I’ll be as old as the 30 Years’ War!

It’s interesting thinking about the past–back to when I was turning 20. I was a brash college kid who thought he was better than most people and smarter than everyone.

I’ve changed. A lot. Because I certainly don’t think I’m smarter than anyone. I just feel like I’m BSing my way through life sometimes. Perhaps that’s just what everyone does. I certainly don’t have it figured out.

In the past ten years, I’ve graduated college, gotten married, had children, helped start a website, figured out what I wanted to do with my career-life, and worked many jobs.

In questing terms (I am, after all, a big RPG fan), my twenties were just the beginning of a greater journey. I’ve learned to cast Magic Missile with ease; now, I need to level up into throwing Lightning Bolt around. Or something. /nerd.

So maybe that’s why, in terms of the stereotypical-I’m-turning-30 freakout, I’m not freaking out at all. Of course, once you’ve had kids, you basically just feel tired all the time.

Anyway, here are some things I’ve learned in my 20s. I may not practice these lessons 100% of the time, but when I do, things go way better for me.

1.) Drop the cynicism.

Life is tough. There are so many times when something bad will happen in my life, and I’ll just have to shrug at my wife and say, “It’s always something.” And it is. I own a home; stuff is breaking all the time. And I don’t know how to fix it all the time. I’ve learned, though, that a jaded negativity towards everything doesn’t help the situation.

Cynicism seems to pervade our digital lives. You can’t watch a YouTube video about a kitten jumping on a trampoline without the comments section being full of racism, sexism, and grammar-deficient morons. Cable news channels bombard you with everything bad that is going on (or spin things to seem worse than they actually are). It’s easy to get down.

I’m going to tell you, however, that there is happiness in the little things: going for a walk, eating some ice cream, listening to the birds chirp, enjoying a taco, making a three-pointer, swinging on a swing set. Life is full of small, wonderful things.

Cynicism, by contrast, is grating. It’s anti-good. It’s quick to take offense, and it’s quick to anger.

Being kind is more difficult, but I think you’ll get farther by being kind than succumbing to cynicism. (And this is coming from a guy that worked retail for a long, long time.)

Life will give you lemons. So make this stuff.

2.) You don’t deserve anything

When I got out of college, I thought that an awesome job would be awaiting me when I entered the real world. I was wrong, and that was even before the recession hit! I was angry for a long time; I thought that because of my (mediocre) work in college, I deserved something great. After all, that’s what I was told so often during my childhood: Go to college; do anything.

I once had a job I loved. And I got laid off from it because they couldn’t pay me. I was depressed because I KNEW that I deserved that job. I was funny, wrote well, and always met my deadlines.

I quickly learned that people don’t always get what they deserve…for better or for worse. However, I also figured out that deciding what you want to do with your life, making a plan, and then working hard at that plan is the best way to get what you want.

It was a few years ago that I decided that I wanted to work in the tabletop games industry. I love gaming. I wish I could do it more,  but I want to help create something that brings joy to people.

So, I made a plan. And I’m working toward that plan. I’m not there yet, but I’ve made progress. Even working hard, I might not get that success; I don’t deserve it, certainly. However, that isn’t going to stop me. I’ll keep trying my best. And really, working hard on a project and finishing it well is a reward unto itself.

3.) Listen and understand.

I’m still pretty bad at this, but I’m trying to do better. Listening is a unique skill. Many people can hear what someone is saying, but few people can truly listen and understand what someone is saying. When you listen, you are forced to give attention to the person who is speaking. Attention is a powerful thing.

It’s easy to get distracted. My phone will buzz at an inopportune moment, or I’ll be watching something on TV when my wife wants to talk to me. However, when I truly listen to someone without distraction by focusing my full attention, I find that it makes me a better person. People are quicker to tell me things. I find myself being better at anticipating how people will react to certain things after I’ve truly listened.

My wife can attest that I’m not great at this. However, I’m trying, babe. I really am.

Rule 7: You can never have too many dice.

4.) Play games

My daughter is one year old, and has been playing games for months. She’ll cover her head with a blanket and will leave her face covered until I say something along the lines of, “Where is the baby!?” at which point, she’ll uncover her head and giggle.

You’re never too young or too old to play a game. Whether it’s something simple likes “Cops and Robbers” or something more complex like soccer, basketball, or even Settlers of Catan, games are awesome.

