I'm sure you've heard some theists propose that scientists have never created 'organic' matter from inorganic matter. What's the meaning of organic matter? According to wikipedia,

Quote:Organic chemistry is a discipline within chemistry involving the scientific study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation (by synthesis or by other means) of carbon-based compounds, hydrocarbons, and their derivatives.

An organic compound simply contains carbon excluding compounds that are composed of solely carbon such as diamond or graphite. In light of this definition, the argument by theists that scientists have not produced an organic substance from inorganic substances represents ignorance in chemistry.

I can think of a more relevant question:

Are organic substances sometimes produced independently of living things (and their by-products) in nature?

(June 24, 2010 at 5:14 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: An organic compound simply contains carbon excluding compounds that are composed of solely carbon such as diamond or graphite.

Correction, the allotropes of carbon (Diamond, Graphite, Lonsdaleite, C60 Buckminsterfullerene/buckyball, C540, C70, Amorphous carbon, and single-walled carbon nanotube/ buckytube) are all considered inorganic, not of biological origin.

Quote:Are organic substances sometimes produced independently of living things (and their by-products) in nature?

At which point its no longer an organic compound you're dealing with, its inorganic. These are the useful yet arbitrary distinctions between "organic" and "inorganic", "natural" and "synthetic" that were established and accepted today when the theory of Vitalism was disproved.

You've opened a can of worms here because there's never been a concrete definition of an "organic compound" within Organic chemistry.

(June 25, 2010 at 10:00 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

(June 24, 2010 at 5:14 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: An organic compound simply contains carbon excluding compounds that are composed of solely carbon such as diamond or graphite.

Correction, the allotropes of carbon (Diamond, Graphite, Lonsdaleite, C60 Buckminsterfullerene/buckyball, C540, C70, Amorphous carbon, and single-walled carbon nanotube/ buckytube) are all considered inorganic, not of biological origin.

i guess i made a mistake by saying 'simply' carbon but i did not mean 'solely' carbon i meant 'nothing more than' a molecule 'containing' carbon. I think I even added some examples of inorganic carbon containing molecules. I'd correct you slightly on suggesting that all organic substances have' biological origin' because organic substances are known also to form independently of biological processes (living organisms).

Quote:TFS: Are organic substances sometimes produced independently of living things (and their by-products) in nature?

Quote:Welsh: At which point its no longer an organic compound you're dealing with, its inorganic. These are the useful yet arbitrary distinctions between "organic" and "inorganic", "natural" and "synthetic" that were established and accepted today when the theory of Vitalism was disproved.

organic chemistry studies organic molecules and organic molecules contain carbon excluding the allotropes of carbon. I'm sure proteins would be considered an organic molecule no matter if it was produced synthetically, by an organism, or on an meteorite (independent of biological processes).

"Proteins (also known as polypeptides) are organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain and folded into a globular form." - wiki
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound edit: i see that this link was your source mostly but you forgot to mention other details mentioned in this article "even though many of the "organic compounds" known today have no connection whatsoever, material or structural, to any substance found in living organisms."

---

hm, you'd done better to bring up Wöhler's 1828 synthesis of urea from the inorganic salts potassium cyanate and ammonium sulfate demonstrating that inorganic substances may indeed produce an 'organic substance' disproving the claim that organic substances have never been created out of inorganic substances. you have to understand, welsh, that the whole point of this thread is to make people aware of the true meaning of these words.

(June 24, 2010 at 5:14 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: I'm sure you've heard some theists propose that scientists have never created 'organic' matter from inorganic matter.

That sure would be one misinformed theist.

(June 29, 2010 at 4:05 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(June 24, 2010 at 5:14 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: I'm sure you've heard some theists propose that scientists have never created 'organic' matter from inorganic matter.

That sure would be one misinformed theist.

They're out there. Understanding the above posts is a gateway to being more charitable towards abiogenesis given that complex molecules -- that are very similar to those that make up key parts of our cells -- may have origins independent of living things.

(June 29, 2010 at 4:05 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(June 24, 2010 at 5:14 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: I'm sure you've heard some theists propose that scientists have never created 'organic' matter from inorganic matter.

That sure would be one misinformed theist.

We are talking about people who in the face of ALL the evidence maintain that the universe is only 6000 years old.

Misinformed barely starts to describe them.

(June 29, 2010 at 5:07 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: Understanding the above posts is a gateway to being more charitable towards abiogenesis given that complex molecules -- that are very similar to those that make up key parts of our cells -- may have origins independent of living things.

Frankly, I do not see the connection. Just because organic chemicals can be produced from inorganic ones does not necessitate or lead to the conclusion that abiogenesis is possible. There is a huge difference between an organic chemical and life. In other words, if the synthesis of organic molecules from inorganic ones leads one to be more charitable towards abiogenesis, would the fact that one can also produce inorganic chemicals starting with organic ones lead one to be less charitable towards abiogenesis? I doubt it. I just do not see the relationship you see.

---

(June 30, 2010 at 6:49 am)Zen Badger Wrote: We are talking about people who in the face of ALL the evidence maintain that the universe is only 6000 years old.

