Survival

Post Reply New Topic

I find it very strange that several people have confessed that they more or less remained static from the age of 19 or 20. Looking over my life I have made many changes at ages 20, 29, 35, 45, 50, 60, 75, etc and I am still changing. I am very different from my younger self and I expect to keep changing as long as I live. That's what keeps me interested.

LOL, no, the two people, being alive continue to survive. If they have not born offspring then an argument might be made that they have not contributed to the survival of their genetic material.

The "survivors" are not the now dead ancestors of living people, but the surviving genetic material contained within (the descendants of our ancestors).




Also I see this word 'evolutionism" pop up quite a bit. This makes as much sense as describing the belief that televisions exist as "televisionism", which seems very silly to me...

Anyway, as a believer in the jug, coffee, sugar, milk, electricity and water in my kitchen, I am going to prepare myself a coffee, my only concern is whether this should be called "hot drinkism", "coffeeism" or "kitchenism"....

You have no right to teach your hot-drinkism to my children! Nothing good lies that way! Well, except for hot chocolate with cayenne... mmmm. Or hot chocolate made with orange tea. or...

Yes, I suppose the suffix "-ism" has gained a pejorative connotation, hence why some evolutionist material uses the nomenclature of "creationism" to describe the ideology of belief in God being involved in the creation of the universe and life, but they use the nomenclature of "evolution" rather than "evolutionism" to describe their own views.

As per the words you've coined, yes they sound silly. However, is the case the same for words such as optimism, altruism, pessimism, atheism, agnosticism, deism, theism? Evolutionism is just as valid of a word as the rest of these. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolutionism , definition 6; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Evolutionism ; http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... olutionism ; http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... 1861609555 ; http://www.wordnik.com/words/evolutionism ; http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=evolutionism ; http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Evolutionism .

Evolutionism is the belief in the theory of biological evolution, in specific, and more generally in the co-requisite conditions and presuppositions for it to have occurred. Evolutionism is just as valid a word as creationism is, whether one wishes to employ triumphalism and claim the Greek suffix belongs on only the one they disagree with or dissociate from, or not.

I dont know. I dont agree. Its like the suffixes used for various places of residence. One that lives in New York, for example, is a New Yorker. But right nearby in Rochester, they use... Rochesterian? Rochesterite? Some suffixes fit certain words and not others. Nobody says "New Yorkites".

Its like when people say 'carer' for one that provides support. Carer sounds mumbled and strikes me as being poor syntax. Even carist sounds better than carer. Its probably the root word of 'care' that should be opted out, when speaking of a provider. Maybe some Rochesterers coined the word.

In regards to creation(ism), it refers to the doctrine as a whole. A single person is a creationist, just as an atheist fits under the aegis of atheism.

In regards to evolution, the word is singular; it refers to a specific sequence of events applied to genetics. Creation, however, is less specific, thus we stack a second -and it has to be different(witness my made up word Rochesterer) - suffix on its end to denote a specific type of creation. After all, painting a picture is an act of creation, but not of the type that Christians are ultimately concerned with. It is important to draw a distinction, wouldnt you agree?

Partially I would agree, but in terms of the origins topic the two main views are, in general, creation and evolution. There are many mixes and variations of these two general perspectives, such as young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution, secular/atheistic evolution. The creation of a work of art or of a meal is not of the same category as creationism in regard to the origins topic.

Evolution, when referring to "the time rate change in allele frequency" is a particular aspect of what is referred to in the origins topic as "evolution(ism)". The biological aspect of it, assuming the atheistic version of reality, requires abiogenesis to have occurred. Also, it would require matter and energy to have formed themselves, and it would require a massive amount of time, such as provided by uniformitarian geological interpretation. These are the types of items included in the origins debate terminology of "evolution" and not just the purely genetic aspect of it.

This general term then also refers to a sequence of events including the universe creating itself, the solar system forming from a nebula, the first lifeform(s) arising out of chemical reactions alone, the development of life in the sea, the development of air breathing fish, the development of reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals, birds, and insects, etc. So, this general form of the term "evolution" also refers to a sequence of events.

The particular suffix used also depends on the form of the word. Yes the suffix is Greek and the words are derived from Latin. However, the words creation and evolution have the same basic word formation for the suffix to attach to properly. Both are also from feminine 3rd declension nouns, so in this regard also the form of the words are alike. I think it would be proper to add the suffix to both if it is added to the other, in this regard.

Moreover, if people, whether creation-ist or evolution-ist, choose to add the suffix to one, then both terms should be so inflected. If only one is so inflected and the other isn't then it usually can be regarded as a derogatory, and usually intended, implication.

I think I have derailed the topic though.... so... SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST! For the tautological win/loss of the 1860's.

Has it?

LOL, I doubt that. Your view seems rather....er...paranoid. The sentence fragment "creation is a belief that" is not consistent with the rules of our language. Say it outloud, if you have any intuition for "correct English" you will know that such a sentence fragment is breaking some rule or norm of the English language. It's just plain not right.

I suspect the propaganda value of the word "evolutionism" would be no more than the propaganda value that might be achieved by opponents of Christianity adopting the (non)word "Christianityism".


I can tell you that the words "optimism" and "altruism" probably do not have negative connotations in most peoples' view, which is why I suggest your explanation for the suffix "ism" in respect of "creationism" seems a little paranoid to me at best.


Well I am obviously not Greek.

Does anyone actually themselves believe, or suspect others of believing, that people would choose their wider beliefs on the basis of who has the "coolest" descriptive? Do you believe that you will change a single mind through the use of the word "evolutionism"? Do you really honestly believe anyone genuninely thought they could change the mind of someone who believes in a God created universe, just by adding a suffix to the end of a word, or are you less paranoid on this count than you present yourself as being?


There's always one of you cayenne and orange tea heathens in the crowd. If it were meant that you drink orange tea, wouldn't tea grow on orange trees, and oranges on tea bushels? Think about that.

Everyone knows the only proper spice addition to hot chocololate is nutmeg.....at least you are not one of those cinnamon extremists I suppose. Cinnamonism is surely the most perverse of all the perversions of hot drinkism.

"SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!" is not a tautology.
"Survival of the fit enough to survive" is a tautology.

Only by specifically defining "fittest" to mean "all that which survives" can the first be a tautology.

I have stayed awake all night both getting schoolwork done and arguing here. Spelling errors happen.

Christianity itself is an abstract noun referring to the belief that Jesus Christ is God incarnate and that He sacrificed Himself for our sins.

Christian-ism is unused currently, but I think it would be valid to refer to the same belief system, though it would more likely be a derogation.

Christian-ity-ism is a suffixal pleonasm.