And games are good for you! Want to be better at multi-tasking, making decisions, being more social, or being more creative? Play a game! And obviously there are  physical benefits as well to playing games in the form of sports.

Don’t have time to play games with other people? That’s fine. There are studies that indicate that even certain video games are good for you, too.

Want to relieve stress and be a better person? Play some games.

5.) Moderation

“Moderation” has been my soapbox for a long time, now. I try not to go overboard even with things I love and can be good for me. The old saying “Too much of a good thing is not” is something I’ve found to be absolutely true. It’s easy to dedicate too much time to hobbies, or work, or play, or anything.

If you can avoid obsessing too much over something, I think you’ll find your life to be much more harmonious.

I used to work at GameStop. I’ve seen people who have made video gaming their lifestyle. I’ve seen people who can’t make plans with their friends because they have to put in “video game time.” I’ve seen people who have made a lifestyle out of sports. Or drinking. Or any number of things that aren’t necessarily bad when they are taken in moderation.

Let me give your heart a break.

6.) There are no guilty pleasures. There are just pleasures.

Sometimes, I like pop music. I bought a Demi Lovato album once because it was $3. It’s not great. But, it’s fun to mindlessly sing along with. She has a set of pipes.

I like frozen pizza. Some people couldn’t imagine putting that mess in their mouths. I think it’s delicious. Not all the time. But, sometimes.

What I’m saying is that you’re going to like things that people might make fun of you over. I get mocked for playing Halo 4, sometimes (even though it still sold a butt-load of copies, so other people MUST be playing it). People think it’s funny that I’ve played Dungeons and Dragons within the last three years of my life. Shrug.

Don’t listen to the haters if you like something that is innocuous. You can like what you like, and that’s fine. So dress up like Han Solo, or do whatever.

Unless it’s drugs. Don’t do drugs. That’ll mess you up.

The takeaway from these six things?

Be kind. Be confident.

“Do unto others as you would want done to you.”

Enjoy life because we only get one. Unless we live in a comic book; in which case, I’ll see you when the universe gets rebooted and I get a brand new set of super powers and a new costume.

Well, some of it, anyway. Let’s talk about it, shall we?

On Saturday, I introduced the eldest of my spawn to “Monsters, Inc.” A happy accident, we stumbled upon it whilst channel surfing. He was immediately mesmerized, and I was surprised that he had never seen it before.

Then, I remembered that he’s four.

Image courtesy of Disney/Pixar

Oh, right… He wasn’t alive when it was released! Huh. Sometimes I forget that I have to teach and/or show these little creatures EVERYTHING. (No, don’t pick up gum in the parking lot! GET IT OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! –True story. Gross.)

The upcoming sequel, “Monsters University,” is set to be released on Friday (BTW, June 21 is my birthday, and anyone who gets me a present will receive bonus LIFE POINTS. Inquire below for shipping information.), and I’m pretty sure it’s something that he’ll enjoy. Rather, more importantly, I’m pretty sure it’s something that I’ll enjoy. Let’s face it, I’m the one buying the tickets, so I should like the movie, right?

Which brings me to my topic (Way to bury the lede, right?): All kid movies should appeal in some way to the adult that has to be there. Really, it’s something that is already happening, and I seriously appreciate that! It just struck me anew on Saturday as I tried to watch “Monsters, Inc.” through fresh eyes, so I could explain things to my son if needed.

I was fascinated to realize that I was enjoying the movie just as much as he was.

How do they do that? How do they make a movie that I’m happy to settle into that also appeals to a child that will rewatch the same tripe over and over again? It’s amazing.

I also considered the general shift in my watching habits. Since hatching my children, I evaluate watchable-ness based on a kid-centric system. Categories include: “Can I watch this with my kid(s)?” “Will my kid(s) be scared of this?” and the popular catch-all, “How bad will my kid(s) be scarred for life if they walk out of their room for a midnight piddle only to find something violent/sexual/overall inappropriate for small children on the screen mommy what is that what are they doing do you do that oh my gosh look away turn off the tv quick TURN IT OFF NOW!”

Said categories are mainly for television, but they wash over for theater trips, too, of course.

Another thing I appreciate about “Monsters, Inc.” is that it didn’t rely on over-his-head-humor to do the job. Think “Shrek,” that was chocked full of innuendo and fart jokes…stuff lauded as appealing to older audiences while still sucking in the tots. That has its place, I suppose, but it makes me uncomfortable sometimes. I can’t help but wonder if I’m exposing my geekling to stuff he’s not ready for, stuff I’M not ready for him to be ready for.

