Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Builder what is a chook mate?builder said:You're arse about face crispydude. It's the survival of the fittest. That would equate to the fittest of the fit, rather than your claim of the fit of the fittest.
When you say compassion for the weak, are you concerning yourself with the lower end of the evolutionary scale? You support those who are undeserving of forward motion in evolution? Interesting.
Keep frying chooks mate. I'm figuring that you're protecting your consumer interests.
America was based on a system of the survival of the fittest... the weak were at the mercy of the family and church... I didn't say America was founded on any type of compassion. Compassion for the weak is a progressive secular modern concept. At founding of the nation there were nothing in the constitution for losers, weak, undeserving and such compassion was left to the family and the church.Deists cannot be equated to progressive secularist thinking of modern times. The thought of the time was Social Darwinism or the fit of the fittest will survive... this is a very conservative thinking lending little to compassion for weak...
So all Deists should support Intelligent Design being taught in school along with Darwinism? Deists are President Bush thinkers or not?phreakwars said:Deism differs from these other free-thought philosophies in that it sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates a Creator. The word "God" is used to describe this creator, not to be confused with the "Biblegod."
Crispy Critter said:America was based on a system of the survival of the fittest... the weak were at the mercy of the family and church... I didn't say America was founded on any type of compassion. Compassion for the weak is a progressive secular modern concept. At founding of the nation there were nothing in the constitution for losers, weak, undeserving and such compassion was left to the family and the church.
What we have here is a failure to communicate...
That would be me too..ToriAllen said:Deism is more of a philosophy than a religion. I am of the Christian religion, but the Deist philosophy. I think 99.9% of the Bible is figurative rather than literal. It is a Book of lessons, not of precise history, and certainly not of science. The Bible should not be used to 'discredit' the facts of science, because that will only serve to raise doubt about the useful nature of the Bible, which has already happened.
It means the survival of the most dominate of the species... when I was a kid we would buy baby chicks for raising for fresh eggs and Sunday fried chicken... If the goal was 25 adult chickens then you buy 100 chicks because Darwinsim would demand the weak would be pecked to death followed by fights between dominate males over mating rights... thus the term "pecking order."tizz said:Does anyone here actually know what the term "survival of the fittest" is actually referring to?
But the Deists related to the debate period applied Social Darwinism where the colonial nations of Western Europe used ethnocentric theories, the belief of ones ethnic grouptizz said:Actually no. In terms of evolution and the scientific theory, it refers to the dominant genes making it through the gene pool. It is what allows for ,utation do to enviormental changes to take over as dominant genes. It has nothing to do with the singular being or the here and now, it refers to the changes that occur over time and within and entire polulation of a goegraphic species.
The common term (or what everyone assumes darwin was referring to) is the singular survival of the strongest of a given socail group.
survival of teh fittest is a bout genes.
This is a pet peeve for me that is a carry over of studying anthropology.
I find your pet peeve interesting and then I think about the hen house and rams banging heads to decide who will breed to make the new generation and wonder how such a gene could have affect unless it was in the superior specimin of the species.tizz said:LIke I said it is a pet peeve. The term in reality is ascociated with anthropology and genetics and I just get ticked that most people have no clue what the term originally refered to. It's a thing. I find myself explaining the real meaning to people quite often.
I blieve we are created by more than science, though in creation there lies a natural law that all living things must abide by in order to exist and survive. Even if you believe in the adam and eve story, that does not exclude the fact that nature was created to exist on it's own. It is actually an am amazing piece of engeneering no matter how you look at it. As far as man't ability to reason, the only explanation I have is that it proves we are here for something mre than just to live. Reason allows us only really one thing the animal do not have (to the same degree) and that is to make mistakes (free will) and to learn and grow from them. Therefore logic tells me that somehow that ability to grow from experince has something to do with the reasoning behind our existence
Crispy Critter said:It means the survival of the most dominate of the species... when I was a kid we would buy baby chicks for raising for fresh eggs and Sunday fried chicken... If the goal was 25 adult chickens then you buy 100 chicks because Darwinsim would demand the weak would be pecked to death followed by fights between dominate males over mating rights... thus the term "pecking order."
And that is what it means, only the best of the best is allowed to live to reproduce... so you and all living beings are the best of the best with the exception of compassion given gays by society.
LOL! Actually, you are both right, and wrong. Yes, the genes that are better suited to the environment survive and cause the evolution of a species, but individual humans have fixed genes. The only way to change or mix the genes is by meiosis(occurs during reproduction). The best suited individuals of a generation survive to pass on the traits that make them best suited. Therefore it is both individual and large scale. There is an example of a Canadian bird that could be grey or white. The coloring alone did not make one dominant over the other, however, the ability of the white bird to blend in with the snow made it less susceptible to predation. After the industrial revolution occurred in a certain area of Canada, the scarcity of grey birds was replaced by a scarcity of white birds and grey became the dominant color. Survival of the Fittest does not necessarily refer to the strongest or most dominant, as much as the most suitable. Those that are not suited die before they can reproduce. Changes in the environment can change thetizz said:Actually no. In terms of evolution and the scientific theory, it refers to the dominant genes making it through the gene pool. It is what allows for ,utation do to enviormental changes to take over as dominant genes. It has nothing to do with the singular being or the here and now, it refers to the changes that occur over time and within and entire polulation of a goegraphic species.
The common term (or what everyone assumes darwin was referring to) is the singular survival of the strongest of a given socail group.
survival of teh fittest is a bout genes.
This is a pet peeve for me that is a carry over of studying anthropology.