Darwin Was Full Of Crap

[AtheisticNonduality]

@JoeVolcano Space and time exist, otherwise you would not be arguing about the nature of space and time; therein your "arguments" are self-refutations. Nothingness and Everythingness are ultimate, and the contents of Everythingness are impermanent of course. But they are only illusionary in the sense that there's nothing outside of Consciousness; they actually exist. If you say something is an illusion, you're saying it is, so you're contradicting yourself by one sense of the word. Movement is real; spatial fields are real; the passage of time is a true phenomenon; the human mind exists, the objective systems studied by science too. This is all undeniable, and you are conflating things through what Leo calls devilry.

Best

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, JuliusCaesar said:

I believe both of us are probably out of place here.

Nothing Joe has said here is new to this place, and I have no problems with the pure content of what he is talking about, just the attitude, i.e. using non-duality and skepticism as a spearhead to stifle all analytic inquiry (rather than conceding to its lessons and moving on), all the while making the pre-trans fallacy trying to educate a spirituality forum that is obviously way past that rudimentary level of insight. Even if that was not the intention, and you (Joe) end up retreating to that faux humility that is so predictable of naive skepticism, please know that it still comes off that way.

[JuliusCaesar]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

using non-duality and skepticism as a spearhead to stifle all analytic inquiry

Okay, it can be said that there may be some validity to this criticism. But from his perspective @JoeVolcano he's merely rejecting and ignoring human nonsense, which is useful because then you have the opportunity to find the actual truth.

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

trying to educate a spirituality forum that is obviously way past that rudimentary level of insight

While I can't say anything I've seen him @JoeVolcano say is actually fallacious. It does seem odd that he can el kabong hit you all over the head with concepts you've already accepted to be true.

 

And while I've been endeavoring to discuss the potential accuracy/inaccuracy of neo-darwinian evolutionary theory from a scientific perspective here mostly. I agree with @JoeVolcano  in that look even if all of everything mainstream science currently believes and teaches with authority were totally true(it's not of course) it wouldn't matter anyway. Even in that instance, the wisest thing for us to do would be to explore the unknown possibilities of existence. And ultimately, if we want to evolve we need to move beyond our current limitations.