@calfoxwc said:

Well, woodpecker, I SAID "rarely".

Got a dictionary?

Well when your topics revolve around Obama being an evil Muslim, socialist, fascist, racist, scary black man its kinda hard to take that seriously enough to stay on topic.

But, your comment about me being off topic when I was on topic was off topic.

Got a dictionary?

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Overwhelming evidence of a soup turning into life and growing, lol, right. Think about it. Who took care of the soup when it was growing, how did it survive? Think grasshopper, think.

The soup took care of itself. As more and more (non-living) self-replicating molecules assembled themselves, they started forming relationships with others. The reason all of this happened was because of the physics of chemistry.

Here is a summary of the major experiments that have been conducted that led us to our current understanding of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Cal, that actually was on topic to our off topic discussion.

Yeah. science. "yawn"

@vaportrail said:

And if all everyone did was science, how much fun would you have? Do you even listen to music? Are the walls of your dorm room just blank? You didn't hang up any posters?

Define important. Art is a huge part of our culture. Yes, it's not going to lead to any new discoveries, but it does help people get by day to day. I mean, do you not listen to music? Plus, many great artists were also scientists. The same is true today. Brian May, James Franco, and Dexter Holland to name a few.

It doesn't. On one hand, I disagree with some of the requirements needed for a undergraduate degrees. On the other, it's good for people who show up and don't have a clue what they're doing as it allows them to experience a broader variety of courses. Once I decided what I wanted to do, I loathed the gen ed requirements as much as you do. If you are a scientist that is so focused on science and only things related to science, I'm sure that makes you a blast to hang out with at parties. Art is just as important as science when it comes to making life more tolerable.

I'm talking about english in high school, lol. I never had to take it here.

I said art is important, and that's great. I still stand by it not being as important as math and science.

I mean, this all started from Steve trying to compare evolution to the lord of the rings or something....

let's get back on topic to our off topic discussion

@mld-woody said:

Never watched the movies, don't read books.

Most of what you mentioned has science and math to thank a he'll of a lot more than art.

And if all everyone did was science, how much fun would you have? Do you even listen to music? Are the walls of your dorm room just blank? You didn't hang up any posters?

I'm not knocking art, it's just no where near as important as science homie.

Define important. Art is a huge part of our culture. Yes, it's not going to lead to any new discoveries, but it does help people get by day to day. I mean, do you not listen to music? Plus, many great artists were also scientists. The same is true today. Brian May, James Franco, and Dexter Holland to name a few.

But if you want, try to convince me how spending a month and a half on The Great Gatsby helps me in any way... Why I had to waste time on fictional stories in school I'll never know...

It doesn't. On one hand, I disagree with some of the requirements needed for a undergraduate degrees. On the other, it's good for people who show up and don't have a clue what they're doing as it allows them to experience a broader variety of courses. Once I decided what I wanted to do, I loathed the gen ed requirements as much as you do. If you are a scientist that is so focused on science and only things related to science, I'm sure that makes you a blast to hang out with at parties. Art is just as important as science when it comes to making life more tolerable.

@vaportrail said:

That's quite arrogant. Art is a multi billion dollar industry. Did you enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies? Books? How about Call of Duty? Do you think video games aren't art? Do you not listen to music? Is music important? No reason to shit on art.

Never watched the movies, don't read books.

Most of what you mentioned has science and math to thank a he'll of a lot more than art.

I'm not knocking art, it's just no where near as important as science homie. But if you want, try to convince me how spending a month and a half on The Great Gatsby helps me in any way... Why I had to waste time on fictional stories in school I'll never know...

but this is getting off topic from our off topic discussion.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Overwhelming evidence of a soup turning into life and growing, lol, right. Think about it. Who took care of the soup when it was growing, how did it survive? Think grasshopper, think.

lololololol

vapor take care of this, I gotta go buy food.

Oh man, hahaha

@mld-woody said:

Wow, Steve, could you be more of a theater kid?

I mean, I have to walk by our school's theater arts building every day (waste of space on the engineering campus) and I would expect better answers than what I am hearing from you.

Yes yes, literature is fantastic. If people want to read it for entertainment, be my guest. I never got why I had to waste 4 years in high school learning about the plots and themes of fictional stories, that literally have no impact on the world. Teachers sometimes said it was to increase my problem solving ability, lol, cuz we can pretend physics and math doesn't do that 10 times better. But the compare the lord of the rings to science??? da fuck are you talking about?

take 50 minutes out of your day and watch this

That's quite arrogant. Art is a multi billion dollar industry. Did you enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies? Books? How about Call of Duty? Do you think video games aren't art? Do you not listen to music? Is music important? No reason to shit on art.

