[tommya300]

No back handed compliment nor am I kissing azz. True real life as you say is abupt, but this is an easy going environment, not a game of hardball.
Since you are the most forward going and most abrasive,  a kind word might just take off that edge. But you suspect the worse. If I were an aviator fighter pilot you would make a great wing man. It is a sincere compliment

[lightarrow]

Incidentally, why does nobody seem to wish to comment on the politeness of Eric's comment i.e. "Not sure you're really a chemist."?
Given my name here, that's an accusation of dishonesty. Did I miss something or is that not rather impolite?

I didn't think you needed to be supported, anyway I can certainly state that I'm in total disagreement with that comment by Eric.

[Bored chemist]

I'm big enough and ugly enough not to worry too much but I still think that Eric should have it brought to his attention that ad hom attacks are neither polite nor scientific. That way he might be less likely to try it again on someone less stubborn than me.

[Murchie85]

BC- I like your point about nature doesn't politely correct you, in the limit it can kill you. So true, I just wished some more people lived by a code like that when building contraptions based on shoddy science.

In more general terms about life on Titan (without going to far as to merit its own post) I personally feel the idea is a little wishful thinking as there doesn't seem to be an obvious energy source. Sunlight would be less intense, little or no volcanic activity or thermal vents (although there are cryovolcanoes) so no major sources with which to provide energy.

[Eric A. Taylor (OP)]

While there are blurred distinctions in places, water is not organic and therefore cannot be an organic anything. In particular it cannot be an organic solvent.

There's no wriggle-room in that; it just is not an organic solvent. Never has been and never will be.

When someone shows the the carbon atom in H2O I will accept that I was wrong.

As I said, with Eric's definition, all solvents are organic solvents so the term is meaningless. Also his basis for considering it to be an organic solvent is bizarre unless he can show me some saturated hydrocarbons that "dissolve readily in water"

"The distinction between the two disciplines is far from absolute, and there is much overlap, most importantly in the sub-discipline of organometallic chemistry."
About which, we were not talking.

When I say water is an organic solvent, I'm not saying that water is organic (I know that lacking any C water is inorganic.) Water is called the "universal solvent" because so many things can be devolved into it. After physics chemistry is probably the most interesting science...unless you agree with some that say ALL science boils down to physics. After all what drives chemistry? PHYSICS.

[Bored chemist]

Eric,
Please make up your mind what you are saying.
Did you mean this
"organic compounds dissolve readily in water making it an organic solvent."
or "I'm not saying that water is organic"
or this
"Water is called the "universal solvent" "?

It's no wonder you are not sure I'm a chemist- you don't seem sure what you are on about.

Though, since none of them is true you should be putting these ideas forward in "new theories" or not at all.

[Soul Surfer]

I wish you would stop this endless pointless bickering.  It is my understanding that for life we need both organic materials and water and the ability to make membranes between fats and liquid water.  This would appear to be impossible at low temperatures because the water would freeze so the possibility of life at these temperatures looks remote.  However the presence of other materials dissolved in water can greatly reduce its freezing point (notably ammonia)band the containment in an environment with pressure in small drops reduce it further so there appears to be a remote possibility of a low temperature carbon/water based complex chemistry.  This could use a different liquid (gas) with a small amount of dissolved water as a majority fluidising matrix.  It is very remote but Isn't that a bit more interesting than arguing about terminology?

[lightarrow]

Ian, what you say is correct, anyway people shoud try to be more precise or they could, for example, make the mistake of considering water as "able to dissolve everything" just because it's poetically termed "universal solvent" in some non-university book.

[imatfaal]

Talking about non-geo/non-anthropocentric notions of life; it's possible to envisage some form of life that does not use water as such a mainstay of existence (very very difficult) but I would say possible to imagine in broadbrush strokes if not in detail.  But can anyone get an idea of life within solids - is that just another intellectual leap of imagination required or is it impossible?  And what about a purely gaseous environment - is there any chance of enough molecules being in proximity long enough to form the complexity of life?

[Bored chemist]

It's not the discussion of the meaning of words that's pointless. It's the whole thread. It's based on a couple of ideas that are simply wrong.

[maffsolo]

Maybe the thread should have been placed under  New Theories or Cells and Microbes & viruses or Just Chat

Methane Eating Bacteria Found in Icy Arctic Water

Hydrocarbon-Eating Microbes Mean Oil Was An Ancient Energy

If Bacteria is a form of life and it exists here why not there. Hypothetical speaking...
Intellegent life, as in intellectual, on Titan may be stretching thing a bit far...

The word solvent is a bit over the top.
A Liguid flow is most common, used as a Vehicle of transport, to aid in supporting life.

[Geezer]

Maybe the thread should have been placed under  New Theories

You only had to ask.

[maffsolo]

Maybe the thread should have been placed under New Theories

You only had to ask.

I did not realize it sooner, nor I thought is was my place, I just only suggested.
The inspiration came with the last Post prior.
 My mind is on Sabbatical for the last 5 years. [)]
Like a permanent unpaid leave of absence 
 [:-'(]