That’s probably a different article, though.

Suffice it to say that I’m a fair-weather fan of most Pixar movies, and I like that my son is, too.

What do you think about kid movies these days? Does something have to appeal to you, too?

ASIDE: You know what else comes out on Friday? “World War Z.” So, since Friday’s my birthday, I should probably get to pick the movie we see, right? (Yes, I fully expect it to suck royally! The book is really good, and Brad Pitt has dead eyes –emotionless, empty eyes–. It’ll be terrible, but I still want to see it.) I’m sure my son would be fine with it.

Sometimes, we just need to smile.

I spent waaaay too much time trying to come up with a relevant or humorous article for Rocking the Boat this week. Nothing really came to mind quickly. I thought about being negative by talking about used games, or something else about E3, but I feel like there’s enough negativity coming from E3.

So I decided to just have a list of things that I really like from this week.

 Tom Clancy’s The Division

Here’s some gameplay from E3. This game looks insanely cool. I love the way multiplayer is integrated.

The 1985-Style opening for Fringe

I’ve been watching a lot of Fringe this week, like some of the other Cool Shipmates have been. The flashback episodes are some of my favorites, and here is the opening sequence that denotes them as flashbacks.

Destiny Gameplay Demo

I’ve been a fan of Bungie ever since Halo (I’m not one of those awesome people that got to play Marathon or any of their other games pre-Xbox), so I’ve been following the development of Destiny with great interest. Hopefully it delivers on everything they are promising.

New Elysium Trailer

Nothing says sci-fi like class warfare. Also, I really like Matt Damon.

When Did You Last See Your Father?  primarily focuses on the relationship between Blake Morrison (Colin Firth) and his father, Arthur (Jim Broadbent). When Arthur’s health begins to decline, Blake rushes home to see him. Upon his arrival, Blake is greeted not only by a dying father but also by the memories associated with him. Through his recollection of camping trips, driving lessons, and adolescent angst, viewers become increasingly empathetic to Blake.

Jim Broadbent and Colin Firth present an intimate portrayal of father and son in ‘When Did You Last See Your Father’.

Of course, if you’re like me, empathy translates to tears. Lots and lots of tears. (Simply put: Toy Story 3 ain’t got nothing on When Did You Last See Your Father?) Broadbent expertly mans to the role of a bawdy father figure, and Firth does an impeccable job embodying his conflicted son. What’s even more affecting, however, is the story. The film’s intimacy and candidness catch viewers off-guard. While some movies rely on cookie-cutter characterizations, those in When Did You Last See Your Father? are complex and engrossing. Director Anand Tucker trusts viewers enough to share Morrison’s memoir. The result is powerful.

The film prompts viewers to reflect on the difficulty of life’s transitions: childhood to adulthood, hopefulness to disillusionment, dependence to independence. In addition to the one in its title, the When Did You Last See Your Father? poses several other questions: What happens when you realize your parents are not infallible? How do you want to remember them? Can you ever forgive the past? Finding the answer to these questions may not be easy or comfortable, but it’s necessary nonetheless.

Since the Third Doctor said “reverse the polarity of the neutron flow”(which even I know would be an impossibility because neutrons are neutral and polarity refers to  charge… ) and probably long before, there has been an effort point out the flaws in the reality of our fiction.

I say now for all to hear! “Who cares!?”

Who cares that the concepts upon which the show is based (alternate reality, shape shifting, etc.) aren’t possible and many are disproven on their face by simple principles of physics. I say  “who cares because Fringe is awesome!”

The show centers on FBI agent Olivia Dunham; after her partner/lover is injured in an inexplicable and incurable fashion, she seeks the help of  institutionalized scientist Walter Bishop.

In order to spring him from the loony bin Dunham requires the permission of Peter Bishop, the con man son of Walter. Walter worked for a the government studying what is referred to as “Fringe” or “Psuedo Science.”  His experiments, most of which he seems to have forgotten, are now being utilized by someone for nefarious purposes. Walter’s former partner William Bell went on to found a multi billion dollar company called Massive Dynamic,  whose reach seems to be infinite and tied to everything that is going on in the universe. Walter Bishop was institutionalized for 17 years over the death of one of his test subjects.

