quote:
You suggested I inquire from an archaeologist in order to show me evolution is true?
Did I say that? Nope. I said ask an archeaologist about about archeaology, similar to the way one might ask a chemist about chemistry-- which you certainly need to do-- or the way one might ask a cosmologist about galaxies, or a manicurist about nail-polish. It was an example, brainiac. It is relevant because you brought up the idea that many graduates leave the university unconvinced of evolution. You do not qualify this as 'graduates who obtained a degree in relevant fields.' You state, simply, 'many graduates.' Thus committing the error you accuse me of committing-- that of asking questions of people not qualified to answer. I suggest that you ask the right questions of the right people.
quote:
Archaeology is merely the historical study of one species, human beings (according to my dictionary anyway); therefore, you will have do more to explain the relevance of how archaeology proves evolution.
It actually includes several species of genus 'homo' and 'australopithicus' extending back a few million years. Beyond that, the torch is for the most part handed to other specialists. It does in fact have to do with the biological evolution of one particular species-- humans. Mostly, archeaologists stick to the last couple of million years, and to a handful of species, but the branch of physical anthropology tackles the whole evolutionary sequence.
quote:
Which simply shows (again) you have some emotional hang-up over the fact that alot of people believe in God...
I'm being emotional? Look in the mirror bud.
quote:
However, I never did disclose my religious leanings, Mr. Relevance.
Like hell. Your over-the-top reaction to a comment about the exodus is plenty disclosure.
quote:
I'm glad to see you agree that there is a difference between organic and inorganic matter.
Try to learn English. Maybe try looking up
non sequitur.
quote:
What that difference is and why real chemists felt the need to clearly distinguish between what constitutes inorganic matter and organic matter is not the conundrum to me as it is to you.
1) The difference is the presence of carbon in the molecules.
2) Real chemists distinguish because it is convenient, and probably betrays some history of scientific thought as well.
3) There is no clear distinction. An organic carbon atom is just like an inorganic carbon atom, and its component parts are just like the component parts of any other atom.
4) Who said I face a conundrum? As it appears to me, you have to provide evidence for some essential division of matter that no one has yet noticed. So what is organic matter? Lets see. I die. I rot. I turn to dirt. Is my matter still organic? Once organic always organic? Say we take a molecule from my body and break it into its component atoms. Those atoms look and behave just like atoms you can get from a rock. What is the difference? A plant takes in atmospheric CO2 and converts it into biomass. Somewhere along the line that inorganic carbon becomes organic? A what point does this happen? And what part of the atom or molecule changes when this does happen? Or maybe atmospheric carbon is all organic? Lets say I did up some salt out of the ground and eat it. This salt becomes part of my body. Does it therefore become organic? Eventually, the salt leaves my body in sweat, for example. Does it suddenly lose its 'organic-ness'? It is the same molecule coming, going and floating around in my blood. So what it the big difference?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
™ Version 4.2