@vaportrail said:

There's no evidence of anything before the big bang. There is (overwhelming) evidence of evolution. Evolution is the best explanation we have of why things are the way they are. Because it's a theory, it's open to scrutiny. Yes, there are gaps in the fossil record, however, there is evidence that supports evolution elsewhere.

Overwhelming evidence of a soup turning into life and growing, lol, right. Think about it. Who took care of the soup when it was growing, how did it survive? Think grasshopper, think.

I mean, I have to walk by our school's theater arts building every day (waste of space on the engineering campus) and I would expect better answers than what I am hearing from you.

Yes yes, literature is fantastic. If people want to read it for entertainment, be my guest. I never got why I had to waste 4 years in high school learning about the plots and themes of fictional stories, that literally have no impact on the world. Teachers sometimes said it was to increase my problem solving ability, lol, cuz we can pretend physics and math doesn't do that 10 times better. But the compare the lord of the rings to science??? da fuck are you talking about?

take 50 minutes out of your day and watch this

@westside-steve said:

And the lord of the rings was written after years and years of research and study.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Of course if anyone asks " so exactly what was there before the big bang?" I guess the answer would be uh.....

WSS

There's no evidence of anything before the big bang. There is (overwhelming) evidence of evolution. Evolution is the best explanation we have of why things are the way they are. Because it's a theory, it's open to scrutiny. Yes, there are gaps in the fossil record, however, there is evidence that supports evolution elsewhere.

WSS

@mld-woody said:

You're confusing science and religion.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it must just be some made up story to make scientists feel smart. I think that is why so many people are religious and believe in creationism. They don't understand the science and would rather believe an invisible man made everything and is watching out for them...

Scientists didn't just one day say "Hey, what is the most ridiculous way we can say the universe started?" The big bang theory came about after years of research, scientific advancement, math and high level thinking...

And the lord of the rings was written after years and years of research and study.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

I suppose 1 basic difference between humans and lowers species is that we, humans, while having no ability to understand things abstract, can still wonder about them.

Because of that many things we cannot understand we invent stories to explain them.

To meet the big bang sounds about as likely as a guy and a robe with long white hair clapping his hands.

of course is the guy in a robe story makes people happy, fine.

if the big bang theory makes other guys feel like they're smarter, fine.

WSS

You're confusing science and religion.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it must just be some made up story to make scientists feel smart. I think that is why so many people are religious and believe in creationism. They don't understand the science and would rather believe an invisible man made everything and is watching out for them...

Scientists didn't just one day say "Hey, what is the most ridiculous way we can say the universe started?" The big bang theory came about after years of research, scientific advancement, math and high level thinking...

@vaportrail said:

This is baffling. On one hand you seem to understand what a theory is. On the other hand, you refer to them as nothing more than a "great sounding story" in the next sentence, then claim scientists have no idea what they're talking about.

I suppose 1 basic difference between humans and lowers species is that we, humans, while having no ability to understand things abstract, can still wonder about them.

Because of that many things we cannot understand we invent stories to explain them.

To meet the big bang sounds about as likely as a guy and a robe with long white hair clapping his hands.

of course if the guy in a robe story makes people happy, fine.

if the big bang theory makes other guys feel like they're smarter, fine.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Smart people?

keep in mind we have nothing but theories, which are actually educated guesses, based on the science of the last few years.

And modern scientific knowledge grows exponentially, and doubles itself in fewer and fewer years since the 1930s.

So im just this particular case, since we have no examples of the missing links between most of the species, you are basically bragging about having a great sounding story to tell about a subject you really have no idea about.

This is baffling. On one hand you seem to understand what a theory is. On the other hand, you refer to them as nothing more than a "great sounding story" in the next sentence, then claim scientists have no idea what they're talking about.

@westside-steve said:

I'm not arguing anything.

I am saying that despite your super advanced learning and obviously superior IQs your opinions and guesses as to the origins of life etcetra are much more advanced than those of your genetic predecessors.

" Listen to him, he's in pre med."

" I thought you were in pre law?"

" What's the difference?"

