Sociopath Community

Maninist said: 

Richard Dawkins holy grail is Darwin's theory of evolution, while Darwin himself claimed to be a theist. 

The theory of evolution in 2024 is still a theory. Since it's made famous by popular science, is considered factual to such a degree, it's used as a more plausible theory next to the big bang.

What's interesting is there's now a bit of a battle going on in science as the JWT looked so far into space the Big bang theory is being dismantled. If that happens, masses of nerdy guys won't accept that.

Science doesn't know how anything could've been alive after the Earth was formed, the theory simply starts off with living organisms. While the big bang is also mysterious as to what caused absolutely nothing to even be sparked to begin with.

I mean, science does have an explination, but it would rather dwell on other things it cannot prove, like something coming from nothing which violates the various scientific laws that suggest something will never come of nothing.

With that, there are aspects about science that make it a religion for some people simply because they don't accept change when it's time for science to change it's stance on something.

 It's pretty clear that inorganic matter forms organic matter too, in fact you are similar to the composition of a rock. Absolutely "nothing" wasn't sparked, energy and matter was pushed through the universe and formed through natural laws.

"There is no scientific experiment that will take something that is inanimate, and bring it to life."

oh wow that is so relevant... not.

Of course it is. 

Maninist said: 

Turncoat said: 

Also if you look at the timestamps you can see that this is wrong: 

Dragoonback:

You:

 I was already responding within the 2 minutes before posting. 

And that's Dragoon's fault? Check the post before you hit 'Post' next time, maybe in a second tab. Editing in a few words for clarity doesn't suddenly invalidate their argument. 

Also I assume you mean the four or so minutes: 

This 'You edited your post!' thing is silly, you've weakened your own claim by reaching like that. 

Dragoonback said: 

"There is no scientific experiment that will take something that is inanimate, and bring it to life."

oh wow that is so relevant... not.

You've already won this one, he's got nothing left now. 

Maninist said: 

Of course it is. 

 There is no proof it's relevant. Like I mean, science doesn't have to create life to know it's made of compounds same as anything else. Life is just a different structure that allows an organic material certain properties like growth.

Dragoonback said: 

Maninist said: 

Of course it is. 

 There is no proof it's relevant. Like I mean, science doesn't have to create life to know it's made of compounds same as anything else.

Of course it's relevant. Everything we are is based on the fact we're alive to begin with. Science also invests a great deal of time and effort into such trying to discover how that can be, much in the sense they spent great resources on black hole theory with supercomputers or run the LHC which is resource intensive. Whoever finds the answer to this will unlock the holy grail of biology and most likely bring advancements beyond our limited imagination.

Life is just a different structure that allows an organic material certain properties like growth.

 Life is certainly more than just growth. What we are is more than all of our technology combined. Just to write DNA code will take 1 person 50 years, and we've yet to make anything close to a dust mite. 

Life is material. There is no soul and shit, that shit is annoying and has only given humanity a litany of issues. It literally doesn't matter if people can "write dna code" or not. Our dna comes from matter not pixie dust. If anything the fact humanity struggles to "write dna code" is further proof that life is not created.

Matter is also material. 

Also. Science suggests we came from stardust. Interesting how they would say that.

We're dust.