DNAunion

DNAunion: No, that’s not accurate either.

Although you do at least bring in the term compound instead of simpler molecule (which means that now at least two DIFFERENT elements must be present, whereas in the original it could all be carbon, as in a buckeyball), your definition still doesn’t fit precisely.

As I already mentioned, carbon monoxide is not an organic molecule, yet it is a covalently bonded carbon compound. There are other counterexamples as well (CN, for example).

ps418

That's correct, Frivolous. Its amazing how science has consistently verified the biblical account of the creation of our universe, our planet and living things within a single, 6-day period less than 10,000 years ago. Just look at all the peer-reviewed scientific journals and scientific affiliations that endorse this view, not to mention the top-notch scientists like Ken Ham and John Morris.

I would have tended to dismiss as myth the Genesis account, with its talking snakes, global floods, and 900 year-old humans, if it were not for this overwhelming and unequivocal evidence that recent, 6-day creation was true.

Principia

FYI:
An organic compound is one that minimally has hydrogen and carbon in covalent bonds.

BTW, folks, notice that one of DNAunion's chief obsessions here is to show that what 'organic compounds' are not, when he could have easily supplied the correct definition himself. In other words, he is not here to be helpful, but rather to boost his own ego.

Jeremy Pallant

Prove it. Your last statement, that is. Prove that the Biblical account of creation is an accurate, historical account.

There is, of course, no more reason to regard the Biblical myths as authoritative, than there is to regard the Norse myths in a similar light.

You are, of course, free to disagree, but it is upon your shoulders that the onus of proof falls, you being the one making the positive assertion.

Perhaps because your god had nothing to do with it? Certainly there is no evidence to suggest a supernatural influence with regard to the evolution of life. Nor is there, yet, any reason to assume a supernatural influence with regard to the origin of life.

Evidence that asserts a supernatural influence with regard to the origin of life would be welcomed.

Defiant Heretic

If you keep talking like that, you won't get to live in the halls of Valhalla after dying in battle!

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: Defiant Heretic ]</p>

Jeremy Pallant

I think that's before the Battle of Ragnarok. Valhalla was intended to be a training ground for Ragnarok.

Defiant Heretic

I fixed it! Couldn't you have waited more than ten minutes before posting a correction?!

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: Defiant Heretic ]</p>

DNAunion

DNAunion: BTW, folks, notice that one of Principia's chief obsessions here is to try to assassinate my character and credibility. He could have easily just given the definition and left out the snide remarks. In other words, he is not here to be helpful, but rather to try to tear me down and build himself up.

Principia

You give yourself too much credit, Rick. As far as I am concerned, you have no character of any value nor any credibility.

Nope, I was the one who actually gave a definition of organic compounds that you were obsessing over. Key point: I did, not you.

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

DNAunion

DNAunion: Thanks for proving my point.

DNAunion: Nope, you were the one who started with the insults.


So Prinicipia, how long do you intend to carry on insulting me? When do you plan to just drop the whole thing?

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>