Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

And what's imagination a product of?

---

Chemical processes and randomness.

---

Except for this answer? Because then it wouldn't be true, just a product of chemical processes and randomness.

---

Why would it not be true?

---

You will stand before God and make an account of what you did in this life, good or bad. Those united to Christ by faith will be justified by his righteousness. All others will be condemned to eternal hell and punishment for their sins against a holy God.

Or not, could just be chemical processes and randomness in my brain. Either way, it's true because, as you say, why would it not be?

---

How does the existence of imagination somehow convince you that God (and the Protestant Christian version of God) exists?

---

Do I have a choice? Given the whole chemical process and randomness thing going on?

---

Good point. It's hard to imagine free will existing given either paradigm.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

And what's imagination a product of?

---

Chemical processes and randomness.

---

Except for this answer? Because then it wouldn't be true, just a product of chemical processes and randomness.

---

Why would it not be true?

---

You will stand before God and make an account of what you did in this life, good or bad. Those united to Christ by faith will be justified by his righteousness. All others will be condemned to eternal hell and punishment for their sins against a holy God.

Or not, could just be chemical processes and randomness in my brain. Either way, it's true because, as you say, why would it not be?

---

How does the existence of imagination somehow convince you that God (and the Protestant Christian version of God) exists?

---

Do I have a choice? Given the whole chemical process and randomness thing going on?

---

Good point. It's hard to imagine free will existing given either paradigm.

---

It's hard to imagine because imagination is chemical processes and randomness.

---

Glad to see you're catching on.

Quote:

---

Is it a societal advantage to practice monogamy?

---

Think about all of the area's where relationships are not monogamous, think about how many 'father's' spread their seed and failed to raise their sons and daughters. If genetecially superior men should spread their seed as much as possible why is there such a taboo? Note the inconsistency. One previous argument is that societal values now trumps the need to survive. I would say the difference is a piece of evidence that humanity was a special act of creation and intended to be distinct from the rest of the animals. The 'rules' for us are much different than the rules for animals.

Quote:

---

Me: With infertile couples over the world like my wife and I, if life is all about survival and child rearing why do and should we actively pursue a faithful relationship with each other given that we have failed at the ultimate purpose of our existence. Why should we not committ suicide and free up resources for others?

Darg: I'm not disputing any of this. The point of my post was to show the plausibility for an evolutionary reason why monogamy might be valuable, and why feelings like jealousy etc. are something we experience.

---

Noted. I really want people however to let that this sit with them for a moment. If evolution is how we got here, and what matters most is our survial, then what do we do with infertile couples? Why should we live? Why do we treat those who can no longer pass their genes with dignity and respect? Why do we even allow others to pass on their genes instead of our own?

I hope this is an appeal to our conscience and reason. Our experience of life is vastly inconsistent with the claims of evolution.

DirtDiver said:

---

Quote:

---

Me: With infertile couples over the world like my wife and I, if life is all about survival and child rearing why do and should we actively pursue a faithful relationship with each other given that we have failed at the ultimate purpose of our existence. Why should we not committ suicide and free up resources for others?

Darg: I'm not disputing any of this. The point of my post was to show the plausibility for an evolutionary reason why monogamy might be valuable, and why feelings like jealousy etc. are something we experience.

---

Noted. I really want people however to let that this sit with them for a moment. If evolution is how we got here, and what matters most is our survial, then what do we do with infertile couples? Why should we live? Why do we treat those who can no longer pass their genes with dignity and respect? Why do we even allow others to pass on their genes instead of our own?

I hope this is an appeal to our conscience and reason. Our experience of life is vastly inconsistent with the claims of evolution.

---

I would say that most societies over time have treated childless couples far worse than our current society does.

You would have been shamed for not having children in most cultures over the course of history. Maybe you wouldn't have been tossed off a cliff and discarded like some societies did with disabled children, but you wouldn't have been treated with dignity and respect...

Woody2006 said:

---

DirtDiver said:

---

Quote:

---

Me: With infertile couples over the world like my wife and I, if life is all about survival and child rearing why do and should we actively pursue a faithful relationship with each other given that we have failed at the ultimate purpose of our existence. Why should we not committ suicide and free up resources for others?

Darg: I'm not disputing any of this. The point of my post was to show the plausibility for an evolutionary reason why monogamy might be valuable, and why feelings like jealousy etc. are something we experience.

---

Noted. I really want people however to let that this sit with them for a moment. If evolution is how we got here, and what matters most is our survial, then what do we do with infertile couples? Why should we live? Why do we treat those who can no longer pass their genes with dignity and respect? Why do we even allow others to pass on their genes instead of our own?

I hope this is an appeal to our conscience and reason. Our experience of life is vastly inconsistent with the claims of evolution.

