RE: What the Creation Museum did to me
November 14, 2012 at 5:09 am
(This post was last modified: November 14, 2012 at 5:30 am by Aractus.)
(November 13, 2012 at 11:21 am)Kirbmarc Wrote: Pi doesn't actually exist in nature (there are no perfect circles, only very good approximations).You have limited Pi to being concerned only with circles. How do you suppose planetary orbits work? Every planet's orbit in our solar system is always described as elliptical, not as a string of approximate straight lines... Consider that Phi is found in nature, and it is an irrational number.
Quote:Do you know how the laws of quantum physics were discovered?Yep, a brilliant, brilliant person named Thomas Young - who translated the entire Bible by himself (Young's Literal Translation) - who was the first person in history to successfully decipher ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs (it took him 22 years to fully translate the Rosetta Stone) - and he never even saw the stone, he did it with a rubbing of it! Young designed the double-slit experiment to show that light is a wave. This would mean that matter isn't made up of tiny balls and classical physics believed. This of course, paved the way for key concepts to arise - wave-partial duality and quantum uncertainty, which ultimately lead to QM.
(November 13, 2012 at 1:09 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Now perhaps you will explain to the class why you arrive at that conclusion, that we can't work backwards as you suggest? It should be easy, if it's so clear. Be careful not to trip over the glaring non-sequitur you've left lying around.Because quantum mechanics is not the only way that you can get the laws of chemistry. QM is a well established theory for the microstructure of the universe, but most of the time we never use it. We use the laws of chemistry, and other "laws" that we find more convenient and more useful. The only reason we have a theory for QM is because of the observations we made of the "quantum world". As I've said repeatedly - crystals supposedly form from laws implicit in QM, but nobody knows how or why. Is QM the only way that you can have them? No. Thus, if there's a structure smaller and more fundamental than QM which we can't observe, we can't possibly know what it is because there'll be multiple ways to make QM in the first place.
