Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Joined
01 Oct 04
Moves
12095
21 Sep 05

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It needs a butch hunk of a Quantum Mechanic. Present your credentials at the Blue Oyster, I'm sure he'll give you your fill.
You will find his CV in Genesis 1:1. 😉

S

Joined
19 Nov 03
Moves
31382
21 Sep 05

Originally posted by dj2becker
[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]
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).

S

Joined
19 Nov 03
Moves
31382
21 Sep 05

Originally posted by dj2becker
[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]
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.

Joined
01 Oct 04
Moves
12095
21 Sep 05
1 edit

Originally posted by Starrman
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).
I never said that it proved that life evolved from non-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?

Joined
01 Oct 04
Moves
12095
21 Sep 05
1 edit

Originally posted by Starrman
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.
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.🙂

Joined
01 Oct 04
Moves
12095
21 Sep 05
1 edit

Originally posted by Starrman
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 am still waiting for you to comment on the Miller experiment.

How long are you going to continue with your goosestep on my knowledge of Chemistry?

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
21 Sep 05

Originally posted by dj2becker
[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]
Er. Actually he seems to be asking for some quantum numbers from your paper as proof that you actually wrote it.

Joined
01 Oct 04
Moves
12095
21 Sep 05

Originally posted by Halitose
Er. Actually he seems to be asking for some quantum numbers from your paper as proof that you actually wrote it.
I don't want to bamboozle him with the Schrödinger equation.

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
21 Sep 05

Originally posted by dj2becker
I don't want to bamboozle him with the Schrödinger equation.
At least then just put it out for everybody to see. Your reluctance is actually actually proving his point.

Zellulärer Automat

Spiel des Lebens

Joined
27 Jan 05
Moves
90892
21 Sep 05

Originally posted by dj2becker
I don't want to bamboozle him with the Schrödinger equation.
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.

Joined
01 Oct 04
Moves
12095
21 Sep 05

Originally posted by Halitose
At least then just put it out for everybody to see. Your reluctance is actually actually proving his point.
Unfortunately I've tried a couple times. The font just won't work.

Maybe I could e-mail him the paper?

Joined
01 Oct 04
Moves
12095
21 Sep 05
1 edit

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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.
Btw: It was a theoretical exam. I did not have to 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.

Zellulärer Automat

Spiel des Lebens

Joined
27 Jan 05
Moves
90892
21 Sep 05
1 edit

Originally posted by dj2becker
Btw: It was a theoretical exam. I did not have to do the math.
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.

Joined
01 Oct 04
Moves
12095
21 Sep 05
2 edits

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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.
Actually the very first question had to do with quantum numbers...

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...

S

Joined
19 Nov 03
Moves
31382
21 Sep 05

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?