.
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
Remarkably well researched video. I´ll choose option a). Reason: Not only do we understand how the carbon atom is synthezised, but also do we understand and are able to quantify the nuclear forces involved. Carbon is formed like a ball falling into a pit. The point where it comes to rest is determined by gravity and the shape of the pit, not by anyone putting it there.
One question remains: Where did you get the size of an electron? It should be a point-particle according to particle physics.
rhominus 1 year ago
@rhominus Actually, an electron is both a wave and a particle. There's really no concrete "all the time" description of an electron. You understand HOW the carbon atom is synthesized? Of course by fusion of lighter elements. Understanding WHY of: the incredible relationship of the forces involved, it's design is not doable.The complex math it takes to comprehend C is beyond incredible. You know HOW, I want to know WHY."Nothing" existing would be much more logical. Anyway, thanks for the look.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
(If my english seems a little awkward, please bear with me)
Thanks for the answer. I understand the concept of particle-wave duality, but if seen in this light, your statement from the video still is, while not fallatious, a little unclear. Since a spatial extent can be assigned to the nucleus, given by the separation between the constituent quarks, the context makes it seem like you were talking about a physical extent, not the "extent" of the waveform.
t.b.c.
rhominus 1 year ago
@rhominus You obviously are very well educated on particle physics. This vid is made for those not educated on the subject: the general public. So I didn't want to get deeper than what would keep an average person interested. Your English is very good BTW. C obviously shows incredible design. It is the way it is for some reason, considering that it could be any of billions of possible designs, or not exist at all. The source of that design then is whatever we make it.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@rhominus Pt. 2. You say there is no source. In doing so you are taking a carbon atom with its incredible design, as we know the whole world of particle physics is designed way beyond our ability to comprehend, and the beyond belief forces and their relationship that rule its world, and say there is no source. And here we have to go with our gut feelings. I say intelligent (non religious) source, you say nothing. And neither of us can be right or wrong. Kind of like the uncertainty principle.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@rhominus And sorry I couldn't get this in pt. 2, but I do appreciate your intelligent comments. They are so rare. Yours are well written and well thought out. I wish there was more of you.
Best wishes as well.............
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Secondly: The maths required to describe C is very complex, because interactions between the individual electrons lead to elementary unsolvable integrals. This is also true for everything above He, but that´s what experiments and approximations are for. We can even say _why_ C has the mentioned properties. It is exactly what happens if you take Si and add an electron.
t.b.c.
rhominus 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 The reason for it´s 4 electrons on the outer shell lies in that there are exactly two options for the eigenvalue of an electron´s spin, if there were more, but everything else stayed the same, we would have a different C-like element. The fact remains that the formation and properties of Carbon can be fully explained by the intereaction of elementary fields. If anything must be designed, which I do not believe, it´s these.
Best wishes.
rhominus 1 year ago
The argument that the propensity for carbon to form complex chains as being a result of design is akin to the water in a pothole seeing "design" in the shape of the pothole because it conforms PRECISELY to its own shape. Clearly the reverse is true. Similarly, organic molecules are the upshot of the physical properties inherent in the arrangement of six protons, neutrons, and electrons in three dimensional space -- not the intent of it.
PatchesRips 1 year ago
The suppositions here are questionable right out of the gate. The idea that all matter in the universe is atomic hasn't been a valid scientific position since the discovery of the electron in 1897. Much of the matter in the universe is subatomic. For instance, most of the mass of a given star is plasma, ionized hydrogen stripped of electrons, which, by definition, cannot be considered atomic.
PatchesRips 1 year ago
A nice presentation up until your conclusion, which is an utterly unconvincing argument. The patterns within atoms show no evidence of deliberate invention by a person, on the contrary, they are typical natural forms. Humans have evolved to perceive the work of "persons" behind most every action- it is purely an adaptation for survival, that the sound of grass blowing in the wind may be a predator and so forth. You are a victim of you own evolutionary tendencies.
MrDominex 1 year ago
So the pattern of atoms show complete dumb luck randomness?
(1) Observe
(2) Think
(3) Quit fooling yourself.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee,
Assume carbon atoms are designed. Then what? What about asking question like "why is red color red?" is this apparent design, no design, or design? Does it matter?
Would you accept the Weak Anthropic Principle as an answer to these questions? (I know this statement is a tautology but any theories must necessarily contains at least one postulate.) If you do not accept this as a qualified answer then why do you dismiss it?
Have you considered the other alternative answers as well?
jomen112 2 years ago
Stevebee, just checked back to your channel after a long time, and watching this video I am somewhat dismayed to find that you apparently moved from a form of belief in Intelligent Design, to what I can only interpret to be a form of outright creationism.
