nature could have parted the red sea for moses' escape

[Danno 1,228]

I personally have a hard time with religious folks shutting down conversation when you bring up facts, that can be backed up with evidence, and when they have none, they pull out the old canard "you gotta have faith... I will pray for you..."

I would rather have hard core evidence...

I don't push my ideas on people, unlike some religious folks, but I will question them about them.

So far, I haven't seen any hard evidence for a "creator" - I am still looking, if I find it, I will change my mind, since it is open to new things.

not many religious people would do the same.

I haven't noticed people of faith trying to shut down religion around here.

I appreciate your observations but I have found, an ample number of Atheists take an "religious fervor" at proving their non-faith is the correct one.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

You are actually wrong. Those are not atoms but molecules and was done with a an electron microscope. I saw this pic a long time ago. They estimate and still do that we will never have the capabilities to see an atom but some scientists like to say we will one day way in the future. If they could actually see an atom then those huge colliders would be pretty much an expensive toy. They have to have a particles go pretty near the speed of light (Like 99.9 percent) and in opposite directions and the mass become around 300 times than before and smash into each other just to get a tell tale sign of the collision and keep their theories alive.

Nice try though but I have been around the block a few times.

I will try later and google and post why we can'[t see the atom but for now I have to get up the road.

They are not molecules - but atoms... Did you even bother to read the link article, or the links for the paper?

The ability to incorporate individual atoms in a surface followingpredetermined arrangements may bring future atom-based technologicalenterprises closer to reality. Here, we report the assemblingof complex atomic patterns at room temperature by the verticalinterchange of atoms between the tip apex of an atomic forcemicroscope and a semiconductor surface.

It was done with an atomic force microscope, not an electron microscope.

Now - if your looking for an actual picture of the atom, with the electrons and protons moving around, that is going to be a long wait, since you cannot "see" anything smaller than the wavelength of light, but you can image it using a different technique, and the results mesh with the theories about atoms.

I have been around the block a few times myself, and I am always willing to go a few more times...

Edited September 24, 2010 by Bobby+Umit

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Oh the book I was thinking of was actually Death of a Guru! I didn't read it but my friend did. And maybe a biography about Sundar Singh? Because that name sounds familir but now I am not sure. I also didn't really know that he wrote that song. I have sung it many times.

You notice something funny in the article mentioned in the OP?

It never references any explanation for why there was a bone-dry path in the middle of the Red Sea bed?

(nor have I ever seen any "scientific explanations" that do)

Edited September 24, 2010 by Saddle Bronc

[HAL 9000 96]

They are not molecules - but atoms... Did you even bother to read the link article, or the links for the paper?

It was done with an atomic force microscope, not an electron microscope.

Now - if your looking for an actual picture of the atom, with the electrons and protons moving around, that is going to be a long wait, since you cannot "see" anything smaller than the wavelength of light, but you can image it using a different technique, and the results mesh with the theories about atoms.

I have been around the block a few times myself, and I am always willing to go a few more times...

A bit OTT, but I did enjoy this post. I wonder why.

And yes... you are 100% correct in your obvious observations based on (surprise!) reading what you posted.

What travels at the speed of light, roughly... is the electron itself.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

A bit OTT, but I did enjoy this post. I wonder why.

And yes... you are 100% correct in your obvious observations based on (surprise!) reading what you posted.

What travels at the speed of light, roughly... is the electron itself.

Did you learn that at NASA?

[HAL 9000 96]

Did you learn that at NASA?

[Tangent]I get to teach this stuff. I have to do my best to help out and fight this society's scientific illiteracy. [/Tangent]

[spookyturtle 9,465]

[Tangent]I get to teach this stuff. I have to do my best to help out and fight this society's scientific illiteracy. [/Tangent]

So you're a professor at NASA?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I haven't noticed people of faith trying to shut down religion around here.

I appreciate your observations but I have found, an ample number of Atheists take an "religious fervor" at proving their non-faith is the correct one.

[tangent]tangential joke in this vein.

Q: Why did the atheist couple get divorced?

A: They had a child and wound-up having irreconcilable differences on what religion NOT to raise the child in!

[/tangent]

[HAL 9000 96]

So you're a professor at NASA?

