Evolution v. Creationism

[ding]

Never heard of it??? That's surprising, given your advanced knowledge of Gibbs. Perhaps the description wasn't clear enough.

Needless to say ALL scientists know about it.

See. I told you there was nothing special about me.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yep. It's true. Men lead and women respond.

Like I said, you seem to be one of those "leaders of men" types.

 

[ding]

Like I said, you seem to be one of those "leaders of men" types.

Your feelings are hurt. I get it.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It's in their genes.

Hey! Don't feel bad! You guys still have an outlet.

Despite crackdown on incels, their discussion forums are still online | Globalnews.ca

Internet discussion groups for incels are a swamp of self-pity, conspiracy theory and outright justification of violence.

globalnews.ca

 

[ding]

^^^ she mad.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Your feelings are hurt. I get it.

Not at all. But I understand it is important to the "big man" to be able to tell other people about their emotional state.

Hey, speaking of science, were you in this study?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334306160_Online_hatred_of_women_in_the_Incelsme_Forum_Linguistic_analysis_and_automatic_detection

 

[ding]

"...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.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

Not at all.

Your behaviors say otherwise.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

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.​

This is incorrect. All the elements below C can and do form stable octets.

, 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.​

Why is this "crucial for life"?

​

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.​

Literally NO ONE is taught that S is exactly like O. They share a common valence shell configuration and will interact with other elements in a similar way. Not the same always but there is a commonality.

​

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2).​

No one thinks that. As noted earlier Si can hybridize its orbitals like C (but the energetics are probably somewhat different since it is in a different period) but it does not form double bonds due to the size of the atom. And pretty much anyone whose been in a mineralogy class knows that SiO2 is NOT O=Si=O but rather a mineralogical/inorganic designation for a network of Si-O-Si-O-Si in 3-dimensions (it is a "tectosilicate").

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe.​

Here's where we get into the speculative New Age Woo Woo.

They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet,​

They also make up NON-Living things all over the planet. Even organic molecules are not all from living things.

and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star.​

Not all stars fuse carbon.

Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight​

Actually the first life on earth DIDN'T photosynthesize so that's wrong. Yeah it's important now, but it wasn't the starting point of life.

, as they must if life is to persist.​

Tell that to the extremophiles. Wald is wrong, YET AGAIN! He needs to stay away from the New Age Woo WOo

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.​

​

One with the universe. New Age Woo Woo.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Your behaviors say otherwise.

Well, your behavior says a lot about you too!

 

[ding]

This is incorrect. All the elements below C can and do form stable octets.

You should publish a paper on it.

 

[ding]

Well, your behavior says a lot about you too!

That's nice.

 

[ding]

Parsing is the currency of critical theory.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You should publish a paper on it.

I don't have to. They already have an ELEMENTARY INTRODUCTION TO CHEMISTRY textbook out.

Do you honestly not know about BeO? How about Na₂[B₄O₅(OH)₄]·8H₂O? Ring any bells?

(You DO know what the Periodic Table, is, right?)

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Parsing is the currency of critical theory.

The fun thing is, I actually went out of my way to address the individual points of you fave Dr. Wald and you can't even respond to one single point.

That's because you are what you are.

Now begone.

 

[ding]

I don't have to. They already have an ELEMENTARY INTRODUCTION TO CHEMISTRY textbook out.

Do you honestly not know about BeO? How about Na₂[B₄O₅(OH)₄]·8H₂O? Ring any bells?

(You DO know what the Periodic Table, is, right?)

Dear, you are literally arguing why the building blocks of life shouldn't be the building blocks of life. You are making fringe arguments that serve no other purpose but to detract from the fact that there is no scenario where any other elements can create the rich tapestry of life that hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen do. You are literally pissing in the wind and trying to convince me that it's rain.

 

[ding]

The fun thing is, I actually went out of my way to address the individual points of you fave Dr. Wald and you can't even respond to one single point.

That's because you are what you are.

Now begone.

Because you are making fringe arguments. Clearly there is a logical reason why oxygen, carbon and nitrogen are fundamental to living organisms and you are literally arguing that there isn't. George Wald pointed to chemical bonds in more detail than anyone else I have read and you are criticizing him for providing too much of an explanation for something you know has a logical reason for being because 99% of all living beings is made up of HOCN.

 

[Woodznutz]

Hey! Don't feel bad! You guys still have an outlet.

Despite crackdown on incels, their discussion forums are still online | Globalnews.ca

Internet discussion groups for incels are a swamp of self-pity, conspiracy theory and outright justification of violence.

globalnews.ca

"Incel". That's a new one.

These days I just lead myself.

 

[ding]

...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....

...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...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

elijahwald.com

 

[james bond]

You only get evolution if there is a reason for a critter to evolve. If a critter is successful, it continues on. Horses evolved 55 million years ago, and were the size of cats. Now they weigh hundreds of pounds.

The problem that you creationists have is you truly don't understand just how rare fossils are.

Anti Jesus people have the same problem. They don't understand just how rare literacy was in Jesus's time, so they can't wrap their heads around the fact that there is so little to be found written about him when he was alive.

Both sides have fundamental levels of ignorance. I enjoy speaking with my religious friends about their faith, and philosophy, they enjoy learning about science from me.

It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship, but many decide to make it so.

Sanctimonious behavior, no matter who is engaging in it, is never helpful. Both sides need to figure that out.

Horses the size of cats? Where's the evidence?

Yes, fossils are rare and it seems they favor the creation scientists.

People during that time, many were literate just as Jesus was. It's the evos who believe they weren't.

"The first factor to consider is how prevalent literacy was in Jesus’ time. Full literacy means being able to read and write proficiently, but degrees of literacy vary; people who can read, for example, may not be able to write. A common view is that of W.H. Kelber, who claims that, in first-century A.D. Palestine, “writing was in the hands of an élite of trained specialists, and reading required an advanced education available only to a few.” It is often asserted that writing was restricted to government and religious circles and would have had no place among the peasantry of Galilee, where Jesus did much of his teaching. If this statement were true, there would be more validity to the widely-held opinion that knowledge of Jesus’ words and deeds depended on oral tradition—people passed on what they saw and heard by word of mouth—until about 70 A.D., when the earliest of the Gospels, the Gospel of Mark, was composed.

However, the evidence showing that reading and writing were widely practiced in Jesus’ age grows with every discovery of a new inscription. Much of this evidence comes from religious and governmental circles, but a great deal of it does not.

The library of Qumran—otherwise known as the Dead Sea Scrolls—includes mostly religious texts, to be sure, but significantly, these represent both the continued copying of the sacred scripture and other religious books, and the creation of new ones. Members of the Jewish sect based at Qumran—commonly thought to be Essenes—must have been expected to read the Law regularly, since they produced so many copies of religious texts."

Literacy in the Time of Jesus - Could His Words Have Been Recorded in His Lifetime?

freerepublic.com

If fossils weren't rare, then it would be easy to show humans lived with dinosaurs and this silly argument would be over. Yet, evolution is over when you consider the dinosaur fossis still have C-14 radiocarbons remaining. They aren't fossils as they still have soft tissue inside. However, I found Dawkins knew what he was talking about. The dinosaur fossils have not been found with human fossils and that's because fossils are rare.