you idiot, come here and i will kill you then i can show you the oils and other lipids in your body as you slowly rot awayPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
well i cant show you the chemicals your body releaces as you rot if your still alive can iPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why don't you go drill for oil at your local cemetery...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
look if your actually interested in learning how carbon is used in the body look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D thats just one of many chemicals which are made up IN YOUR BODY (and the reason i keep saying vitamin D is misslabled, its not a vitamin its a hormone)
Great. There's hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen IN MY BODY too but you don't go 'round calling them organic...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
thats because the backbone of your body isnt oxygen, nitrogen or hydrogen, its CARBON. We are a carbon based lifeform. if we were a silicon based lifeform we would call silicon biochemistry organic
Most of the human body is made up of water, H2O, with cells consisting of 60-90% water by weight. Most of a human body's mass is oxygen. Carbon comes in second.
OIM, I can't help but notice you ignored my links to inorganic carbon chemistry, including specific examples. Or do you think diamonds appear in your body?
Irrelevant, strawman, and a falsehood. You're using the word Organic out of context, in the context of the second part of your question, the correct term would be biological. One can only assume that this is an attempt at misdirection. It has been explained to you already that the nomenclature 'organic chemistry' has been retained, for reasons of tradition, when the fields of biological chemistry and carbon chemistry were synonymous, they are now seperate fields with significant overlap. This is simple intellectual dishonesty on your part, and organic chemistry is neither the only branch of science, nor exclusive in every day life, in retaining nomenclature that no longer retains its original meaning or context.
Appeal to emotion (a logical fallacy). "First and foremost is the fact that the mantle is too oxidizing for methane to form there in abundance. Furthermore, most volatiles including methane are transported from the mantle to the Earth’s crust in magma and not by faults as required by the theory." -Geoffrey P Glasby, 2006
And Alphanumeric raises a valid point - the chemistry of Oxides (of carbon), Carbides, and carbonates are classed as inorganic chemistry, so your argument is moot (having said that, carbonyl metal complexes are still considered organo-metallic).
You didn't post "links" plural. You posted a link to Wikipedia which I ignored for obvious reasons. My dog is more scientific than Wikipedia. Diamonds, like crude oil, are inorganic and come from the mantle. Yet fundamentalists call carbon organic.
In what way are questions a falsehood? Tradition doesn't sound very scientific. Ah, the glories of Medieval "science."
When they're based on a false premise, which yours are. Irrelevant, and a strawman. The name Chemistry draws it's roots from the word Alchemy, and ultimately from words that relate to Gold, or earth. The name Physics draws its roots from the study of natural science, and is related to physician, also about the study of natural science (the distinction being in the suffix). The point being that the origins of the name are irrelevant to the argument, because they no longer define the breadth of the topic.
