I am going to call James out on this…
If there could be no life without evil, than evil is life affirming and we should all do it!!!
[attachment=0]yinyang.png[/attachment]
You’re kidding me right??
According to James, if everyone who exists is pure evil, it’s life affirming !!
You seriously believe that there can be a concept of white without black? Good without bad? Right without left?
There can be no concept of life without the concept of anti-life, “evil”.
Only a moron would go to the trouble of manufacturing more evil for sake of more life, but then, the world is filled to the brim with very influential and wealthy morons.
Accident??? You’re not even wrong, you are just ridiculous.
Not only is this just plain nonsense, but you are contradicting yourself. DO you need me to point out where?
The Darwinists may repeat their errors about the “selection principle” and the definition of “fitness” as often as they want to: they do not get more true by repeating them. “Survival determines who is fittest” is no definition that explains what “the fittest” means, what “fitness” means. “Survival as in perpetuation” is merely a formula of a prayer and has nothing to do with the question what “fitness” means in reality, because in order to know which living being is “the fittest”, thus “determined by by the survival as in perpetuation” (?), you have to wait until the “end of the perpetuation” which is impossible, an oxymoron.
It is impossible to save the Darinistic selection principle, because the fabricated exceptions of the rule, the “natural selection”, contradict that rule. At last the Darwinists have merely contradictional exceptions of the rule they contradict. And please: What is nature according to the Darwinists? It is another word for God. So the Darwinists are pantheists.
No wonder, because it was the time of naturalism when Darwin published his theory. Naturalism is based on a teleological definition of “nature”. To naturalists like Darwin and his Darwinists (especially: Spencer and Haeckel) nature is God and God is nature. So when the Darwinists say that the “nature selects” they mean “God selects”. The Darwinists are pantheists.
I am sorry, but this likeable theory is false.
They will just keep insisting on the tautological and meaningless definition of “fittest” so as to promote their preferred theory. It is just typical rhetoric.
Evil=low quality of life or pain. Usually implies conscious deliberation to lower the quality of life.
Life=consciousness
The opposite of life is unconsciousness…Mother Nature is an unconscious entity, she is a raw process, suboptimal, she does not have any conscious method of minimizing evil, and her processes depend on evil to power her cycles, so it could be argued that she is more or less evil, but also good. The intellect is optimal, it has the power to dispell evil or engage in evil, mother nature however is unconscious and unconsciously uses evil as a fuel. The intellect, being optimal, can create an optimal world without evil, Mother Nature, being suboptimal, cannot, at most she can produce, through random chance, organisms that are more optimal than she. Those organisms, maintain consciousness by mechanism of the fact that nonconsciousness does not exist, and that unholy organisms do not have consciousness[a]. Therefore, the only frame of time that exists, is when optimal organisms exist[b].
[a] Citations needed.
[b] Because organisms which are suboptimal have faster perceptions of time and low memory.
Mother Nature is a God but a false God, She is the darker side of Me. I am the One True Living God.
Oh, yeah (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562).
Darwinism is the trial to interpret the nature only economically - by competition, by a false selection principle (|) as if living beings were selected like goods, articles, products.
No. Of course: No.
No. It is not too late to replace it.
That would send us back to the late 1700’s, prior the Industrial Revolution, because the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700’s.
You have opened an interesting thread. Thank you.
So: Is competition ethical? I answer with a counterquestion: What if 99% of all humans are not allowed to compete and 1% of all humans compete on the whole planet and in the whole solar system?
I’d like to know how learning who is the fittest after the fact invalidates the principle.
In such a age
to show such rage
for what is nature
this is modern
this is progress
a return to superstition because it comforts us
If natural selection is false, an alternative method of producing species, ought to be offered
to compare
instead of declare
Or, just read the thread dude.
Or, dude, you can mind your own bidiness
so I do not have to digress,
If no alternative to natural selection is available
we’ll allow our feelings to decide
and declare it obsolete
to compete
Man invented this
as well
do tell
Your post was a digression. This isn’t your average anti-nature, ignorant criticism of evolution. Arminius is no dummy, he’s a very smart robot. He’s just really into lil lingustics games such as this thread.
You know… as you would have noticed… if you had read the thread… dude.
As to minding my bidiness, I’ll leave that to you.
A metaphor, before I look for the nearest door
existence a river
Life emerging in the flow
fighting the current
Self-preservation is an indication of standing your ground
constant effort
If strength is enough
excess energies can be directed up-stream, or across stream, or to reproduce
a new life for the storm
Need is the sensation of this endless flow
fitness determines how much energy will overflow
The fittest reproduces or reaches the highest point up-stream
a dream
The weakest are washed away
slowly the energies subside
and not enough are present to resist the flow
Natural selection
In this time
weakness is protected,
helped along
Giving the impression of fitness
Multiplying weakness
How long before the entire structure is washed away?
a herd protected from culling, eats all the vegetation
leading to its own demise
Mutations left unchecked
illness spreads
The herd suffers a slow death
cycles repeat
in existential heat
Will machines suffice
to resist the tide?
It isn’t an issue of “learning”. It is an issue of declaring.
To be “fit” means to compatible with the environment of that moment - to “fit in”/“mate well”/“harmonize sufficiently”. It doesn’t mean stronger or better in any way at all. To fit merely means to be suited for that situation at that time.
If the dinosaurs really died out due to a meteor strike, is it because they were inferior? Or was it because the environment instantly became incompatible with them? Such a thing can happen to any species. No matter what species develops, by no matter what means, the environment, its situation, can change or be changed such as to destroy that species in favor of another.
When it comes to the issue of having to be compatible with the environment of the moment, every species is equal and Darwinism is irrelevant.
How is every species equal when it comes to the issue of being compatible with the environment of the moment, james?
And does fitness not being the same as stronger or better falsifies the principle?
If you fit your environment, you survive. If you don’t, you don’t survive.
It doesn’t matter how “strong” or “better” you are.
Darwinism presumes that there is an objective “fitness”. There is not. Fitness is always relative to one’s situation. As the situation changes, “being fit” changes.
And what that means is that it isn’t fitness determining who survives. It is harmony and disharmony, anentropy and entropy. Fitness is merely the presumption.