ABEL\'S UNIVERSE (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, November 19, 2011, 04:35 (4754 days ago) @ Abel

This is not a contradiction. Men are omnivores, yet some choose to be vegetarian because of their philosophy. But men have not always had the choice. Until they became aware of the need to eat beans and rice/corn together, they did not have the option. The Elohim are probably the same. Now that they can be vegetarian, they are.

B_M
You are changing your story. It's irritating. Your 'Elohim' started out as predators, according to you. Also, in your earlier writings you mentioned nothing about dark matter vegetation that they could feed on, and were quite insistent that the only reason they evolved was because of predation.

Abel

http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=7493

Without a hurricane of entropy tearing away at all your structures, there would be much less need to harness materials and energy to repair those structures. Multicellular organisms made of this kind of matter would not necessarily even require aerobic respiration to supply their energetic needs.

http://www.agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=7502

...That motility required a cellular "intelligence" to actively direct that motion. We see this "intelligence" in motile cells that can "see" and hunt prey (a protozoa or killer T-cell e.g.)...

It was the evolution of predators that created the intense selective pressure for greater intelligence. Not only did the predators have to become smarter to catch their prey, their prey had to become smarter to avoid their predators. The need for intelligence to survive in temporally saturated matter is much greater than ours....

... On this dark matter planet stupidity was rapidly weeded out by evolution. The process was accelerated as one predator type began to feed on another. In dark matter, the fittest are defined by their greater intelligence.

So, what you have described here is a hierarchy of highly intelligent predators that you labeled Elohim. So, then all of your Elohim must be evil as they were/are, by your own description, highly intelligent predators and therefore supposedly aware that killing is morally wrong. .. .. Those are your words, not mine. I am just trying to make sense of the mass of contradictions.

Actually, my logic would never say such a thing. Righteous things are truthful, honest, innocent, loving and tolerant as well as alive. Whether in life, or in the afterlife what is cherished by heaven is the same.

I think "Alive" is definitely a precondition to the rest, but again you are contradicting yourself. You said, specifically, that the survival instinct is the root of all evil. Being ALIVE requires a set of intuitive guidelines designed to keep you in that state of being. We call this set of imperatives, the survival instinct. The instinctive drive not to be dead.

I do not need to produce empiric evidence to support the position of the vast majority of the scientific community. It is you who presented a hypothesis without any evidence and dhw who believes it. Your argument is flawed and flies in the face of currently accepted and practiced theories. Theories that are accepted and practiced by millions. Yours is the burden of proof not mine.

What vast majority? What millions? What accepted theories? Be specific. Provide reference material. Also, if you are poopooing the statement that mankind is the root of imbalance in the natural world, then by all means provide alternatives.

But, I am not afraid to rise to a challenge, and since the gauntlet has been cast, and shall gladly respond. The type of homeostasis that I proposed would function similarly to the one presented in this paper, on a larger scale, and with some subtle differences to account for scale and variety.

http://biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/loreau/pdfs/daufresneloreauecollett.pdf

Basically, animals would, over time, begin to cluster about plants with which they shared a natural mutually beneficial relationship. Now, as for things like exploding populations occurring naturally, I invite you to look at areas like Africa, where we can still see some semblance of wild life. While there are undoubtedly predators and prey, I am sure that someone as good with numbers as you are could quickly figure out that the number of overall victims is actually extremely low. Particularly when you consider that, on average, most mammalian predators only make 1 kill in 10 or less, give or take. That number is certainly not enough to thin out the heard to any meaningful extent numbers wise. Yet, despite the vast number of herbivores, the landscape was not barren of vegetation. Quite the opposite in fact. It was a thriving ecosystem.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.