Does the fact of Evolution .... (moved)

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They mark territory and scare away invaders with duet screaming from a mated pair.

If you see them at a zoo, they are actually quite cute.

Okay, that first bit I did not know, but the latter is common knowledge. They are cute little blighters.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Does the fact of Evolution question the idea of marriage to one partner for life?

A little something to reflect upon:

'....
Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."

She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"....' ( http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html )

The classic study is the Prairie Vole that is said to mate for life. There seems to be a hormone in some Mammals and some birds that cause them to mate for life.

 

[Hoghead1]

Creation Truth Orthodoxy, Abel, may well make that claim. But that in no way means it is true. As far as I am concerned, it has been totally debunked by modern science. The only way you could possibly make it stick is for you to debunk science. Good luck with that one.

 

[dad]

There are some scientists that believe that during the hunter-gather portion of human history, that there was not a lot of monogamy, as it does not appear to be something your average human acts on. And that "monogamy" like "marriage" came about with the agricultural age as a way of making sure that ownership of resources would pass down from one to another, and by bringing in monogamy (of course, females being monogamous) and codified societal relationships would guarantee your particular progeny would inherit those resources since we weren't groups of people running around killing animals and picking berries, where it would be much less important.

Nice fantasy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there some point to this stuff about animals mating for life?

Are we dealing with biomimicry here, or what?

Is someone looking for justification not to get a divorce or something?

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

Creation Truth Orthodoxy, Abel, may well make that claim. But that in no way means it is true. As far as I am concerned, it has been totally debunked by modern science. The only way you could possibly make it stick is for you to debunk science. Good luck with that one.

Hi my dear! Here are some modern former evolutionists scientists.
I wish you the best!!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hi my dear! Here are some former evolutionists Scientists:

You do know it's against forum rules to spam links, right?

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

You do know it's against forum rules to spam links, right?

I add these not for spam but Ok, I'm sorry. I deleted. And I add only one link. We have conversation. I think that I can add one link my friend.

 

[Derek Meyer]

I add these not for spam but Ok, I'm sorry. I deleted. And I add only one link. We have conversation. I think that I can add one link my friend.

I looked at your link and it still looks like spam. The first name of anyone claimed to be a scientist I could read (not in Greek) is the name of someone claimed to be a physicist and also Fr. Can't figure out exactly how that has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution as evolution deals with biology, not physics.

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

I looked at your link and it still looks like spam. The first name of anyone claimed to be a scientist I could read (not in Greek) is the name of someone claimed to be a physicist and also Fr. Can't figure out exactly how that has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution as evolution deals with biology, not physics.

I'm not here for fight or spams my friend. Just I send you some modern former evolutionists scientists. Some of them are biologists, some physicists etc.

He is biologist:
Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson
Research Biologist, Speaker

He is Astronomer:
Dr. Danny Faulkner
Astronomer, Speaker, Author, Researcher
etc.

 

[Derek Meyer]

I'm not here for fight or spams my friend. Just I send you some modern former evolutionists scientists. Some of them are biologists, some physicists etc.

He is biologist:
Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson
Research Biologist, Speaker

I'm trying to find any biological research from him indicating that life is less than 10 000 years old. Can't find it anywhere.

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

I'm trying to find any biological research from him indicating that life is less than 10 000 years old. Can't find it anywhere.

If you want, you can see these:

EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG WORLD – DR. RUSSEL HUMPHREY, PHYSICIST

DOES DISTANT STARLIGHT PROVE THE UNIVERSE IS OLD? – BY DR. JASON LISLE ON DECEMBER 13, 2007

WHY MOST SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE WORLD IS OLD – BELIEFS FOSTER FURTHER BELIEFS ╰⊰ BY RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH. D. CREATIONIST PHYSICIST

 

[JoeP222w]

Does the fact of Evolution question the idea of marriage to one partner for life?

A little something to reflect upon:

'....
Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."

She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"....' ( http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html )

"Does the fact of Evolution"

There is the fundamental problem. Evolution is not a "fact". It is a fantasy. It is unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable.

---------
""I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz,"

He is right. We are not animals at all. Humans are made in the image of God, not of animals.

Many humans, in there sin nature, do not desire monogamy. That is another effect of the Fall of Man.

 

[Derek Meyer]

"Does the fact of Evolution" There is the fundamental problem. Evolution is not a "fact". It is a fantasy. It is unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable.

Actually, evolution of life is a fact. It's a fact that the first forms of life were prokaryotes. Then, after that we find eukaryotes and then after that multicellular life. These are facts. All of them observable, testable and repeatable. Evolution of life is a fact.

The theory of evolution deals with how life changed. Genetic variation and natural selection. That's the theory.

