What's on your mind?

[TheGirlOnFire]

Ok, now I'm a little better. I just read something that was very soothing for me. I'll try and keep my obsessive thoughts out of the thread, i don't know if it's the bes thing for me. Maybe a confirmation bias or something.

I think you should let yourself be you and if anyone has a problem with it then that's their problem not yours....


Maybe then when you debate with others you will have more confident in yourself

 

[Toro]

Why is it that we as a society hate God and believe science and Darwin is why we are.

Yet, in this Darwin belief we don't allow it to do what it does?

I mean, IF we are to deny God and believe that we evolved as a whole..... then... why do we deny survival of the fittest to take place?

If someone doesnt realize that texting and driving can be dangerous..... isn't that simply Darwins theory in motion..... those smart enough, strong enough to survive............ live to reproduce and thus survive. Those not aware that a lighter contains flammable liquid....... burn down their house with them in it and don't.

Dont get me wrong, as a Christian I am all for protecting the weak and the dim witted..... to an extent.... but...... I dont need my TV showing me 8 million commercials about how if I text I could die if Im not paying attention to the road and other similar annoyances.

 

[TheGirlOnFire]

Why is it that we as a society hate God and believe science and Darwin is why we are.

Yet, in this Darwin belief we don't allow it to do what it does?

I mean, IF we are to deny God and believe that we evolved as a whole..... then... why do we deny survival of the fittest to take place?

If someone doesnt realize that texting and driving can be dangerous..... isn't that simply Darwins theory in motion..... those smart enough, strong enough to survive............ live to reproduce and thus survive. Those not aware that a lighter contains flammable liquid....... burn down their house with them in it and don't.

Dont get me wrong, as a Christian I am all for protecting the weak and the dim witted..... to an extent.... but...... I dont need my TV showing me 8 million commercials about how if I text I could die if Im not paying attention to the road and other similar annoyances.

Because you can affect someone else life and cause untold pain to many other people if you crashed into them and either kill or injury them... this isn't about survival of the fittest it's about not damaging people

 

[Toro]

Because you can affect someone else life and cause untold pain to many other people if you crashed into them and either kill or injury them... this isn't about survival of the fittest it's about not damaging people

I understand that, all Im saying is IF society believes in evolution..... why is it contradictory to such beliefs in that it protects people from themselves? IF Darwins theory is what we accept as a society as fact..... preventing such a thing from doing what it has done up til this point is counter intuitive.

A belief that God isn't and Darwinisim is, should be met with an almost cold "natural selection" explanation behind it. Not "Oh if only there were a law in place protecting the people that don't know better".

 

[Hawthorne]

Four-year-olds can be the sweetest angels one minute and the spawn of hell the next.

God bless them.... but it's a good thing for them they're so cute.

 

[MiniEmu]

Well, theoretically, not texting and driving comes under the umbrella of common sense. Common sense, despite the name, is not common, more of a handed down type of sense. So you kind of do have to put it out there, so people realise that it increases the likelihood of harm falling on not only their own person but the people around them.

Natural selection does not discount learning from other group members, in fact failing to exchange knowledge could be seen as a far more negative trait (socially speaking) than annoying people who already accept certain behaviours as preferential. It's kind of skewing the theory a little to try and apply it to the sharing of information regarding behaviours which, in order to do in the first place, you kind of have to learn in some fashion.

Which comes back to the fact that common knowledge/sense is only as common as the people telling other people about it make it. No one has the knowledge that a lighter contains flammable liquid until they learn it, and they can learn it safely (through people telling them) or they can learn it through accidentally causing a fire.

 

[graciesings]

I take it you've recently had some experience with a four year old? Lol

My four year old brother has been visiting for over two months now and I totally get what you mean.

This 1000 square foot house isn't big enough for one four year old, never mind 7 other people AND a four year old, haha.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Why is it that we as a society hate God and believe science and Darwin is why we are.

Yet, in this Darwin belief we don't allow it to do what it does?

I mean, IF we are to deny God and believe that we evolved as a whole..... then... why do we deny survival of the fittest to take place?

If someone doesnt realize that texting and driving can be dangerous..... isn't that simply Darwins theory in motion..... those smart enough, strong enough to survive............ live to reproduce and thus survive. Those not aware that a lighter contains flammable liquid....... burn down their house with them in it and don't./QUOTE]

Dont get me wrong, as a Christian I am all for protecting the weak and the dim witted..... to an extent.... but...... I dont need my TV showing me 8 million commercials about how if I text I could die if Im not paying attention to the road and other similar annoyances.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

 

[Toro]

Well, theoretically, not texting and driving comes under the umbrella of common sense. Common sense, despite the name, is not common, more of a handed down type of sense. So you kind of do have to put it out there, so people realise that it increases the likelihood of harm falling on not only their own person but the people around them.