So let me just, superfluously, ask the 64000 dollar question, Steve: who designed the carbon atom? And what is he made of?
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
Yea, that's a brilliant question, since the design of the C atom is unimaginably intelligent. Except in they eyes of evolutionauts who are so so blind to design.
My point is that you evos think you have all the answers for how complex bioelectromechanical devices formed, but you have no idea how the carbon atom or life came to be. Pretty amazing. Best to admit you don't know, just like me.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Oh that's easy to admit. I don't think anyone in their right mind will say that we know why the carbon atom is the way it is, or why the universe is as orderly as it is. Phycisists have some interesting theories on it, but no-one has ever claimed to know the answer.
Except of course believers in design (of all kinds), who simply remit the problem to some unexplained, invisible 'designer.'
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
Dutchmaster, isn't fair to assume an invisible Designer is possible if things clearly seem to be designed?
raggedy80 2 years ago
Well, let me repeat one important argument against it. You've probably heard it so often that you don't even think about the question anymore, but please think about this cliché one more time:
Who designed the designer? In what universe does he exist, and what is he made of?
I like your choice of words btw. 'Seems to be designed.' No argument there. :-)
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
Who designed the Designer? - Dutchmaster
You see with me believing God always existed doesn't break any rules because I believe in the super natural. But you have the problem if you say everything is the cause of natural laws, something logically had to happen and it had to come from somewhere, you can not ignore this.
Your other two question I have really no idea, and I'm not sure if I really care. Id say God exist everywhere that has been created and who says God has to be made of something?
raggedy80 2 years ago
I was raised atheist, but as a teenager I was really convinced of the existence of a 'supernatural.' By now the term has lost its meaning and relevance to me again. Where does the natural end and does the supernatural start? If the supernatural has an influence on 'our' world, then where is the border between the two? I don't think there is one. What we like to call 'supernatural' is also part of our universe, and not outside its laws and characteristics.
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
@Dutchmaster81:"What we like to call 'supernatural' is also part of our universe, and not outside its laws and characteristics."
Mmmm you have an example of this
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
(Cont'd) The natural world is large, complex and bizarre enough to accomodate all the weirdness that we can imagine. I think our attempts to place certain things outside it is just a construct to make the universe more understandable to us and the questions we ask, but has no basis in fact.
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
Dutch, what it sounds like you may be doing is replacing an instinctive knowing of the super natural with denial. You said you were raised "atheist" but you were convinced of the super natural, why were you convinced of the super natural as coming from an non believing home you had no reason to think there was the super natural, so why did you?
Romans 1 through Chapter 2 describes exactly what you've done, in my opinion. It just confirms the Bible for me.
raggedy80 2 years ago
Oh I've read that book you're referring to, I know it better than most christians I know. And no. I had to make my own search but am sure of what I believe by now. I'll just make sure to have my own children find out in a different way.
(My parents were frustrated ex-christians trying to keep me away from everything religious. Nothing made religion more interesting to me than that. But in the end, after making my own assessment, it turned out I agreed with them.)
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
I see, so you don't know how it all happen but you know God didn't do it, right?
raggedy80 2 years ago
If you want to put it that way: yes. And don't tell me that I 'reject' anything or whatever. I'll go with the majesty and mystery of a naturalistic world too beautiful and complex for us to understand. No need to give that mystery a name and a face and connect it with a book or the notion of eternal life.
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
Okay, I won't tell you that you reject anything.
There would be no other need to give the beautiful mystery of life and this world a Name other than it being the truth. I honestly think you do not believe what you are saying, you are not convinced there is NO GOD but I'm sure you don't care what I think. People can suppress and say anything that sounds good but I have no doubts, in your mind you still wrestle with the reality of a Creator. Am I off the mark for saying so?
raggedy80 2 years ago
Yes you are off the mark. As I said, the notion of a supernatural personal god no longer makes a whole lot of sense to me. If there was a 'higher consciousness' at all (which I don't believe but which I nonetheless find an acceptable thought), he would have to be part of the universe and not its creator.
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
No I'm not off the mark, you are not convinced there is no God, you're just being dishonest, no debate there.
You say He would have to be part of the Universe and not it's Creator, you have stepped into the realm of belief and philosophy.
Yes, I have a far more detailed view of God, simply because I don't suppress the reality of there being a God and the fact that the Bible is testable, reliable, and produces what the Gospel says it will produce, which is belief, repentance and change.
raggedy80 2 years ago
You're twisting my words. I entertained the notion of a superior being for argument's sake and then said he couldn't possibly be at the beginning of all things because that doens't make sense. Where does that make me a believer and dishonest?
