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

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

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?

Nice to meet you my friend and have a nice day!! If you want read these. I haven't something more to tell you, because you don't want to learn about Creation. Thanks for our conversation! Bye! I wish you the best!

 

[Derek Meyer]

Nice to meet you my friend and have a nice day!! If you want read these. I haven't something more to tell you, because you don't want. Thanks for our conversation! Bye! I wish you the best!

Thanks, but i'm still trying to figure out why you think I don't want to read what you wrote? I mean, you provided names of some people who don't even attempt to get their studies published where those results can be scientifically scrutinised. I mean one of the names you provided, Dr Nathaniel T. Jeanson, has never, ever published anything in the world on a young earth where his studies can be scientifically scrutinised.

 

[Tree of Life]

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 )

I don't see why evolution would have anything to do with marriage. I think you mean to ask: "Does the fact that the Genesis account is not true question the idea of traditional marriage?" If God is not real and Genesis is not true then we should question whether or not lifelong monogamy is beneficial.

Marriage comes from the idea that people are made in God's image and ought to imitate God. Our God is the faithful, monogamous God who is united to his people. When you throw that God away and start worshipping nature you'll get really confused. Why would we derive our ethics from how animals behave? Just because monogamy is not seen in many other animals does not mean that we should not practice monogamy - unless, of course, we ought to imitate animals. But it all depends on which god you worship. Is your god a monogamous god? Does he provide a precedent for monogamy?

 

[JoeP222w]

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.

One cannot observe or test the very first form life, since that happened long ago. Nor can anyone re-create the first form of life. These are pre-suppositions.

Darwinian Evolution and Adaptation are not the same thing.

If natural selection was true, then the one who rejects the morality of God (the Atheist and the unbeliever) has no reason to not murder their fellow human beings, because their fellow human beings are competition for the food supply (i.e. natural selection). There no definition for morality apart from God and Evolution has no explanation for morality. Human Beings are the only living creatures who display morality. Some may argue that some creatures display morality, but that is just man deceiving himself into thinking that animals display human characteristics (they don't). The Moral Law was given to, and only applies to man.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

I don't look to "natural states" for ethical values. This is not very interesting to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Aureus]

If natural selection was true, then the one who rejects the morality of God (the Atheist and the unbeliever) has no reason to not murder their fellow human beings, because their fellow human beings are competition for the food supply (i.e. natural selection). There no definition for morality apart from God and Evolution has no explanation for morality. Human Beings are the only living creatures who display morality.

So... do you walk around all day thinking that you should kill, rape, abuse and steal from everyone around you and only go "but the Preacher told me that the Bible says don't do that so I won't." ?

 

[Abel Gkiouzelis]

Thanks, but i'm still trying to figure out why you think I don't want to read what you wrote? I mean, you provided names of some people who don't even attempt to get their studies published where those results can be scientifically scrutinised. I mean one of the names you provided, Dr Nathaniel T. Jeanson, has never, ever published anything in the world on a young earth where his studies can be scientifically scrutinised.

I mean that you don't want to learn about Creation. I haven't something more to tell you, because you don't want (to learn about Creation). I respect you and I can't tell you more. Nice to meet you!

 

[ChetSinger]

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 )

Regardless of whether one thinks we evolved or were created, God does seem to prefer us to be monogamous. The New Testament doesn't demand that Christians practice it (some cultures in the Roman Empire practiced polygamy so some converts were likely already polygamous). But it does command that anyone who wants a position of authority in the church be the husband of one wife. And, if you look at the OT men who were polygamous it invariably caused them grief in one way or another.

 

[JackRT]

Regardless of whether one thinks we evolved or were created, God does seem to prefer us to be monogamous. The New Testament doesn't demand that Christians practice it (some cultures in the Roman Empire practiced polygamy so some converts were likely already polygamous). But it does command that anyone who wants a position of authority in the church be the husband of one wife. And, if you look at the OT men who were polygamous it invariably caused them grief in one way or another.

Some churches (including the RCC I think) have recently permitted male converts with multiple wives to keep them but permit no more. In some cases in the past they were forced to get rid of the extra wives thus forcing the rejected wives into prostitution in order to feed and shelter themselves and their children.

 

[ChetSinger]

Some churches (including the RCC I think) have recently permitted male converts with multiple wives to keep them but permit no more. In some cases in the past they were forced to get rid of the extra wives thus forcing the rejected wives into prostitution in order to feed and shelter themselves and their children.

That seems to me to be a sensible position.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't quite true, ChetSinger. The OT does in fact sanctify polygamy, even encourages it.

 

[AV1611VET]

That isn't quite true, ChetSinger. The OT does in fact sanctify polygamy, even encourages it.

I'll bet next you'll say the OT does in fact sanctify genocide ... won't you?

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, those sources you refer to are interesting. However, they are largely creation-science propaganda. Contemporary science has heard this sort of thing more than once and easily debunked it. I'm surprised you didn't bring up good old Barry Setterfield, with the faked Stanford University letter head on some of his papers. I think he started this whole thing.

 

[Hoghead1]

Apparently you missed some key portions of the OT, AV1611, such as the part where Samuel says that if David wants another wife, God will easily give him one; or the passages describing all the wives and concubines Solomon had.
And Yes, I would argue the OT sanctities genocide, along with slavery. The Israelis simply entered the land and killed all the indigenous population. Definitely God sanctifies such genocide and even instructed Moses to proceed without mercy. As to slavery, take a look at Ex. 21, whe4re you have a right to sell your daughter into slavery, beat slaves, etc. Incidentally, old Jeff Davis used this as a rationale for slavery in the South.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently you missed some key portions of the OT, AV1611, such as the part where Samuel says that if David wants another wife, God will easily give him one; or the passages describing all the wives and concubines Solomon had.

Perhaps you missed the parts where God would let someone have what they wanted, but at a terrible price.

Such as how David suffered so badly before he died (Psalm 38).

Or how Solomon paid a dear price as well.

1 Kings 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

1 Kings 11:11 Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.

There's a principle in operation here that goes like this ...

Psalm 106:15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.

 

[Hoghead1]

What are you talking about?There is absolutely no indication here that David or Solomon is doing anything wrong. Quite the contrary. Incidentally, Martin Luther once faced a scandal because one his prominent supporters, a prince, was having an extra-marital affair with a young girl. Luther's solution was to avoid all scandal, having the prince marry the girl. Luther's rationale was, as he says, "I cannot forbid a man from having more than one wife, as Scripture does not do so." In 1650, a law was passed in Germany, stating that a man could have no more than ten wives.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is absolutely no indication here that David or Solomon is doing anything wrong. Quite the contrary.

Solid aurum ...

 

[dad]

I don't look to "natural states" for ethical values. This is not very interesting to me.

You look to unnatural ones? That might be interesting.

 

[Derek Meyer]

One cannot observe or test the very first form life, since that happened long ago. Nor can anyone re-create the first form of life. These are pre-suppositions.

I disagree. I personally have directly observed the fossils of some of the first forms of life under a microscope. Those are around 3.5 billion years old. They were prokaryotes. A lot more basic than the current crop of prokaryotes, but they were still prokaryotes. That's not a pre-supposition.

 

[Ophiolite]

As noted by others, several species are monogamous. Humans tend to be serially monogamous. A trend among mammals is for sexual dimorphism in terms of size to be correlated with monogamy. No differences tend to be associated with monogamy, large differences with "harem" arrangements. The human norms would lead us to expect exactly what we see - predominant monogamy (serial in today's cultures) with occasional aberrations.