Though the experiments in question do not qualify as science, most of them have at some point been the subject of government funded research. From the Nazis to the Russians even to the United States, governments have dabbled in these scientific grey areas. A television series called Dark Matters: Twisted but True (based on the book series of same name) produced for the Science channel and starring John Nobel, who plays Walter Bishop, takes a twilight zone approach to recanting the results of some of these experiments. The docu-drama approach is a bit much, but the concept of the series is sound.

Two things make Fringe infinitely watchable and addictive. First, John Nobel as Walter Bishop is brilliant, playing the mad scientist who is more “Hatter” than “Frankenstein.” The more insight we get into Walter Bishop, the more we should dislike him. His methods were deplorable and self serving.

Completely dismissive of others in pursuit of truth, his work has caused quite a bit of damage both in our universe-and in the alternate world with which we are headed toward a war. Yet he comes off as a sweet grandfather type with an adoration of 70s rock and Red Vines.

The second  is the way the stories are paced. The long plots that stretch across an entire season are usually rolled out slowly. Though the coming storm is foreshadowed in the prior episode, each time the build up is subtle. Just when I think I can give up and go to sleep something happens in the last 5 minutes that requires me to watch 8 or so additional episodes (thanks, Netflix!).

My biggest complaint is one I have with most American fiction, especially on television; the unnecessary and unrealistic love story. This tired device feels particularly forced in Fringe. I fail to see how the writers did not realize the damage this would do to their strong female lead. The “will they, won’t they?” moments are often more than I can bear.

Still, Fringe is a potent supernatural/sci-fi procedural in the vein of The X-files. It is without a doubt more fiction than science, and I don’t mind at all.

I’m excited for this latest Middle Earth movie, but I must say that it looks rife with things that are not really in The Hobbit… I’m looking at you, Evangeline Lilly’s Tauriel and Legolas (Orlando Bloom). The pair are in the trailer a lot. A lot.

Is that you, Kate? Not so sure about that hair. Also, Jack needs you to go back to the island. Image taken from the video.

But, I understand the need to beef things up. I mean, how else were they going to make another trilogy and rake in TONS of cash out of something that really is rather short?

What do you guys think? Excited? Cautiously optimistic?

Nice skull, Rory. Image courtesy of The Guardian.

I’ve read that he’s more of a stage actor, but he’s vaguely familiar to me.

When it comes to  a new Doctor, I want the actor to be someone I don’t know. I guess Kinnear fits that bill. While I’ve seen him in the newer Bond films, it wasn’t a role that really resonated with me, and frankly, he just looks like some random British dude to me.

Is that a good thing? I guess.

Knowing that he comes from a theater background gives me some hope. I love theater, and anyone who poses with a skull (Yorick, I presume.) and some flowers is obviously a bada$$. I mean, look at the picture! His face is half in shadow! You know he means business.

When it gets right down to it, I guess I don’t really care who the new Doctor is. (Shocking!) As long as the show continues to feel the same; to stay with the message that good will eventually triumph over evil; to have ridiculous sets and terrifically outlandish aliens; I’m good.

Although, a woman playing the Doctor would have been pretty sweet. Maybe next regeneration? Get on that, BBC.

What do you think about this unconfirmed news? Will Kinnear be a good Doctor? Were you pulling for someone else?

[[Featured image courtesy of Daily Record and Sunday Mail and is found at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/actor-rory-kinnear-favourite-replace-1928557.]]

I’m not a Captain America hater! Actually, Cap is probably my favorite comic book character. I love the idea of the little guy becoming the big guy. I love Steve Roger’s devotion to the ideals that make America great: truth, freedom for all, morality. He is strong when he needs to be; he protects those that can’t protect themselves. He is willing to take on people more powerful than he is because that’s exactly who he is.

He might be the best humanity has to offer, but in a world of gods and monsters, he’s often the underdog. He feels duty-bound to do so. His nobility differentiates him from many of the other Marvel Universe heroes. In fact, his innate goodness allowed him to be considered worthy enough to briefly wield Thor’s hammer, Mjolnir.

I enjoyed Captain America: The First Avenger. Cap worked perfectly; he was noble, kind, and determined. He also had a kind of innocence to him that contrasted with his obvious physical superiority. He had a great line about hating bullies, and, in the end, he “gave his life” to stop said bullies from destroying the USA.