Misinformed barely starts to describe them.

Where is your basis for assuming that all theists who think that scientists cannot make organic matter out of inorganic matter are young earth creationists?

I think you are making an unsupported leap here, Zen. There is nothing to necessitate a young earth creationist position starting from a position that says that scientists cannot make organic matter out of inorganic matter. The issues are separate.

(June 30, 2010 at 1:24 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(June 29, 2010 at 5:07 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: Understanding the above posts is a gateway to being more charitable towards abiogenesis given that complex molecules -- that are very similar to those that make up key parts of our cells -- may have origins independent of living things.

Frankly, I do not see the connection. Just because organic chemicals can be produced from inorganic ones does not necessitate or lead to the conclusion that abiogenesis is possible. There is a huge difference between an organic chemical and life. In other words, if the synthesis of organic molecules from inorganic ones leads one to be more charitable towards abiogenesis, would the fact that one can also produce inorganic chemicals starting with organic ones lead one to be less charitable towards abiogenesis? I doubt it. I just do not see the relationship you see.

The fact that complex organic 'chemicals' may form independently of living organisms is key. if atoms did assemble into complex organic molecules independent of living things, theists would definitely capitalize on that fact because abiogenesis would not be possible if complex organic molecules could not form in nature without living organisms. I grant that the reality of complex organic molecules forming independently of life is not a direct step to the formation of life; but, if you were as charitable as you are with the idea of 'resurrections' and 'walking on water' which are unsubstantiated, you wouldn't see the connection as too far a 'leap of faith'.

(June 30, 2010 at 3:43 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: I grant that the reality of complex organic molecules forming independently of life is not a direct step to the formation of life; but, if you were as charitable as you are with the idea of 'resurrections' and 'walking on water' which are unsubstantiated, you wouldn't see the connection as too far a 'leap of faith'.

Are you saying that given the reality of complex organic molecules forming independently of life, taking this as an indication that life formed via abiogenesis is a "leap of faith", although not too far a leap? If so, I am surprised that you would say so since most of the atheists I have met here seem to argue vehemently that faith has nothing to do with anything in their worldview. If not, I guess I misunderstood.

It seems to me that whether or not resurrections, walking on water, and/or abiogenesis are much of a leap of faith would depend on your starting point. If one starts from the position that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God (as I do), then resurrections and walking on water is not as much a leap of faith as abiogenesis. On the other hand, if one starts from the position of metaphysical naturalism, positivism, materialism, empiricism, monism, scientism, and a healthy dose of skepticism (as you do), I could see how you could take abiogenesis (or some other naturalistic explanation for the existence of life) as less of a leap of faith then ressurections or walking on water.

(June 30, 2010 at 4:19 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(June 30, 2010 at 3:43 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: I grant that the reality of complex organic molecules forming independently of life is not a direct step to the formation of life; but, if you were as charitable as you are with the idea of 'resurrections' and 'walking on water' which are unsubstantiated, you wouldn't see the connection as too far a 'leap of faith'.

Are you saying that given the reality of complex organic molecules forming independently of life, taking this as an indication that life formed via abiogenesis is a "leap of faith", although not too far a leap? If so, I am surprised that you would say so since most of the atheists I have met here seem to argue vehemently that faith has nothing to do with anything in their worldview. If not, I guess I misunderstood.

yeah... i would say that the connection I make between a-biological organic chemistry and abiogenesis may be considered a leap of faith but I wouldn't put it in the same category as miracles esp. events written about in the Bible such as walking on water, the resurrection, and a guy getting gobbled up by a fish.

Quote:It seems to me that whether or not resurrections, walking on water, and/or abiogenesis are much of a leap of faith would depend on your starting point. If one starts from the position that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God (as I do), then resurrections and walking on water is not as much a leap of faith as abiogenesis.

there's a big difference between believing events contradictory to physics and medicine happened 2,000 years ago when knowledge and communication was scarce and believing abiogenesis is consistent with complex organic molecules existing abiologically.

Quote:On the other hand, if one starts from the position of metaphysical naturalism, positivism, materialism, empiricism, monism, scientism, and a healthy dose of skepticism (as you do), I could see how you could take abiogenesis (or some other naturalistic explanation for the existence of life) as less of a leap of faith then ressurections or walking on water.

All the philosophies or methods I adhere to are productive, being of great value to our technological advance. The only priori I abide by is one should not believe in something for which there is insufficient or no evidence: I do not rule out the supernatural by a priori that the supernatural simply cannot exist rather I rule out the supernatural by lack of evidence (i am the flying skeptic). What's your priori? "God did it" I'm glad there are some people that don't limit themselves by "God did it" and continue to investigate possibilities that are relevant to facts (science). You believe that the Bible is the word of God? Why? What evidence do you have that a deity is responsible for the Bible? Actually, the Bible is inerrant and even contradictory: hardly the work of an all-loving, omnipotent deity. You'd think if a deity truly existed that he'd make sure the book that represents it was at least not contradictory.