Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the rocks speak
John
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 59 (40256)
05-15-2003 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Fencer
05-15-2003 7:49 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Fencer, posted 05-15-2003 7:49 AM Fencer has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 59 (40257)
05-15-2003 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Quetzal
05-15-2003 12:11 PM


Re: organic matter
That's not one word.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2003 12:11 PM Quetzal has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 48 of 59 (40271)
05-15-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Quetzal
05-15-2003 12:11 PM


Re: organic matter
Yep, 3-pyridinecarboxylic acid is the one I'm after. But I want Fencer's answer before I ask my next question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2003 12:11 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Quetzal, posted 05-16-2003 2:27 AM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 55 by Coragyps, posted 05-20-2003 5:17 PM Coragyps has not replied

Fencer
Guest


Message 49 of 59 (40285)
05-15-2003 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
05-15-2003 9:37 AM


quote:
Gosh, you are really winning my respect for your well-reasoned arguments and careful citations to the professional literature.
If it were only my life's goal to win your respect ...
I like that line, though. Shakespeare could've used it in one of his tragedies.
quote:
For a new poster (and Creationist), you sure seem to be skilled at staying calm and sticking to discussing the facts rather than making distracting and irrelevant personal attacks.
Thanks. However, please be on notice that it is in my ability to evolve into a jackass.
quote:
Most creationists who come here tend to make a lot of those personal attacks in the mistaken belief that they somehow win argments about scientific matters that way.
I know. Better to stick with substance. I'm relieved you see I'm different. I'm not perfect though.
quote:
Makes you kind of chuckle, doesn't it, thos people acting like angry knuckleheads, eh?
Actually, not. I'm a man who takes no pleasure in another's suffering. But you're not a man. Maybe it's different for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 05-15-2003 9:37 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 8:39 PM You have not replied
 Message 52 by Quetzal, posted 05-16-2003 2:44 AM You have not replied
 Message 54 by nator, posted 05-16-2003 9:06 AM You have not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 59 (40317)
05-15-2003 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fencer
05-15-2003 4:55 PM


However, please be on notice that it is in my ability to evolve into a jackass.
I don't know how it is where you're from, but where I'm from, we warn people of things before they happen.
A number of us have raised very substantial question to a number of your supporting points; in particular, people want to know why you feel there is an unbridgable gap between "organic" and "inorganic" molecules, in the face of evidence to the contrary - for instance, the synthesis of urea (an organic compound) from mineral chemicals.
Do you have a cogent response, or can we assume your only purpose here is to troll?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fencer, posted 05-15-2003 4:55 PM Fencer has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 51 of 59 (40368)
05-16-2003 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coragyps
05-15-2003 2:22 PM


Re: organic matter
Whee! That may be the only thing I remember from sophmore biochemistry lo' those many years ago - since I had to memorize the chemistry in the NAD, NADP bits. That'll show my wife - I am NOT senile like she claims...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2003 2:22 PM Coragyps has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 52 of 59 (40374)
05-16-2003 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fencer
05-15-2003 4:55 PM


Hi Fencer,
Glad you're still here. Your attention invited to post #34. Thanks in advance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fencer, posted 05-15-2003 4:55 PM Fencer has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 59 (40395)
05-16-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Quetzal
05-15-2003 9:59 AM


OK, I won't tell you that I hadn't heard of Project Steve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2003 9:59 AM Quetzal has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 59 (40397)
05-16-2003 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fencer
05-15-2003 4:55 PM


quote:
If it were only my life's goal to win your respect ...
I like that line, though. Shakespeare could've used it in one of his tragedies.
Well, if you want to convince anyone that you are interested in informed, intelligent debate, you might take more care to behave like a grown up.
As for the rest of my reply, I've got to ask...you did get that I was sarcastic, right, and that I believe you to be behaving in an opposite way to the "compliments" I was giving you, right?
I believe that you are lowering, not elevating, the quality of discourse and debate here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fencer, posted 05-15-2003 4:55 PM Fencer has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 55 of 59 (40787)
05-20-2003 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Coragyps
05-15-2003 2:22 PM


Re: organic matter
Fencer appears to have jumped the fence...
I really wanted him/her to tell me why the concentration of niacin in a pristine sample of the Tagish Lake meteorite was comparable to that in a mammal. If it's in a meteorite, it's inorganic, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2003 2:22 PM Coragyps has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 56 of 59 (40980)
05-22-2003 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by joz
05-15-2003 11:02 AM


joz writes:
quote:
Actually I'm pretty sure that would be organic/inorganic molecules, as in organic are produced by living creatures (although not exclusively, H2O an CO2 for example) or contains a carbon backbone...
Just because I'm feeling ornery:
Water and carbon dioxide are not considere "organic" molecules. The former precisely because it contains no carbon and the latter because it does not contain carbon in the right way (they need to contain hydrogen or a halide.) Given that silicon is chemically similar to carbon, some definitions include silicon in organic chemistry. Though, of course, I'm sure we could find at least one chemist somewhere who would argue that carbon dioxide is, indeed, "organic."
By the way...organic chemistry forms the bulk of most practical chemistry: Over 95% of all known chemicals contain carbon.
There was a time when the division of organic/inorganic was, indeed, the chemistry of chemicals found in living things/everything else, but this was based on the idea that there was some "vital force" in chemicals in living things.
Then urea was synthesized from non-living sources and found to be identical to the urea isolated from living sources and thus, there needed to be a different definition. The "chemistry of carbon" became the definition (with certain exceptions).
A question I often ask of creationists is whether or not the chemistry that happens inside of a cell is fundamentally different from the chemistry that happens outside of a cell.
F'rinstance, is there a difference between H2O that is created from taking two moles of hydrogen gas and a mole of oxygen gas, mixing them at STP, and sparking the mixture and H2O created by taking oxygen gas and putting it through the respiratory chain?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by joz, posted 05-15-2003 11:02 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by John, posted 05-22-2003 9:35 AM Rrhain has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 59 (40999)
05-22-2003 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rrhain
05-22-2003 6:01 AM


quote:
A question I often ask of creationists is whether or not the chemistry that happens inside of a cell is fundamentally different from the chemistry that happens outside of a cell.
... exactly the question Fencer never answered.
The clarification of organic chemistry was useful, BTW.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 05-22-2003 6:01 AM Rrhain has not replied

NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 59 (41013)
05-22-2003 12:05 PM


I favor the pragmatic definition of organic chemistry. General chemistry is the benign variety you learn as a Junior in high school. Organic chemistry is the kind that makes the first two years of college a living nightmare.
-Neil

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 59 of 59 (41018)
05-22-2003 12:56 PM


Closing Topic
I'm not at all sure this topic ever had a clearly defined topic, but I'm going to take the wild guess we are now off-topic.
Besides, this is in the "Welcome, Visitors!" forum, and in general has lingered on well beyond any sort of "welcome" function.
Or something like that.
Adminnemooseus

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024