 

[Derek Meyer]

If you want, you can see these:

EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG WORLD – DR. RUSSEL HUMPHREY, PHYSICIST

DOES DISTANT STARLIGHT PROVE THE UNIVERSE IS OLD? – BY DR. JASON LISLE ON DECEMBER 13, 2007

WHY MOST SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE WORLD IS OLD – BELIEFS FOSTER FURTHER BELIEFS ╰⊰ BY RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH. D. CREATIONIST PHYSICIST

Read those a long, long time ago. Creationist pseudo-science. Those people seem to be crazy. They refuse to get their ideas tested via scientific scrutiny. They just talk nonsense on creationist websites.

I'd rather quote some real scientists (all with PhD's, too):

One of the best ways of making a name for yourself in the scientific community is to challenge a widely held scientific understanding with a strongly defended alternative theory. It is thus of considerable significance that the tens of thousands of geologists worldwide are virtually in complete agreement that the question of the earth's age has been answered: roughly 4.6 billion years.

The agreement is perhaps even more striking in the world of economic geology (oil and mineral exploration) where theories that lead to increased revenue always win, even if philosophically distasteful. Understanding the age of the earth and its layers plays a critical role in natural resource exploration, yet to our knowledge there is not a single oil or mining company anywhere in the world that uses a young-earth model to find or exploit new reserves. Old-earth models work. Young-earth models do not.

So, ask your crazy creationist wannabe scientists to put their billions where their mouths are: open your wallets up and invest in some young earth oil and mineral exploration and mining company. Show that magic floodies deposited those and that it works. Show that their hypothesis can predict what's going to be found underground. Put you money where your mouths are.

Exploration, oil and mining companies do it all the time. With old earth models.

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

Actually, evolution of life is a fact. It's a fact that the first forms of life were prokaryotes. Then, after that we find eukaryotes and then after that multicellular life. These are facts. All of them observable, testable and repeatable. Evolution of life is a fact.

The theory of evolution deals with how life changed. Genetic variation and natural selection. That's the theory.

Hi my dear! If you want read this:
FROM (THEISTIC) EVOLUTION TO CREATION – A TRIBUTE TO PROF. J. RENDLE-SHORT

 

[AV1611VET]

Show that magic floodies deposited those and that it works.

The Flood was magic, was it?

 

[Edmond Smith]

How about this.
1. God created man and woman and started marriage with one man and one woman.

It isn't that we can't live a monogamous life with the one we love. It's that we let sin guide our eyes and our hearts. Sin shows you that it's greener on the other side, but it doesn't show you the consequences of getting there and what happens after you've lost that interest.
We are to love our wives more than we love ourselves. We are to love God, more than we love our wives.
There is away to live a monogamous life, Through Christ. Many do it.

 

[JackRT]

There are some scientists that believe that during the hunter-gather portion of human history, that there was not a lot of monogamy, as it does not appear to be something your average human acts on. And that "monogamy" like "marriage" came about with the agricultural age as a way of making sure that ownership of resources would pass down from one to another, and by bringing in monogamy (of course, females being monogamous) and codified societal relationships would guarantee your particular progeny would inherit those resources since we weren't groups of people running around killing animals and picking berries, where it would be much less important.

Prior to about 5000 years ago all evidence indicates that humanity was organized in matriarchal societies. Women were honoured as leaders and because of woman's role as life-giver, religion was centered around fertility and the deities were mostly female. Because motherhood is beyond question, inheritance of wealth, property and power was easy to determine. Evidence indicates that these societies were much less prone to violence particularly violence against women. Then , about 5000 years ago, patriarchal societies began to emerge. Their violent nature quickly allowed them to become the dominant cultural influence. This had a very negative impact upon women. First, the inheritance of wealth, property and power came to be passed through the male line. Second, because fatherhood is questionable, the virginity of women prior to marriage and the sole access to the woman after marriage became most important. Essentially women became possessions. This, I believe, is the origin of monogamy. We can see the powerful influence of patriarchy in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. This influence extends right up to the present although it is now being eroded. We frequently speak negatively about the role of women in Muslim societies but we do well to remember that these societies today bear a very strong resemblance to society in biblical times. It can be justly argued that patriarchy might very well be the worst evil that humanity has ever inflicted on itself. An excellent study of this history is to be found in "When God Was a Woman" by Merlin Stone.

 

[Derek Meyer]

If you want, you can see these:

EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG WORLD – DR. RUSSEL HUMPHREY, PHYSICIST

DOES DISTANT STARLIGHT PROVE THE UNIVERSE IS OLD? – BY DR. JASON LISLE ON DECEMBER 13, 2007

WHY MOST SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE WORLD IS OLD – BELIEFS FOSTER FURTHER BELIEFS ╰⊰ BY RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, PH. D. CREATIONIST PHYSICIST

So, I take it that you can't find any evidence in the biological PhD thesis written by Dr Nathaniel T. Jeanson for a young earth? Do you even know what his PhD thesis involved?