Creator Book - Periodic Table - Part 1

by Amazing 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jayhawk1

  I'm surprised the society put the periodic table of elements most public schools teach from in that book. This seems to be more up to the Watchtower's standards.

  

  • Fire is both hot and dry.
  • Earth is both cold and dry.
  • Air is both hot and wet.
  • Water is both cold and wet.
• 

  Kaput

  Here's Rutherford's Periodic Table:
• 

  gaiagirl

  The periodic table is orderly to a great extent, however there are some interesting exceptions in the 'orderliness' of the periodic table, which reflect oddities in the manner that atoms assemble themselves. The identity of a particular element is determined by how many PROTONS live in the nucleus, as well as any neutrons it may have. If an atom has two protons, it is some form of Helium, even if it has the wrong number of neutrons or electrons. However to be electrically neutral it should have the same number of ELECTRONS orbiting the nucleus as there are PROTONS in the nucleus. Here is the interesting thing...electrons orbit in distinct paths called orbital shells. The first shell is filled with only two electrons, hence Helium cannot easily accept or donate electrons to bond with other atoms, so Helium is a 'noble' gas, it doesn't want to mix or blend with other elements. However, to form the next 'noble' element, one must add protons and neutrons (to form a heavier nucleus, which gives the atom its distinct atomic weight) and also add electrons to maintain electrical neutrality and fill the next orbital shell, which means that one must add 8 electrons, and not just 2. So with 10 protons (plus some neutrons), and 10 electrons for electrical stability, you get the next 'noble' gas, Neon. The rest of the orbital shells surrounding the first two are also filled with 8 electrons, so the table does proceed in a fairly orderly fashion from that point, so much that even before they were discovered in nature, elements were sometimes accurately 'predicted' by observant chemists, 'Hmmm, we have this element with X protons and X electrons, and we have this other element with Z protons and Z electrons, there SHOULD be something with Y protons and Y electrons.' And as it turns out, in more than one instance, there was. However, this doesn't prove 'intelligent design' of the periodic table. It is just a natural property of the way the parts of an atom fit together and the way that atoms bond with other atoms. In a similar manner, any aquarium you will ever see will always have the gravel or sand on the bottom, and the water above, because that is the way the dense gravel and less dense water mix.
• 

  Undecided

  Wow, I hadn't thought about this since high school, over 50 years ago. Didn't have much practical use for me.

  Ken P.
• 

  LovesDubs

  Can I add that I am just BLOWN AWAY by the level of knowledge and intelligence we have represented on this board! I am humbled by your presence Young Paduans.

  The Watchtower Suck-ciety has lost their brightest and their best for sure. They have to use SIMPLE things for the SIMPLE minds that remain so they can continue to leave them awestruck after each publication. David Copperfield does the same thing...he just gets paid for it.

  Loves
• 

  zack

  Hello Jim. Thanks for your post and for your story. Yours was one that I read first after the light bulb went off.

  I take your point about the PT. To me, the WTS is always defending, defending, defending. All their writing is an argument in defense of something rather than a contsruct FOR something. I would read, even as a child, their literature and walk away feeling like I had had an argument. The writers can present nothing out of conviction for what things ARE, instead they frame their arguments against what they ARE NOT.

  Again,

  Thanks
• 

  Fatfreek

  Hey whaling friend,

  I like your table.

  Fats
• 

  Amazing

  Onacruse,

  I like Hawkings, though I disagree with him on some things. I liked Hawkings book, "A Brief History of Time" (c)1988. He gets into a deeper look at time from an Einstein-styled perspective, and includes Black Holes and the Big Bang.

  I also have the book, "CHAOS - Making a New Science" by James Gleick (c) 1987. He shows how out of chaos comes order, and how order can revert back into chaos. If his presentation is even half correct - which I believe that he is - then it blows away the simplistic models presented by fundy Christians.

  Jim Whitney
• 

  proplog2

  So Amazing (Jim):

  I don't want this to go into a long discussion about God's existence but I am curious what you consider to be the most persuasive evidence for an intelligent creator. I will offer no rebuttal.
• 

  Fatfreek

  Proplog2: I will offer no rebuttal.

  I have nothing but compliments to you for such a comment. Your comment, I believe, paints the picture of the typical (though certainly not all) attitude of posters on JWD. They'd been stung so many times by their "head in the sand" position as a member of the Borg they've now come to adopt a truly open mind. Oh, not so open that they gullibly accept everything that comes along, but open enough just in case there's a smidgen of something they haven't heard before.

  Proplog2 is not, I'm sure, caving in by such an invitation. He's showing the spirit of what true friends and neighbors are all about -- simply interested in their friends and demonstrating it. I apologize if I've misinterpreted something here.

  Fats