Natural selection does not discount learning from other group members, in fact failing to exchange knowledge could be seen as a far more negative trait (socially speaking) than annoying people who already accept certain behaviours as preferential. It's kind of skewing the theory a little to try and apply it to the sharing of information regarding behaviours which, in order to do in the first place, you kind of have to learn in some fashion.

Which comes back to the fact that common knowledge/sense is only as common as the people telling other people about it make it. No one has the knowledge that a lighter contains flammable liquid until they learn it, and they can learn it safely (through people telling them) or they can learn it through accidentally causing a fire.

I understand that as well, however....... most of these things are learned as a child. Im not opposed to the teaching of a child. However, if someone needs to be told that it can be dangerous to take your eyes off the road...they are assumably old enough to have learned the ability to grasp such conclusions ... they really shouldnt be behind the wheel period. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

It doesnt make sense to me in a society that embraces evolution as the answer, tries to prevent it from continuing what they believe it has done til this point by going the extra mile to ensure the safety of what would arguably be a group that would be wiped out by such belief.

What Im really getting at is, we as a society want nothing to do with God. Yet, compassion is NOT a trait of "evolution", compassion is a trait of a belief in God or another sort of belief that says you get what you give, a universal karmic kind of belief. Simply questioning the inconstancy of society is all.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I understand that as well, however....... most of these things are learned as a child. Im not opposed to the teaching of a child. However, if someone needs to be told that it can be dangerous to take your eyes off the road...... they really shouldnt be behind the wheel period. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

It doesnt make sense to me in a society that embraces evolution as the answer, tries to prevent it from continuing what they believe it has done til this point by going the extra mile to ensure the safety of what would arguably be a group that would be wiped out by such belief.

What Im really getting at is, we as a society want nothing to do with God. Yet, compassion is NOT a trait of "evolution", compassion is a trait of a belief in God or another sort of belief that says you get what you give, a universal karmic kind of belief. Simply questioning the inconstancy of society is all.

Compassion, companionship, and cooperation has helped us survived.

 

[MiniEmu]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you. It's not really inconsistent for a society which embraces evolution to do such things, it makes evolutionary sense to do so, even into adulthood. Social animals (such as humans) benefit from repeating such information. Similarly social animals benefit from expressing compassion, even on a selfish level.

See, people do have to at some point in their lives be told that it's dangerous to take their eyes off the road. Again it's something people learn, and they have to learn either through experience or shared knowledge. Plenty of people develop bad habits they pass down to others, bad habits they think of as perfectly normal.

Young people tend to be reckless while driving, and long term drivers tend to become careless. You can't really use safety messages as examples of evolutionists being inconsistent, because they honestly are being completely consistent from a social perspective. From a social perspective (which ties into evolutionary theory, it really does) it makes no sense to not continue to try to help members learn. It is very easy to say something is obvious, but that is because we know it to be obvious.

It's not really a new thing either. It's just much more obvious with the spread of technology. This information would have been passed around family members, it would have been taught on a local scale whereas now it's taught on a national scale.

You cannot compare learned behaviours to natural selection, because natural selection only really (at the level we seem to be discussing at least) applies to spreading your seed. Using very basic and not that accurate example: evolution doesn't care about smarts, it cares about the genetic material passed onto the next generation. Sometimes this is a positive, sometimes a negative, sometimes neutral. It doesn't take into consideration a short lived idiot who crashes their car and dies from it, because if that short lived idiot fathered many children they'd still be doing better than the long lived intellectual who fathered no children.

 

[Toro]

Compassion, companionship, and cooperation has helped us survived.

Yes, it has, but not the levels of protecting the dim witted from themselves. That is a relatively new thing. When I was growing up, there were all sorts of dangerous toys a child could have...... but I and my generation survived. My parents.... they had even more numerous and dangerous toys.... yet..... they and their generation survived. Before we took on this crusade to protect the dim, humanity survived, it grew more intelligent and humanity thrived.

Now that we protect the insanely stupid..(Caution coffee is hot for example)..... humanity in general is becoming dumber as a whole.

All Im asking is simply, why does society care when its sole belief is that we evolved..... and compassion, is in general a trait in opposition of survival of the fittest. Im not arguing that compassion is a good thing, simply, IMO not in line with a belief that the strongest/smartest live on as is embraced by society.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Yes, it has, but not the levels of protecting the dim witted from themselves. That is a relatively new thing. When I was growing up, there were all sorts of dangerous toys a child could have...... but I and my generation survived. My parents.... they had even more numerous and dangerous toys.... yet..... they and their generation survived. Before we took on this crusade to protect the dim, humanity survived, it grew more intelligent and humanity thrived.