In Avengers, Captain America has one really good scene that demonstrates his underdog spirit: He saves an old German man who refuses to kneel before Loki. He then gives a short monologue about how the last time he was in Germany, he saw a man standing above everyone else then, too. Then he has a brief fight where he doesn’t give up, but he basically gets the snot kicked out of him until Tony Stark shows up.  (I also want to point out that more time is given to Iron Man fighting Thor than is given to Captain America fighting Loki.)

The scene perfectly captures who Captain America is, but that’s about the last significant thing that Cap does in the movie. You see, in Avengers there are two other “regular people” who are super awesome at fighting. After that amazing scene in Germany, there’s basically nothing else in the movie that contrasts Cap from Black Widow or Hawkeye.

Seriously, think of that street fight where they are fighting the invading Chitauri. Captain America was on the ground, fighting aliens, and… giving orders, I guess? Maybe him directing the police to do things was supposed to show us how awesome Cap is… but really, I don’t remember anything coming of it. Meanwhile, Hawkeye is shooting exploding arrows at Loki, and Black Widow is closing the black hole/portal/thingy.

Maybe the movie should’ve shown Captain America’s orders to the police help turn the tide of battle.

In my opinion, though, Captain America is at his best when he is fighting something bigger than himself. Maybe instead of having Black Widow running away from The Hulk, we could’ve had Captain America fighting him in the bowels of the Helicarrier. Something like this series of panels from The Ultimates (Which was partially what the Avengers film was based on.).

Or maybe we could’ve simply seen Captain America take down one of the giant flying robot snake things. I would’ve been down with that. Again, it shows the underpowered (in comparison to Hulk, Thor, Iron Man) Cap taking down something that is huge.

Captain America fights for the little guy. And, really, that’s what I would’ve liked to see in The Avengers, and that’s what I hope to see in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

Otherwise, we have Black Widow and Hawkeye to do the hand-to-hand fighting, with nothing for Cap to do to stand out.

How do you think Captain America could be better portrayed? Or do you think that Avengers did a good job? Let me know!

As a person who lives in this universe, what did you think of the first season of Fringe, which you are only four years behind on?

Let’s start with the infuriating, Chopraesque (Ed/wife note: Mike hates all things pseudoscience-y and metaphysical with the heat of 1,000 suns. Deepak Chopra is a point of especial fury. ) opening sequence of the show, where they flash seemingly random words on the screen. I say “seemingly random” because about half are real things that exist in this universe, and the rest are nonsense. I understand the point is to give equal weight to the nonsense, but none of them even qualify as fringe science. The real ones exist; the others are science fiction and will continue to be so.

I knew that would get to you. So what else bothers you about the show?

First, some non-science issues. The floating 3-D location text – how did this pass any sort of screen test?

Yeah, it’s pretty stupid looking.

The agents in this show are super spies, but every time they go to get the bad guys, they leave the back exit unguarded. How many times does that have to happen before they learn their lesson? How many avoidable chases can they put in one show? And as long as we are talking about super spies, why is Astrid so awesome but so underused? Need some arcane knowledge or a surgery assistant? Astrid’s on it. She seems to be better at her job than everyone else, but they only go to her once a show.

What about the science?

A lot of it (the actual science, not the made up stuff) seems to be written by someone who once heard something about someone else talking about some science they read in some magazine that they can’t remember the name of. I mean, if you want to make stuff up, go for it. But when they talk about machines that have existed for eight freaking decades and get the basic operating principle wrong (while putting everyone in danger of radiation poisoning), I just… I don’t even know how to finish this sentence.

Details, details. Come on, this show is far more flawed than that.

You’re right. There’s not a whole lot to say about the “science” in the show. People will not morph into monsters. They cannot light FBI directors on fire with their minds. There is no magic ray that will make the front of a safe permeable to you while not affecting anything else.

A large problem I have with the show is that they haven’t made their universe consistent. The Fringe universe allows basically anything to happen, but somehow only one crazy thing at a time is allowed. OK, so let’s poison one person to make them turn into some weird hybrid thing that murders everyone around it. But once the Fringe division kills the beast, that’s it. We are no longer interested in using this stuff again. Onto the next thing, until we get foiled again. Whatever is required to wrap up one story line will disappear as soon as the next thing happens.

Gene the cow is the only character that hasn’t managed to annoy Mike. Image courtesy of Wormholeriders.net

It’s called a TV show.

