Replies

I've never liked QM.

It's so counter-intuitive as to be appalling. When I first heard about the "particle" going both ways as a wave unless you "measured," it actually upset me. But that's really how the little buggers act.

I like it now for the jaw-dropping moments of disbelief it induces. (Well, I like reading dumbed-down articles about it.) In a way, it's too bad the macro world doesn't behave like that.

It's [QM] so counter-intuitive as to be appalling.

Well, to be quantum-mechanically correct, I both like QM and dislike it, at the same time. I never know which until I stop to think about it. But then I forget what I was thinking about, so it all works out.

I can't believe this argument is going on again. Even Darwin didn't believe Darwin. Johnson put the classical theory of evolution through survival of the fittest to death in his classic, "Darwin on Trial." The Darwinist now starts from a preconceived notion just as idiotic as the creationist. An entire new theory is needed to explain the great leaps in development in the complexity of organisms in the very short time once life appeared. As for creationists, they cannot even read the Bible correctly, which clearly states that God is recreating a previously destroyed world, and which notes further in the writing of the prophets that a populated world had existed even prior to the one destroyed. In total, counting then the flood, there are three destructions, leaving Noah and his sons and daughters as the seed of modern Man. Hence, the fossil record is in no conflict with the Bible, which even speaks of a time when giants roamed the land. Dumb Christians, dumb scientists, makes a dull boy.