WSS

80% of pre-med kids are a joke. As an engineer I had to take Chem my freshman year and you know how many kids said they were "pre-med" in that class and then couldn't even handle basic chem? The average in that class was like a C, it was a joke. So many kids come in pre-med, can't handle it (even though its not that crazy to begin with) and switch to like psych or something. It's like all the engineers in Mech E or Chem E or something that can't handle it and switch to Industrial Operations Engineering or just fall out completely and switch to business.

@mld-woody said:

Shakespeare is just some fiction some dude wrote. It has no bearing on the world today. It can't be tested. There's no science behind it.

Evolution has evidence. It has the scientific method. The science revolving around evolution has been going on longer than "the last few years."

I;m just saying you are trying to argue science with a medical student and an engineering student. If I ever have a question about symbolism in Macbeth I'll hit you up.

Oh, and I know about bullshitting Shakespeare and other fiction. That's how I got through honors and AP english in HS. That and sparknotes

I'm not arguing anything.

I am saying that despite your super advanced learning and obviously superior IQs your opinions and guesses as to the origins of life etcetra are much more advanced than those of your genetic predecessors.

" Listen to him, he's in pre med."

" I thought you were in pre law?"

" What's the difference?"

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Smart people?

keep in mind we have nothing but theories, which are actually educated guesses, based on the science of the last few years.

And modern scientific knowledge grows exponentially, and doubles itself in fewer and fewer years since the 1930s.

So im just this particular case, since we have no examples of the missing links between most of the species, you are basically bragging about having a great sounding story to tell about a subject you really have no idea about.

Even a theater kid understands that in an in depth discussion of what shakespeare may or may not have meant by a particular passage it's a guess, or better what lay people call bullshit.

WSS

Shakespeare is just some fiction some dude wrote. It has no bearing on the world today. It can't be tested. There's no science behind it.

Evolution has evidence. It has the scientific method. The science revolving around evolution has been going on longer than "the last few years."

I;m just saying you are trying to argue science with a medical student and an engineering student. If I ever have a question about symbolism in Macbeth I'll hit you up.

Oh, and I know about bullshitting Shakespeare and other fiction. That's how I got through honors and AP english in HS. That and sparknotes

@mld-woody said:

yay smart people!

Smart people?

keep in mind we have nothing but theories, which are actually educated guesses, based on the science of the last few years.

And modern scientific knowledge grows exponentially, and doubles itself in fewer and fewer years since the 1930s.

So im just this particular case, since we have no examples of the missing links between most of the species, you are basically bragging about having a great sounding story to tell about a subject you really have no idea about.

Even a theater kid understands that in an in depth discussion of what shakespeare may or may not have meant by a particular passage it's a guess, or better what lay people call bullshit.

WSS

@vaportrail said:

Dude, you clearly do not have any idea what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Have you ever heard of MRSA? You know, the staph infections that plagued the Browns? Look up what MRSA stands for. You think they just always, innately had a resistance to antibiotics? No. Certain individuals adapted genetic changes that allowed for them to combat antibiotics. That part is natural selection. However, all of the offspring of these individuals now carry this gene, and in turn have the resistance. This is evolution. No shit we haven't seen an insect evolve into a duck. This isn't pokemon. We've only been studying it for 400 years. It really blows my mind how people could be okay with taking medicine that is based on genetic techniques yet still deny evolution.

yay smart people!

@pumpkin-eater said:

So, there's evidence of natural selection. That really doesn't prove evolution at all. It certainly doesn't discredit Creationism. Natural selection is common sense, basic stuff that anyone can understand, and it doesn't equal evolution. Not that the two concepts are at odds with each other, but they are not synonymous. There is still absolutely no evidence that a fish turned into a human. Yes, there's evidence that species have adapted advantages (and disadvantages)over long periods of time, but little definitive evidence that one species has ever evolved into another. There's still no evidence that inanimate compounds suddenly came to life one day. So your smugness on this issue is a little unwarranted.

Dude, you clearly do not have any idea what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Q:I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred english dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules? )

A:"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

Have you ever heard of MRSA? You know, the staph infections that plagued the Browns? Look up what MRSA stands for. You think they just always, innately had a resistance to antibiotics? No. Certain individuals adapted genetic changes that allowed for them to combat antibiotics. That part is natural selection. However, all of the offspring of these individuals now carry this gene, and in turn have the resistance. This is evolution. No shit we haven't seen an insect evolve into a duck. This isn't pokemon. We've only been studying it for 400 years. It really blows my mind how people could be okay with taking medicine that is based on genetic techniques yet still deny evolution.