Evolution v. Creationism

[ding]

Liar.

That would be you, dear. But please feel free to quote my post if you believe I did.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Still trying to figure out which "strong bonds" ding is blathering about. C-H bonds are relatively weak -- as are C-C bonds in organic molecules -- both of which make up the vast majority of bonds in life, not counting water.

Give me a "strong bond" found in life, and I will show you a stronger one in "not life". Every single time.

So the idea that "strong bonds are important to life" is not only meaningless pap, it seems to be embarrassingly backwards as well.

Somebody watched 90 seconds of a quack YouTube video and thought he earned a PhD...

 

[ding]

You don't even know what you are talking about.

You blabber on about "stability" of the bonds but you don't even know what a bond enthalpy is. (hint: it's a measure of the strength of the bond). You blabber on about making bonds that "mimic noble gases" but you don't even know what an Octet is (hint: that's what the phrase means).

You act like life is somehow predicated on MAXIMUM STABILITY of the bonds which has now been shown to include some really weak individual bonds.

You are so out of your depth it's not funny. And I KNOW you are enjoying driving me batty with your insipid ignorance, you know you don't understand most of what is being said, but you are doing what you do. It's getting to be less fun the more you do it. At one point I actually thought you might actually care about science. Now I know you don't know anything about any of it but you grab rando things and act like you are a real scientist just to hassle people who actually tried to read your stuff.)

Says the girl who believes life can form without hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That would be you, dear. But please feel free to quote my post if you believe I did.

I did, you moron. Can't you read????

 

[ding]

Still trying to figure out which "strong bonds" ding is blathering about. C-H bonds are relatively weak -- as are C-C bonds in organic molecules -- both of which make up the vast majority of bonds in life, not counting water.

Give me a "strong bond" found in life, and I will show you a stronger one in "not life". Every single time.

So the idea that "strong bonds are important to life" is not only meaningless pap, it seems to be embarrassingly backwards as well.

Somebody watched 90 seconds of a quack YouTube video and thought he earned a PhD...

She's arguing that life need not be based upon hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. She is taking exception to what George Wald wrote.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

 

[ding]

I did, you moron. Can't you read????

No, you didn't. I read what you said I wrote. I didn't read what I wrote. Link to my post, dummy.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Says the girl who believes life can form without hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

She's arguing that life need not be based upon hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. She is taking exception to what George Wald wrote.

Hey Fort Fun Indiana, ding doesn't know any real chemistry. Try talking to it about chemistry. It's HILARIOUS.


Seriously, ask it about bond enthalpies. Oh, yeah, and get it to hold forth on how bonds work. It's pure gold.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No, you didn't. I read what you said I wrote. I didn't read what I wrote. Link to my post, dummy.

your words.

Trollytrolltroll.

 

[ding]

It would be super awesome if you actually made an argument for other elements being capable of forming living organisms. But you can't.

 

[ding]

your words.

Trollytrolltroll.

Nope. Your words. If I had actually written them you would have linked to the post where I wrote them. But you didn't. Because you can't. Because it doesn't exist. Because you made it up.

 

[ding]

Still trying to figure out which "strong bonds" ding is blathering about. C-H bonds are relatively weak -- as are C-C bonds in organic molecules -- both of which make up the vast majority of bonds in life, not counting water.

Give me a "strong bond" found in life, and I will show you a stronger one in "not life". Every single time.

So the idea that "strong bonds are important to life" is not only meaningless pap, it seems to be embarrassingly backwards as well.

Somebody watched 90 seconds of a quack YouTube video and thought he earned a PhD...

Are you going to argue with George Wald too?

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

elijahwald.com

Go ahead. Be my guest.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It would be super awesome if you actually made an argument for other elements being capable of forming living organisms. But you can't.

You are what you are.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Nope. Your words. If I had actually written them you would have linked to the post where I wrote them. But you didn't. Because you can't. Because it doesn't exist. Because you made it up.

LOLOL. This is surreal.

Is this what things are like in TrollTown?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hey Fort Fun Indiana, ding doesn't know any real chemistry. Try talking to it about chemistry. It's HILARIOUS.


Seriously, ask it about bond enthalpies. Oh, yeah, and get it to hold forth on how bonds work. It's pure gold.

I see that. I started as a Chem major and still remember some of this stuff. Took 2 semesters of organic chemistry.

Ding does not realize how strenuously (though clumsily) he is arguing that life is fine tuned to the universe, not the other way around. That's what faith does to a person's brain.

This all goes on the same shelf with Hoyle's fallacy. You touched on this with Zeno's paradox of motion.

They think they are arguing about the existence of life, but they are actually arguing about life "exactly as we find it on earth". We have no good reason to think different life isn't elsewhere in the universe -- or even in other universes with different physical laws -- preforming the same functions with different physical laws and chemistry.

It's like trying to say the Arctic circle is fine tuned to polar bears or white fur.

Uh, no, polar bears are fine tuned to the environment above the arctic circle.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Are you going to argue with George Wald too?

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

elijahwald.com

Go ahead. Be my guest.

Hey Fort Fun Indiana , make sure to follow this! It's hilarious!!!

Wald is playing new age guru and ding thinks it's science! It's HILARIOUS.

It's like reading Alan Watts!

("Mind Stuff". Woo woo wooo wooooooooo.)

LOLOLOL.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are you going to argue with George Wald too?

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

elijahwald.com

Go ahead. Be my guest.

Sorry ding, your cheap parlor tricks don't work on me. You know this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Woo woo is right

 

[ding]

Sorry ding, your cheap parlor tricks don't work on me. You know this.

What parlor tricks?

Go ahead and correct George Wald.

Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

elijahwald.com

 

[ding]

You are what you are.

So that's a no? You can't make an argument for other elements as building blocks of life?