[GavinWheeler]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Any scientist would strongly disagree with you because there are Unknown substances which have still yet to be found and created.

I have a PhD in molecular physical chemistry and a dozen publications - does that make me enough of a 'scientist' to qualify for your appeal to authority? And even a first year undergraduate should know that you can generate a list of all the elements (at least of normal matter) that can possibly exist just by counting protons.

As I said, even if no atoms of a theoretical element exists, we can still know that the 'element' exists in potentia, can often work out probable qualities of atoms with that number of protons (such as how many neutrons it needs to be as stable as possible) and so on.

But you are confusing the general with the specific. To use your example, you are confusing the general properties of the element gold with the qualities of a specific lump of the stuff. The concept of gold, the laws that govern it and set the properties of atoms with 79 protons, all exist whether or not any of the actual stuff exists. The concept is not the same thing as the concrete specific sample.

Originally posted by NTJedi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GavinWheeler:

PS: It is possible for a gold/copper/diamond deposit to suddenly come into existence in your back yard, especially if you live somewhere geologically exciting like Hawaii.

Goto school as diamonds and gold do not SUDDENLY come into existence. Or search the internet and you'll see what is needed !

---

Again, you confuse a deposit of the stuff with the stuff in the deposit. Take your own advice: look up what a 'diatreme' is and tell us if you would want to be around when one surfaces suddenly.

If you can understand how these events could create a deposit of gold or diamonds in a particular location, but would not 'create' the gold or diamonds in the deposit, you'll be on the way to understanding the kind of fundamental logical errors you are making.