Quote:
What's wrong using the article as reference? Nothing, unless you use it to claim some nonsense that isn't contained in the article at all.
Did you actually look up the magazine? Because the link you posted wasn't even from the scientific american website, which might contain a complete copy of the article. That said, if it is a complete copy of the article, then I didn't notice anything about the claim. But I just did a quick text search for 'homochirality', or 'chiral'. So I don't know.
The only way to find out is to subscribe to SA digital which gives access to the archives back into 1993, but that's about $40. So I don't think I'll be doing that just to find out, especially when I already have the paper subscription. I'll just e-mail the webmaster of the site. 
Anyway, I didn't read the whole article (did you?), but I tried doing the search with amino, or sugar, or anything else that might tip me off to something on homochirality and got nada. Of course, they could have referred to it in a way that wouldn't use any of the 'hot' words I chose to search with.
edit: I did e-mail them, but I went directly to one of the staffers, so I should receive a response within a week I'd assume.
Now, on to Matt's undecipherably irrelevant ramblings. 
Quote:
I think he is doing the same things when he calls Pasteur a "creationist" who disproved spontaneous generation.
He didn't disprove abiogenesis, but he disproved the notion that wholly formed animals would just pop up out of nowhere. He didn't do it in the name of creationism, there wasn't that big of a debate back then. He probably just did it in the name of common sense.
Quote:
While Pasteur may or may not have been a Christian
If he wasn't a christian, he went way out of his way to make it look like he was. He was the guy I quoted who said science brought man closer to God.
Quote:
I dont see what the purpose of Irish's observation is, other than to imply--without any good reason--that he did this to somehow "prove" creationism.
That's because just about everything you say and think is incorrect. That wasn't the point. The point was to criticize the author of the article for lumping creationism in with spontaneous generation of life, when pasteur himself was critical of darwin whom he thought formulated his thoughts without enough experimental proof. He used someone who thought we were created, in the same breath as saying creationism is outdated. It just seemed weird to me. No reason to dwell on it.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/13/06 22:57.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
| 