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
The Bible, for that matter, is neither reliable nor testable; it's a collection of Jewish stories, followed by a sequel which mainly consists of four conflicting accounts of the life of an anti-Roman prophet who dies in the end.
Oh, and the plot-twists 'He came to life again!' or 'He died for a good reason: our sins!' are absurd, and anyone with some investigative sense will recognize it for what it is: an attempt by the author to give some positive angle to an otherwise very unhappy ending.
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
Dutch, you have no grounds to claim the Bible isn't reliable nor testable, I am speaking of spiritual matters.
It seems you are another scoffer of Christianity, discussing it with someone who denies the reality of sin would just be a waste of time. If you can't see that your are sinful, I see how Christianity would be foolishness to you. But I think we both know denying sin is impossible but I'm sure you will give some "clever" explanation to suppress this reality.
raggedy80 2 years ago
I do deny the reality of sin, so maybe we really are wasting our time. Sorry for being a little malicious about the Bible, it was not meant to scoff you, I wrote it while annoyed with your reinterpreting my words.
Good luck with everything. Keep an open mind.
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
Dutch, you don't need to apologize to me, I don't deny sin and I have no doubts about Yahweh being God and Creator of everything. I can understand why you would be annoyed. Take care.
raggedy80 2 years ago
@Dutchmaster81 said:"he would have to be part of the universe and not its creator."
Nice you have such an intimate knowledge of this creator but if he were to create the universe, then that would suggest was around BEFORE it was created therefore proving he doesn't have to be part of it
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
Am I, in my turn, off the mark to assume you have a far more detailed and specific view of god than him/her just being the creator; a view which involves him sending his son to take up our sins, and which involves a certain book being inspired by him?
Dutchmaster81 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dutchmaster81 :"I think our attempts to place certain things outside it is just a construct to make the universe more understandable to us and the questions we ask, but has no basis in fact."
Mmmm yes yes, a lot like the construct of evolution makes for an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Dawkins
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
I also meant to add this "thing" that happened somewhere had to always exist.
raggedy80 2 years ago
@Dutchmaster81said:Who designed the designer? In what universe does he exist, and what is he made of?"
All good questions about an area of our existence, science rarely braves exploration with its religious implications and Science current hatred and bigotry of religion in general, I doubt we will ever know much less know whether we are talking about a designed designer or not moreover, I wouldn't know what universe but I would assume he isn't from this one
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Dutchmaster81
You're implying a difference where there isn't one.
rkyeun 1 year ago
1:01
Is there some reason you are calling one scientist by his last name, and the other by his first name?
STM was invented by Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer.
Most of the rest of the video is good, if only you had ended it at 5:54.
The use of the term "invention" with regards to carbon's atomic structure is a bit silly. Carbon is formed by radioactive decay and fusion. Does it need to be "invented"? Did the number 12 need to be invented?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Eh, joemark. Hows it goin? Well, I know Heinrich very well, ergo, first name basis. Lucky me.
So, from nothing to the incredibly astounding carbon atom is not invention or design? Just happenstance? Freak of luck that if it was 3 or 4 times larger, still unimaginably tiny, we would all be pancakes? Another one in a trillion? Line up them one in a trillions, and what are the odds?
Well, glad you liked it up to 5:54. Can't please everybody all the time, but I'll take the 5:54.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Thanx stevebee. These youngsters need to be aware of these things that you are teaching. I guess when they are at school, they are treated like database whereby they get stuffed with info's (some useless like evo supposition) without ever contemplating on them. They need to spend more time pondering about the meaning of life and God, without being influenced by peers who are Godless. So, this is a good forum where you ask them a simple question, and they don't have to fry their brain to think.
meinkleinTiger 2 years ago
What a dramatic illustration of what you hate being accused of most, incredulity.
You think that the atomic properties of carbon are evidence for an intelligent quantum designer (aka God)?
Your argument can be reduced to:
"Wow, look at the properties that amaze me. Therefore it's the result of a process I don't understand. God!"
Carbon is being formed every day as a result of actions in the core of stars. You left that part out. Must God be personally involved in that process?
S00perSizedBrain 2 years ago
good for you, peasized brain. btw, why do you have to deliver your inane comment directly to me? you shouldn't have. u r a noisome, peewee herman-sized tofu brain boy. pleaz keep ur drivel to urself, tanx.
meinkleinTiger 2 years ago
@S00perSizedBrain said:"You think that the atomic properties of carbon are evidence for an intelligent quantum designer "
Sure looks that way.
