Spirituality
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerTake your strawman elsewhere, I never said that it proved that life evolved from non-life. If you care to re-read my initial post, you will see that I merely stated that quantum mechanics is a fundamental part of the knowledge which chemistry is built on. I do not mention the transition from non-life to life, but the forces which allow carbon atoms (non-life) to be a part of human cells (life).
[b]In actual fact it has everything to do with abiogenesis. Quantum mechanics provide the building blocks of chemistry and therefore the relative forces which allow non-living matter to make up living matter.
Please feel free to explain how quantum mechanics proves that life evolved from non-life.[/b]
Originally posted by dj2beckerAnd I am still waiting to see you admit you know nothing about chemistry. I do not believe you wrote a chemistry paper on quantum numbers, would you care to allow us to see it. Failing the production of any evidence supporting your claim, I will have to remain an unbeliever in this regard.
[b]Thridly I was not sidestepping the issue,
I am still waiting for your response on the Miller experiment.
dj2becker has sidestepped so far, he's left the debate.
I am currently writing exams.(Incidently, I wrote a Chemistry paper on quantum numbers.) I was not aware that I had left the debate...[/b]
Originally posted by StarrmanI never said that it proved that life evolved from non-life.
Take your strawman elsewhere, I never said that it proved that life evolved from non-life. If you care to re-read my initial post, you will see that I merely stated that quantum mechanics is a fundamental part of the knowledge which chemistry is built on. I do not mention the transition from non-life to life, but the forces which allow carbon atoms (non-life) to be a part of human cells (life).
Point taken. So what then would you say proves that life evolved from non-life?
edit: or do you not believe that abiogenesis happened?
Originally posted by StarrmanAnd I am still waiting to see you admit you know nothing about chemistry. I do not believe you wrote a chemistry paper on quantum numbers, would you care to allow us to see it.
And I am still waiting to see you admit you know nothing about chemistry. I do not believe you wrote a chemistry paper on quantum numbers, would you care to allow us to see it. Failing the production of any evidence supporting your claim, I will have to remain an unbeliever in this regard.
I'm sure I passed the paper with a distinction. So I cannot say I don't know anything about Chemistry.🙂
Originally posted by StarrmanI am still waiting for you to comment on the Miller experiment.
And I am still waiting to see you admit you know nothing about chemistry. I do not believe you wrote a chemistry paper on quantum numbers, would you care to allow us to see it. Failing the production of any evidence supporting your claim, I will have to remain an unbeliever in this regard.
How long are you going to continue with your goosestep on my knowledge of Chemistry?
Originally posted by dj2beckerEr. Actually he seems to be asking for some quantum numbers from your paper as proof that you actually wrote it.
[b]And I am still waiting to see you admit you know nothing about chemistry. I do not believe you wrote a chemistry paper on quantum numbers, would you care to allow us to see it.
I'm sure I passed the paper with a distinction. So I cannot say I don't know anything about Chemistry.🙂[/b]
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBtw: It was a theoretical exam. I did not have to do the math.
You're at risk of exposing yourself as a bare-faced liar. There are plenty of people here who can do the math...I hope you really can do the math.
It was basically on:
History of the Aomic theory:
Dalton's Model
Thomsons Atomic Model
Rutherfords Model
Bohr's Model
Heisenberg's uncertainty priniple
Pauli's exclusion principle
The Schrödinger wave equation.
etc.
Originally posted by dj2beckerCould you type out the question involving Schroedinger? Leave out the symbols, or perhaps provide a link.
Btw: It was a theoretical exam. I did not have to do the math.
You must have done other papers that involved math, or your claim to knowledge of quantum mechanics lacks any foundation.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageActually the very first question had to do with quantum numbers...
Could you type out the question involving Schroedinger? Leave out the symbols, or perhaps provide a link.
You must have done other papers that involved math, or your claim to knowledge of quantum mechanics lacks any foundation.
1.Which set of quantum numbers is not permitted?
a) n=2; l=0; ml=+1; ms= -1/2
b) n=2; l=0; ml=-1; ms= +1/2
c) n=3; l=1; ml=-2; ms= -1/2
d) n=2; l=0; ml=+1; ms= -1/2
Here is a link to the Schrödinger equation:
http://www.answers.com/Schrodingers%20equation
Edit: May ol' Starman can show off his Chemistry prowess by answering the question for us...
This still does not prove you are able to do any of this yurself. You could just as well have taken it from a book or website.
'c' is the odd one out as the magnetic number can only lie within the range of -l to +l. Since angular number is 1, the magnetic number could only be -1, 0 or +1.
Posting a link to the Schrödinger equation is neither here nor there. Now, can you actually provide evidence for having written this paper and indeed actually knowing what you are talking about or not?