Philosophy Now Forum

Satyr wrote:Dear imbecile...you are simply taking my terms and throwing them back at me.

Turd, if you truly accept evolution then you must accept tis uncaring, unjust decrees and the fact that no matter how much you try to exempt yourself from them that they apply to you and they are ongoing.

Evolution is not about equality, turd...though you will have us believe that pretending it is so makes it so or is preferable to the alternative.
Pretending only means we are hypocritical for self-serving - yes egotistical - reasons. I know how rough it is to accept the term ego as your own...being that you've been trained to consider it evil or derogatory.

Natural selection is a selection...of what turd?
Goodness...Virtue...Kindness...

artisticsolution wrote:Hey Cecil....nice to see you. How've ya been?

multimoron1 wrote:I had forgotten during my hiatus from here how poorly equipped you are at responding.

multimoron1 wrote: One would think, given the course of evolution (change), that you yourself would accept change. But what is it I read from the mighty satyr? same tired old cheap shots showing what a burned out sewer-induced moron you truly are.

multimoron1 wrote: I'm sure if you still have a father that he has to be really disappointed by your hiding yourself behind this continuing shlock of "satyr".

multimoron1 wrote: Have you told your son of this persona and how foolish so many see you?

multimoron1 wrote:How many years ago was it when we first met up... 2-3 years and after all this time I return to find not one new wit about you and your boyfriend, 'aposha the piece'... still hammering out at individuals with a jealousy that is seemingly all there is to you and yours. that is truly sad.

multimoron1 wrote:Nowhere in my responses will you find me stating evolution is about equality, goat head. anyone with half a brain or even half hu'man should know that. the closest to 'equality' you will ever find is EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is subjected to change.

multimoron1 wrote:Your pride in your own EGO is typical of those who refuse to know thyself... a frightful prospect that must not ever be demystified.

multimoron1 wrote:As the child in you will certainly understand when I tell you: "scare-dy cat."

multimoron1 wrote:For you to actual believe that you are "satyr" or a grand invention of one, shows you to be in denial to what you really are behind that mask that gives you your balls to attack those who you feel are better than you.

multimoron1 wrote:Again, you are a sad waste, satyr... and even sadder given how long you've continued this charade. Perhaps Marvel Comics can offer you a better road to travel than trolling sites such as these.

multimoron1 wrote:You write of "natural selection" but forget you also are part of that grand 'selection' and anyone with any brains (perhaps a half-hu'man is ill-equipped to have a full brain..?)

multimoron1 wrote:But in truth, this 'natural selection' is meaningless without including the entirety of existence and even then existence is all there is and naturally so. The selection is our own hu'man intervention in an attempt to further our understanding of the Grand Mystery that all existence faces daily. But that line of thinking is far beyond your ability, turd.

Satyr wrote:I know....when Big Brother makes sure idiots like you are safe form their own stupidity this expands human understanding and connects us with a higher purpose.

mickthinks wrote:LOL - it's probably worth pointing out that many of us (most of us, I think) find Satyr's style of communication unsatisfactory and don't bother with him. By all means try and make it work for you but don't feel bad if you come to the same conclusion as we did.

Mick

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
You misunderstand. Engineering a nitrogen fixing wheat plant is happening now, and when I said the 'frankenstein scenario' has to be rejected, I mean its rubbish. The plant will not turn around and kill us. A failed solution is a dead plant, with no hope of success, it will not take up legs and walk.
All the technology does is to combine pre-existing naturally occurring genes in a novel combination. It either works of does not, end of story.
But the potential benefit would be a massive reduction in pollution.
Until we address the big problems such as population and the continued destruction of the environment for ever more human buildings, then we have to find these solutions if we are to avoid further mass starvation.

OK, I stand corrected, I obviously misunderstood your meaning. So I say this: I think it more appropriate to address these issues that you've raised by calling into question mans selfishness. It is more intelligent to regulate mankind's numbers and technologies, as continued unregulated breeding and dirty, wasteful technologies is sure, one hundred percent, to continue to raise even more complicated concerns that we are as yet unaware, as our biosphere is indeed limited. Balance is the key, and I'm not talking on the point of a needle.

cyberstone wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:02 am If a group of dolphins, or apes, or bees, or big feet, evolved to possess mental and social skills that rivaled man's, such animals would recognize the threat humans posed. Conflicts would be inevitable. We humans, having thousands of years of technological advances in our pockets, would end up killing such beings.

Is it possible that evolution, from an order of beings prior to the human towards the human, is dead?

I think the answer is clearly yes. When we evolved, we began killing mammoths for food, and we began protecting ourselves from animals much more physically powerful than us, all because nothing was nearly as smart with complicated divisions of labor, possession of tools such as fire and weapons, etc. But this was tens if not hundreds of thousands of years ago. We now have that much of a head start on the next animal who might be plunged by nature into the world of analytical, abstract planning. The type of brutal self-preservation that led to the invention of the city park and the tempurpedic pillow, just isn't going to happen again while we are around. True, meaningful evolutionary advances below us, are dead.

Any way out?

chaz wyman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:21 pm

Danielk wrote:We may have changed the course of evolution, but we didn't kill it. The animals and plants that are still alive will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

There is no 'course of evolution' as if it were predetermined. We are the result of evolution and so in that sense we, like all other forms of life determine the next steps. We are no more immune to taking a path that would destroy us than any other living thing.

Evolution is not a cause of change, it is a thing that happens when things change. Successful things are what have evolved. Thus evolution is a thing that cannot be killed. Species come and go, as do their environments, but evolution is a consequence of this regardless.

lazyfordumbpeople444 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:10 am

chaz wyman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:21 pm

Danielk wrote:We may have changed the course of evolution, but we didn't kill it. The animals and plants that are still alive will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

There is no 'course of evolution' as if it were predetermined. We are the result of evolution and so in that sense we, like all other forms of life determine the next steps. We are no more immune to taking a path that would destroy us than any other living thing.

Evolution is not a cause of change, it is a thing that happens when things change. Successful things are what have evolved. Thus evolution is a thing that cannot be killed. Species come and go, as do their environments, but evolution is a consequence of this regardless.

Darwin's evolution is complete bullshit, there is absolutely more evidence that this is false than anything else. Then why you firmly assume "we are the cause of evolution", when we clearly aren't.

Is it possible evolution is dead, and we killed it?