Freethought & Rationalism Archive

unregistered_user_1 · 06-22-2003, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Design Vs. Chaos, A New Model of the Atom Based on Classical Science and a Biblical World View, 2000. (Cost $20.00 includes quiz booklet and ideas for building models )

Benefits of a New Model of the Atom

1. The spinning-ring model has the potential to explain gravity based upon electrical forces.

2. The new model defines light as a wave and explains its movement in outer space. It rejects the duality principle that light is both a wave and a particle (a logical contradiction and an assumption inconsistent with God's nature and design) .

3. The new model puts physics back on a firm scientific (and biblical) basis instead of a philosophical basis.

4. The new model reduces the number of assumptions that must be made for nuclear modeling.

5. The chaos theories of the cosmos and nuclear energy are shown to be false. The spinning-ring model shows that God is a God of order, and the model is founded upon cause-and-effect classical science.

6. Five forces have been associated with theoretical physics for hundreds of years. These are electrical force, magnetic force, gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. This book will show that the theory of weak and strong nuclear forces is rejected by the spinning-ring model of the atom. The Common Sense Science team believes their model will also eventually explain gravitational force based on electromagnetism. This simplifies all forces in the universe to two: electrical and magnetic.

Quote:

Design v. Chaos Review

Energy. The Grant Unification Theory (GUT)

This new model has the potential for a Grant Unification Theory of the universe. The Common Sense Science team feels they will be able to understand what causes gravity based upon this model.

Two forms of energy:

1. Energy = waves (electromagnetic)

Gen. 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

2. Energy with charge = matter [atoms] (electromagnetic waves with a charge of negative or positive to hold the atom together)

Gen. 1:4 "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

The basis of all physical objects in the universe is electromagnetism (electricity and magnetism)

The Bohr Model of the Atom

The Bohr Model has 3 assumptions known to be wrong.

Relativity and Quantum Theory, based on the Bohr Model, cannot give a true picture of God's Creation.

Relativity and Quantum Theory, deny design and a creator God.

The New Model of the Atom (Lucas/Bergman)

The New Model (Lucas/Bergman) has a cause and effect basis.

It reduces all forces in the universe to two:

1. Electricity

2. Magnetism

Major discoveries that will help spread the Gospel can result from this new Model of the Atom

Would it be over-reacting if I said that this stuff made me uneasy?

pz · 06-22-2003, 06:45 PM

Quote:

2. The new model defines light as a wave and explains its movement in outer space. It rejects the duality principle that light is both a wave and a particle (a logical contradiction and an assumption inconsistent with God's nature and design).

I admit to being curious about how one could do that and still teach physics. Do you just pretend that the photoelectric effect doesn't work, or do you throw out the pinhole cameras?

caravelair · 06-22-2003, 06:48 PM

Quote:

The Grant Unification Theory (GUT)... This new model has the potential for a Grant Unification Theory of the universe.

"grant". ha ha.

Quote:

Relativity and Quantum Theory, based on the Bohr Model, cannot give a true picture of God's Creation.

boy, what an objective objection! pure science, baby.

Duvenoy · 06-22-2003, 07:00 PM

This is interesting..........

Quote:

Cause and Effect

It seems that Einstein did for physics what Darwin did for biology-setting their respective areas of science back 100 years. At the turn of the 20th century, a number of scientists were working on a cause-and-effect model of the atom based on classical science and electromagnetic principles. When Einstein's theory of relativity was embraced by the media and the general scientific community, it eclipsed everything else that was going on at that time.

Einstein may not have intended his theories to become what they are today, but like Darwin's biology of 50 years earlier, Einstein began to move physics away from the principle of cause and effect, toward the idea of random chance. Einstein's physics, on the other hand, was purely theoretical. He did not involve himself with laboratory experiments or observation. He only made predictions about physical phenomena that he said, if observed, would prove his theories. In Chapter 3 we will discuss the effect of Einstein's theories on modern science.

The goal of this book is to show the need for science to return to cause-and-effect principles for scientific research. The principle of cause and effect says that everything has a logical cause creating the effects we see around us. For example, gravity, the cause, makes a pencil fall to the ground, creating the effect.

This makes me feel sorry for home-schooled kids.

doov

Kevin Dorner · 06-22-2003, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duvenoy
...the need for science to return to cause-and-effect principles for scientific research. The principle of cause and effect says that everything has a logical cause creating the effects we see around us.

An excellent idea, which I hope they apply as rigorously as possible. If any theory, hypothesis or idea fails to show proper cause and effect, then it must not be true. Nothing must be uncaused. Everything must have a proper explanation for as to what caused it, when, and why, and if this can't be provided without excuses or special considerations for the theory, hypothesis or idea, then it must be discarded.

I think they would agree with that.

Now ask them "What caused God?"

Roland98 · 06-22-2003, 07:36 PM

Quote:

It seems that Einstein did for physics what Darwin did for biology-setting their respective areas of science back 100 years.

Sheesh, just when you think they can't come up with anything more ridiculous...How about setting the perception of Christianity back about 500 years?

Doubting Didymus · 06-22-2003, 07:46 PM

How certain are we that this is not a hoax?

Minnesota · 06-22-2003, 08:00 PM

I bought this book as a curiosity for a buck back in 1971. It's still being published today, with a new cover.

conkermaniac · 06-22-2003, 08:05 PM

We don't even use the Bohr model of the atom in high school Chemistry classes anymore.

unregistered_user_1 · 06-22-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
How certain are we that this is not a hoax?

I wish it was, but that site has a whole bunch of other creationists stuff there, with no hint of satire, except when they make fun of evolution.

http://tccsa.freeservers.com/

The Twin Cities Creation Science Association.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2003, 07:46 PM	#7
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	How certain are we that this is not a hoax?

06-22-2003, 08:00 PM	#8
Minnesota Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Minnesota Posts: 172	I bought this book as a curiosity for a buck back in 1971. It's still being published today, with a new cover.

06-22-2003, 08:05 PM	#9
conkermaniac Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: American in China Posts: 620	We don't even use the Bohr model of the atom in high school Chemistry classes anymore.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.