Now that we protect the insanely stupid..(Caution coffee is hot for example)..... humanity in general is becoming dumber as a whole.

All Im asking is simply, why does society care when its sole belief is that we evolved..... and compassion, is in general a trait in opposition of survival of the fittest. Im not arguing that compassion is a good thing, simply, IMO not in line with a belief that the strongest/smartest live on as is embraced by society.

I think it's more about companies saving their own butts than anything else. There's a massive difference between listing something a choking warning and getting rid of lead paint.

 

[MiniEmu]

Because in social animals the expression of compassion is not in opposition to evolution. Such expressions can, selfishly, enhance your chances of survival as other members of the group are more likely to assist you rather than club you over the head and steal from you. Sure some still will do that, but they're also more likely to be ostracised by the group.

Despite what many may say, it's really not a belief that the strongest/smartest live on. Those are simply two elements of a whole mixing pot that may come together to create individuals who are far more successful at creating a vast number of children, so they'll go forth and influence the species as a whole. Or the sub population they belong to at least.

Also... yes, safety messages on certain products are less to do with compassion and more to do with saving the reputation of the company. When people stopped looking at accidents as accidents, and started viewing them as opportunities, companies took action. That is not compassion, and really fits in with how you view natural selection. Companies want to survive, the best way to survive is to make sure your account for every single possible outcome of someone taking your product, injuring themselves, then seeking compensation.

All very selfish. Yet if you want to view things in the rose tinted way I do, still very altruistic. It's just an amplified version of your parents saying "that water is hot, don't touch it".

 

[Toro]

I think it's more about companies saving their own butts than anything else. There's a massive difference between listing something a choking warning and getting rid of lead paint.

I understand companies saving their butts..... I already knew that.... but there is a difference between a warning label on a product and a flood of "safety ads" on TV. All this started because I saw a stupid commercial about people getting in a horrible accident. I hate those stupid "Hey you can't grasp a simple concept so we put it on TV for you." ad.

Then it just made me wonder why bother if evolution is the embraced answer. Cause I see these ads all over the place, don't do this, that or the other.... etc. and it annoys me cause its all basic common knowledge and YES Im aware common sense ISN'T but still, at the levels they cover with these ads. Even people bad with common sense should be able to grasp these simple concepts, without needing these ads.

 

[MehGuy]

Yes, it has, but not the levels of protecting the dim witted from themselves. That is a relatively new thing. When I was growing up, there were all sorts of dangerous toys a child could have...... but I and my generation survived. My parents.... they had even more numerous and dangerous toys.... yet..... they and their generation survived. Before we took on this crusade to protect the dim, humanity survived, it grew more intelligent and humanity thrived.

Now that we protect the insanely stupid..(Caution coffee is hot for example)..... humanity in general is becoming dumber as a whole.

All Im asking is simply, why does society care when its sole belief is that we evolved..... and compassion, is in general a trait in opposition of survival of the fittest. Im not arguing that compassion is a good thing, simply, IMO not in line with a belief that the strongest/smartest live on as is embraced by society.

Actually a lot of children died from those toys.. lol.

No one is arguing it would wipe an entire generation out.

 

[Toro]

Actually a lot of children died from those toys.. lol.

No one is arguing it would wipe an entire generation out.

I know that, but THAT is the world that embraces Darwinism SHOULD live in. One based on survival of the fittest. THAT is my point.

Not in a world that tells adults "No, that can hurt you".

Thats what evolution is, those that can no longer cut it...... disappear.

An attempt to keep those around that may not be fit to cut it any longer in the world is contradictory to a belief in evolution.

Im not saying that caring and watching out for others is a bad thing. Simply questioning why a society that embraces the belief, doesn't practice it.

 

[graciesings]

OK. I've been trying out Tapatalk... if I can just figure out how to make it quit dinging every time I get a notification on CF, we'll be good, lol.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I know that, but THAT is the world that embraces Darwinism SHOULD live in. One based on survival of the fittest. THAT is my point.

Not in a world that tells adults "No, that can hurt you".

Thats what evolution is, those that can no longer cut it...... disappear.

An attempt to keep those around that may not be fit to cut it any longer in the world is contradictory to a belief in evolution.

Im not saying that caring and watching out for others is a bad thing. Simply questioning why a world that embraces the belief, doesn't practice it.

Evolution has nothing to do with morality. It's a scientific theory about how life changed overtime. That's it.

 

[TheGirlOnFire]

OK. I've been trying out Tapatalk... if I can just figure out how to make it quit dinging every time I get a notification on CF, we'll be good, lol.

Hahahaha the same. And it is making me come on here more as its so easy too reply and hearing the ding makes you want to reply. Like you have too or the world is over