you never said by itself.

GG @Deleted User, you just advanced to level 4!

Well, as far as I know... even if you assemble different atoms of matter in the correct way in a laboratory, life would not be present. There has been no evidence to the contrary all though scientists have been trying to create life by itself for a long time now and have had no success.

So I can not see how the scientific communities theory can hold any credibility in claiming that under the right conditions... life can appear from dead matter

That is the basis of the big bang theory and I reject it.

We were made by Odin to fight

😎👍

@borealice It does not exist, no nobel prize winner has a IQ under 125

tbf you need a high iq to excel at maths

but there might be a few peace prize winners who have low iqs

since the articles i found were only on the sciences

The young boy who accidentally invented popsicles won a noble peace prize so idk how much I trust those guys who make the decisions

alright so

what

Lol

giving the boy who invented popsicles a noble prize? yeah, i can dig that popsicles are pretty cool
but PEACE prize?

how can freezing some flavored water be grounds to give you the peace prize

where does peace come into it?

^

Obama won it for being black

Partially. His skin colour had parts to do it, however, unlike Hilary's woman card, Obama played the game properly

When Hilary was accused of being part of the establishment, she tried using the woman card, falling into Trump's trap

When Obama was accused of the same thing, he twisted it to seem as if that makes him good because he has experience

^

"It's funny that when we get sick, we want a doctor that's been trained and not some guy off the streets, but when we want a leader, we do the exact opposite" - Obama

Unlike Hilary, Obama twisted the accusation into something positive

Blair was the best at this

A massive cunt, but still brilliant with this shit

Well yes he was always a great speaker

Obama I mean

@lemonsaw You're right. I wasn't inspecting a closer look at it as I was reading through the wiki, which yes, still mentions that there are scientists- specifically 3 of them who 'scored low on their IQ tests in the wiki. But here's the source(link) where it mentions the names of three scientists that are considered 'low in IQ' at the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius

Quoted text from the wiki link that highlights the 'low IQ' scientists:
"The Terman longitudinal study in California eventually provided historical evidence regarding how genius is related to IQ scores.[27] Many California pupils were recommended for the study by schoolteachers. Two pupils who were tested but rejected for inclusion in the study (because their IQ scores were too low) grew up to be Nobel Prize winners in physics, William Shockley,[28][29] and Luis Walter Alvarez.[30][31] Based on the historical findings of the Terman study and on biographical examples such as Richard Feynman, who had an IQ of 125 and went on to win the Nobel Prize in physics and become widely known as a genius,[32][33] the current view of psychologists and other scholars of genius is that a minimum level of IQ (approximately 125) is necessary for genius but not sufficient, and must be combined with personality characteristics such as drive and persistence, plus the necessary opportunities for talent development.[34][35][36]"

After searching up for their individual biographies, their IQ aren't below 125. So, I don't understand why the wiki considers the IQ of these 3 scientists (Shockley, Walter & Feymann) to be low. My theory is that there is some sort of average IQ for what is considered a genius? IQ alone is a whole topic I should read about in full context which leads to a whole discussion regarding it's history, science and statistics behind it. Your opinion really adds up to my understanding of IQ so I really appreciated that.

I appreciate that you're not emotionally attached to your positions.
This whole debate just revolves on your definition of a genius. If you think of a genius as someone who can perform on an IQ test, then it's simply based on IQ. If you consider someone who makes an impact in their scientific field as a genius, then it seems that IQ is not the only factor. From your source and what I've read in general, there is a minimum IQ (seems to be 125), which combined with motivation and other traits would make a genius.

However what I don't appreciate is people denying IQ. It is a good assessment of one's logical intelligence and it is one of the best predictor of life success along with EQ.

@lemonsaw I'm getting the bigger picture now you mention it. The whole idea of the definition of genius is certainly debatable until today (now that's something I'll add up to my reading). I suppose it wasn't that wise of me that some part of me denied the importance of IQ in the whole process of trying to understand what 'genius' or intelligence really means along with other factors I'll read up soon like EQ (now you mention it), etc. Much more for me to understand it seems and again thank you for sharing your opinion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jG6kJm-50k

looks like Im late to the party with my popcorn

😦

how do u explain hwo the big bang happened

like nothing cant just become somthing''

and what caused that

and then what caused that