And at BBQ U.

[luckytxn 2,263]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/atom10.htm

This link will explain why the atom can't be seen by anything yet. Now it explains that with an electric charge they can fund the atom and then with a computer generate a painting of the atom. It is not the actual atom itself though. One needs to place a lot of faith in each process used here that it is accurate and even on the ones to program the computer generation. The pics they post are the closest they have come to showing an atom. And you are right the limit is the light wave length is too large and to see an atom there has to be many variables to even observe the atom that needs to be worked out. (Please Google why because it is long and complicated.)

This article itself shows the computer generation of how they manipulate the atoms to form a pattern but it is still a computer generation and not a actual pic of an atom. I will post more later

[luckytxn 2,263]

They are not molecules - but atoms... Did you even bother to read the link article, or the links for the paper?

It was done with an atomic force microscope, not an electron microscope.

Now - if your looking for an actual picture of the atom, with the electrons and protons moving around, that is going to be a long wait, since you cannot "see" anything smaller than the wavelength of light, but you can image it using a different technique, and the results mesh with the theories about atoms.

I have been around the block a few times myself, and I am always willing to go a few more times...

Apologize as I had to run off real quick and could not finish posting a couple more links to peruse. I will say that I am impressed as you said the one reason that atoms can't be seen and that is the nothing can be seen that is shorter than the shorter wave length but just so others here can understand I will post this so they can read it. This short article will also explain the pic and the other arrticle pics I posted in the link before but to make it short. These techniques can map or probe to an extent to give a rough idea of an atom shape and then a computer generation can be made to show the shape but really not the color at all as that is the computer or programmer that does that. So what we are getting is like when an artist paints something from memory. We can see what he painted and what he saw from memory but was it the actual thing he painted from trying to remember? I can post more but I need to go find some place to park and chill and need to get on the road. I will be back on later.

Also do not be confused by when they say they visualize the atom. To visualize the atom at least in this case means what they think the atom looks like from the observations they took from the test.

http://wiki.answers....you_see_an_atom

Also would like to apologize for confusing the pic you posted before. I was going on a memory from a pic I saw many years ago of molecules.

Edited September 24, 2010 by luckytxn

[luckytxn 2,263]

I was just remembering something from when I took physics and seeing these computer generations. The uncertainty principle would seem to come into play a lot here. Just the fact that you are observing the atom changes it. You can get a good reading on one part but change the rest so we would seem to have a distortion I think. If we do then the observations being done that are what is used to bring us these what I think is pretty accurate pics of atoms would actually be not so accurate.

I know that the models we had before where they used electrons to collide with an atom (of course we can't see electrons but they could see the tracks of the electrons) were supposed to be good but far from accurate but since they are using electrical charges here it would seem to be the same case.

I ask as we seem to have a couple of science people here.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I haven't noticed people of faith trying to shut down religion around here.

I appreciate your observations but I have found, an ample number of Atheists take an "religious fervor" at proving their non-faith is the correct one.

Then you have missed the topics focusing on Islam?

There is no need for Atheists to prove anything since proving any faith is incorrect is just as logically impossible as proving a claimed religious belief system is factual. Faith is belief in something without a factual basis, and/or despite facts which indicate otherwise.

There is no way to prove any God is real. Responsibility for the claim rests on the claimant. There is no way to shift the burden to those who do not share the faith.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Then you have missed the topics focusing on Islam?

There is no need for Atheists to prove anything since proving any faith is incorrect is just as logically impossible as proving a claimed religious belief system is factual. Faith is belief in something without a factual basis, and/or despite facts which indicate otherwise.

There is no way to prove any God is real. Responsibility for the claim rests on the claimant. There is no way to shift the burden to those who do not share the faith.

Yet it is OK to ridicule those that have a faith or a belief in a higher being just because that person does not have that belief.

[Danno 1,228]

There is no way to prove any God is real. Responsibility for the claim rests on the claimant. There is no way to shift the burden to those who do not share the faith.

True enough but we are not talking about agnostics who just kinda shrug and say "Hey, I can't believe in something I am not aware of."

Atheists on the other hand seem quite certain... there is no God... which seems kinda odd since our ability to go everywhere and check every place is very limited.

Just sayin.