"Your argument can be reduced to:
"Wow, look at the properties that amaze me. Therefore it's the result of a process I don't understand. God!""
Fact is, it is easily recognized as intelligently designed but not always understood
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@S00perSizedBrain said:"Carbon is being formed every day as a result of actions in the core of stars. You left that part out."
Yes which makes its obvious designed qualities much easier to take for granted.
" Must God be personally involved in that process?"
Don't know, why don't you try to design something as complex having as much utility and purpose without you being personally involved in the process and let us know when you've done it. If deaf dumb blind nature can do it, be easy 4 u
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
Awesome video as always, Stevebee. Wow big surprise, hsitirb is criticizing you and your audience, you think it's because you've exposed his fantasy?
raggedy80 2 years ago
Thanks! These guys must get exhausted trying to pretend they don't see what they see. It's hard to do.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
I often thing the same. I see various theirsy trying to twist science and reality to fit their preconceived views on the world. It must an exhausting mend binding exercise. I do not have the energy!
JanJiska 2 years ago
those who deny God deny the spiritual characteristic that is inherent in all of us. To those who deny the Creator, human being is nothing more than a perishable product made of organic matter, whose main constituent is C-12, 666 (p,n,e). Bible says that anyone who denies Christ is an antiChrist, and NT says that there are already many of them in the world. So, this could imply that humans who deny God are themselves antiChrist, and their designation is the numbers of proton, neutron, electron.
meinkleinTiger 2 years ago
meinklein@
Wow! Your arguments make exactly as much sense as stevebee's.
S00perSizedBrain 2 years ago
In spiritual realm, numbers have inherent meaning. Further, carbon-12 has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons. Place the three numbers in sequence, you get 666. Famous number in Revelation. Many interpret that one AntiChrist who has that designation will come soon. Then, there are those who interpret 666 differently. It is a mysterious number. However, we can think like this: Humans are organic matter in the physical sense. We are in fact hybrid of spirit and matterm, but....continued
meinkleinTiger 2 years ago
Carbon-12 is used as a reference to define 1 atomic mass unit or dalton: 1 amu = 1/12 of carbon-12. Carbon is the MOST encountered (Not most abundant) atom in the whole world. That is, all organic matters are composed of hydrocarbons as main constituents. Why does it have to be carbon and why carbon has mass number 12, we don't know. But, Bible talks about number 12 in terms of 12 tribes and important numbers that are divisible by 12. Coincident?
meinkleinTiger 2 years ago
Yes
JanJiska 2 years ago
Wow steve great video! Glad you made this :)
Demosilpada7 2 years ago
Thanks!
stevebee92653 2 years ago
another homerun Steve!!!!!
Organization is the chief export of intelligence.
The function of intelligence is to create organizing forces.
The function of matter is to express those forces.
Force is the link between intelligence and matter.
What say you sir?
9pt9 2 years ago
Thanx! I say you are right on. Since matter is more force than matter, I like your conclusion. Intelligence has to be in the mix.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Perpetual motion machines. Are you sure? I thought that were continually being acted on by external forces?
I would say the answer is C but without supernatural causes.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Yep.
Do you mean (A) religious causes, or (B) ultra strong natural intelligence and abilities that we are not close to comprehending, or able? I'll take (B) on this one.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Hmmm ...I do not think either I think. I guess it depends on how you define B.
If you define it as a conscious intelligence then I do not agree.
If you define it as a form of 'collective problem solving' (natural selection) then I would agree.
I think A is out of date wishful thinking.
JanJiska 2 years ago
So you think natural selection designed the carbon atom? I think you aren't thinking. Natural selection then becomes a form of God. Which it is to evolutonauts. Natural selection requires life.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
My apologies, that is not what I meant. Although it is what I said!
Natural selection is not a form of God as far as I am concerned. It is merely a natural process which occurs. It does not demand worship, punish or reward anyone, nor does it offer promises of life after death which most religions have.
JanJiska 2 years ago
So you think NS designed all living species and systems? Sounds like a form of god to me.
What then designed the carbon atom which made NS possible? It's pretty hard to say you know what formed everything in nature after life began, but you have no idea what formed the building blocks for life.
Me: I admit to not having the answer to either.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
I do not think NS designed them as such as there was no initial planning or objective. There was merely a reactionary process - however if that is what you define god as then it will be god to you. No arguments from me there!
What designed the carbon atom. I am afraid I do not know, although someone probably does. If not, I am sure that someone will soon.
I think this is normally where theist jump in and exclaim "God did it!" and create the famous God of the gaps argument.
JanJiska 2 years ago
NS doesn't come into it - at least not in the biological sense, as individual atoms do not reproduce themselves.