Right, but this means that there is no cause and effect in the Fringe universe, because anything can happen next. If you create a universe where pyrokinesis, teleportation, transmogrification (I looked it up, it’s a real word), etc. exist, why do they only exist separately? Why would Massive Dynamic and/or ZFT not use this crazy shit more often? And to better ends than wanton murder of citizens? They keep talking about some war, but all the short term plans seem to be focused solely on murder.

Rant on!

But the big, big, big, big problem is how they describe déjà vu (Ed note: Mike wanted a link to the scene here. All I could find was a Spanish-language version. It’s better this way.) – it has jack squat to do with parallel universes. And speaking of that, if there are multiple universes  (and yes, this is a consequence of quantum mechanics) that split off from one another as different “decisions” are made, then it follows that there are essentially infinite universes. Many of these are trivially different from the one we experience. In others, the Earth would not exist. Either way, let’s say you found a passage between two of these universes at some time point where the universes are non-trivially different.

OK.

Well, after you jump into another reality (ignoring any potential paradoxes related to the you that exists in this universe), the universe you were initially in starts diverging (decisions are constantly being made). By the time you would try to get back, your “home” universe has split into an essentially infinite number of new universes. Which one do you try to go back to? They are all possible futures of the universe you left.

It’s a TV show. They’re allowed to create one parallel universe and have that be that.

Well, if that’s the case, why did I even bother to write this?

So you finally got around to watching Prometheus when your wife was out of town. What did you think of it?

It was fine. I enjoyed a lot of it. It was well made, but the whole time I kept thinking, “When is this guy going to show up?”

Really, Ridley Scott? Image courtesy of Tumblr.

The Ancient Aliens guy?

Yeah. It’s just such a silly show – “Why would these people have done this? How could this happen? Must’ve been aliens!” To make a serious movie using those ideas, it’s just boring to me. The possible answers to how life can come from non-life and, for that matter, what distinguishes life from non-life, are so much more fascinating than anything conclusions we could possibly draw by saying, “Must’ve been aliens!”

So then, if Ridley Scott is lying to us and it wasn’t aliens, how did life on Earth come about?

Well, it’s important to preface the rest of what I’m going to say with the fact that we will never know exactly how it happened on Earth. What we can know (even if they’re not fully understood as of yet) are plausible mechanisms by which the conditions on Earth 3.8 billion years ago (or so) would yield simple, self replicating life forms.

Life on Earth started 3.8 billion years ago?

Well, there’s no exact date, but it seems to have started soon after the Earth cooled enough to have liquid water on it, which happened when the Earth was only a few hundred million years old. Interestingly, the fact that life came about fairly quickly on Earth lends credence to the idea that life is common throughout the universe, even though we have no direct evidence of that.

So how could non-life become life?

The primordial soup, approximated in the famous Miller-Urey experiment, is not exactly right. One missing piece in that hypothesis is the lack of thermodynamic push – there is nothing pushing the ingredients in the soup to sustainably react with each other. Instead, it is thought that life originated in hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the sea, which provide both reactive hydrogen and a state of thermal disequilibrium that can drive the formation of complex molecules. The porous rocks in these vents contain small compartments that allow the organic molecules to accumulate, allowing further reactions to occur.

Since all life on this planet uses DNA to store genetic information, it is thought that the last universal common ancestor must have also had DNA. However, the very first self replicators could not have used DNA due to a chicken-and-egg type problem. The proteins that duplicate DNA are also encoded by that DNA. There is no selective pressure that would ensure that the genes responsible for duplication are maintained. It has therefore been posited that the initial life forms on this planet used RNA, which is able to catalyze its own duplication.

But where did the RNA come from?

Come to think of it, where did the lighter fluid come from too?

Several organic molecules, including precursors of amino acids and sugar, can be formed in space and have been found on asteroids and meteors. The period before life arose, the Earth was bombarded with asteroids, so these interstellar organic molecules were delivered from space.

So it was aliens!

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. These organic molecules form spontaneously in space, and with the right conditions on earth, can be organized into nucleic acids and proteins and all the other stuff life needs to exist. There is no infinite regression required.

Sounds like it was aliens.

Ugh.

Called it.

]]> http://thecoolship.com/2013/06/06/ridley-scott-lied-to-me-ask-a-guy-in-an-unrelated-field/feed/ 3 http://thecoolship.com/2013/06/06/ridley-scott-lied-to-me-ask-a-guy-in-an-unrelated-field/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ridley-scott-lied-to-me-ask-a-guy-in-an-unrelated-field