The atoms we find are those that are possible given the natural forces - in this case the electromagnetic and weak forces...as far as we currently know.
Why we perceive those forces in the universe is perhaps a more salient question.
Hsitirb 2 years ago
I put the salient question down in the vid. Try giving it an answer, instead of changing it to what you think is "more salient". You guys don't know what caused life, what caused the perfect building blocks, but you do know how species and systems evolved,? If you don't know A, and B, then you don't know C.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
We do know, as I said, why the atoms are arranged as they are. Ergo, answering whether they appear designed or not is moot. We need to take a step away from that and look at the next level down. Do the four known forces show design or are they just manifestations of the natural world...or are they just figments of our collective imaginations?! I quite like figments of imagination, but I'd go with natural causes, given the history of scientific discovery.
Hsitirb 2 years ago
So, A, B, or C? It's not moot. It;s huge. How brave of you to say 'natural causes". That means absolutely nothing, since everything in the universe comes from "natural causes".
stevebee92653 2 years ago
I don't think it shows invention. And I certainly don't think it as incredible - we know they are there - hence it's all credible.
However, I also think that labeling it as designed or not designed is of no use other than to limit avenues of inquiry. You obviously think it's designed, and possibly invented. Where does that lead us in terms of learning more about the workings of the natural world?
Hsitirb 2 years ago
So, going from nothing to the incredibly unimaginably unlikely design of an atom that takes astoundingly complex math to even understand isn't invention.
And the unbelievably complex design of the carbon atom isn't design.
And it's "not incredible" even though it's incredible beyond imagination. (Did you watch the vid?)
You must get tired trying to pretend as much as you need to in order to believe what you do.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Just because you cannot imagine it or believe it, doesn't mean the rest of us cannot.
Hsitirb 2 years ago
I'm glad you have a good imagination. That's what it takes to be a real evolutionaut.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
It is at least a requirement for being an inventor, a designer or an engineer..
Hsitirb 2 years ago
I'll pich C. Tennis anyone? BK
billk92692 2 years ago
Good pich. haha
stevebee92653 2 years ago
good vid steve
agnostaxian 2 years ago
Thanks!
stevebee92653 2 years ago
bee, no problem, looking forward to the next vid on this. Also I visited your web site and there is some great stuff there- Looks like u got cool kids as well.:) I've got 3 myself.
agnostaxian 2 years ago
At most (in USAian terms) 12th Grade physics followed by a non-sequitur...Excellent video.
Hsitirb 2 years ago
Thanx! I didn't want to get into 4th year college physics. You are right on the grade level. That is fun enough for most.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
It's just such a pity that you have to make the assumption that most of your audience has never finished high school.
Hsitirb 2 years ago
It's such a pity that you have to dig so hard for criticism. Most people haven't taken the science that this vid covers, no matter what their school level, or they have forgotten it. It's not geared to college professors or students currently in physics, et al, classes. Nice try.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
very clever video steve...a bit over my head to be honest, i will watch a few times to see if i can try to understand a bit of it....but it seems all so intelligent, it's an insult to see it any other way.
if a God or any designer made life, i wonder how they would feel about the thoughts of some who just laugh in the face of such a beautiful gift as life.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
This isn't over your head. C'mon. You only THINK it is because it's quantum. It's UNDER your head. haha.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
If we agree that God created everything, doesn't that leave us pondering which God? Every religion claims it is correct with equal amounts of proof and belief.
Or even if the true creator God has ever been discovered?
Or even if the true creator God is still monitoring this place? If he is, does he ever intervene? If so, what is his objective? Perhaps he is an alien child and he views us like his pets?
JanJiska 2 years ago
i don't know janjiska, but whatever or who ever, be it that consciousness is the God, i think would be heart broken of the contempt of the creation.
aaugoaa 2 years ago
Never did I see anything about "Why wont the electron fly into the nucleus?" If there is such a high force, and the electrons are allreaddy keept in place by the posetive protons, why wont they melt togather? What keeps them from doing that? Will you pu that on pt. 2? or did I miss it?
MarlinMr 2 years ago
Hmm if i reply to you thats means i get first comment hee hee
aaugoaa 2 years ago
well, it shows as 2nd on mine!!
MarlinMr 2 years ago
lol
aaugoaa 2 years ago
That will be in part 2. A well thought out question. If you want the answer: The velocity of the electrons is so great that their momentum prevents them from being sucked into the (+) protons. Much like the earth, traveling around the sun at 66,000 mph doesn't get sucked in by the sun's gravity. It's mo bro.
stevebee92653 2 years ago