---

I would say that most societies over time have treated childless couples far worse than our current society does.

You would have been shamed for not having children in most cultures over the course of history. Maybe you wouldn't have been tossed off a cliff and discarded like some societies did with disabled children, but you wouldn't have been treated with dignity and respect...

---

Heck, it was considered a divine curse in many cultures, including in Judaism.

Quote:

---

I think it's obvious why infertile couples would survive. Infertility isn't fatal, and we wouldn't expect it to be. Animals typically don't live long past fertility. Humans didn't either until the last 200 years or so.

---

The question is not why they do survivie by why 'should' we be allowed to live, given that the goal of evolution is to pass on genes? By dying we free up rescources for those that can.

Quote:

---

I would say that most societies over time have treated childless couples far worse than our current society does.

You would have been shamed for not having children in most cultures over the course of history. Maybe you wouldn't have been tossed off a cliff and discarded like some societies did with disabled children, but you wouldn't have been treated with dignity and respect.

---

Should infertile couples be treated with dignity and respect? Why should those who are past the stage of being fertile be treated with dignity and respect if evolution is true?

Quote:

---

Evolution isn't a goal oriented process. It's not teleological. It's sufficient to see why infertile people will survive. Whether they should is meaningless.

---

Why any life should survive is ultimatly meaningless under the world view of evolution. The statement above of consistent.

Quote:

---

The reason it might be advantageous at the population level for infertile individuals to die off is that they no longer consume resources. Our species is not in danger of extinction from lack of resources, so there's no real reason that would be advantageous to our survival

---

Survival and spreading genes is not a goal, it's just the way we describe evolution which sounds like a goal. If our species is in danger of extinction from lack of resources, should infertile people and the elderly be the first to go? We may be fortunate in our lifetime to not have to answer that question but at some point that worldview will intersect with reality and choices will be made. I would also argue that if all humanity was dying from lack of resources that we would remember and honor those who died so that we may live.

I think what's crazy is that that's how God saw humanity, destined to die without an intervention. He steps in a lays down His life and we fait to honor Him over and over again.

Monogamy is a choice. It is not an evolutionary trait. Funny thing is that most women worldwide since forever have preferred monogamy by far over the other alternatives. They really don't ask whether monogamy evolved. They instinctively know that is works better than other choices.

Quote:

---

Monogamy is a choice. It is not an evolutionary trait. Funny thing is that most women worldwide since forever have preferred monogamy by far over the other alternatives. They really don't ask whether monogamy evolved. They instinctively know that is works better than other choices

---

Agreed, and I think the choice of monogamy actually seems to fly in the face of everything we know about 'evolutionary' history. Survie, spread our seed as much as possible yet when that is put into practice we get jealous spouses, kids who have divorced parents, heartbreak, issues with betrayal, loss of security. The only one who may champion this view is the male...until the child support payments hit.

Some say we are evolved, I say we are unique among the creatures of God. A cricket, deer, dog, snail, fish, rabbit can have as many partners and we don't blink an eye, but if your mom or sister has many partners growing up, or if our daughter has many partners growing up, we do not bless that behavior.

AstroAg17 said:

---

... Biology is of course not the entire picture with humans, since culture and tradition have large inputs into our behavior.

---

Expounding upon your last point, we do evolve culturally, technologically, and on a micro level against pathogens. The tradition of monogamy could face selection pressures against it as we evolve in these terms.

- gender imbalances caused by a preference for male children under a one child policy, or freak strain of HPV that wipes out women before reproductive age
- birth rates dropping below replacement levels over the next century with children becoming sustained net drains on couples in modern societies rather than net positives in the past

Government programs to promote reproduction to support crumbling social safety nets could reinforce or undermine monogamy.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Does evolution want us to stay with one partner for life or is this a practice left over from archaic tradition/religion? If your partner wanted to sleep around, would you object? Asking for a friend.

Yes, I know Solomon and many others in the Bible had multiple wives. Not a debate on what the Bible teaches.

---

Taken to another extreme/level...

I am ashamed that whomever I decide to marry one day that (to be brutally honest/truthful) I was not strong (patient) enough to wait on them before I had sex.

Through the eyes of the Holy Spirit, faith and patience coalesce and synergize. One of the Spirit waits for the one the Lord wishes for them to marry and has a monogamous marriage with that person, and that person alone till death do they part.

This is a picture of true strength and wisdom. Fornication and adultery is one of the biggest lies known to man; exploited by weak people who are willing to be disobedient to the Lord.

True children of the Lord, obey the Lord.

AstroAg17 said:

---

Evolution isn't a goal oriented process. It's not teleological. It's sufficient to see why infertile people will survive. Whether they should is meaningless.

I think your question also assumes that we as a species want to continue evolving, to the exclusion of our other desires. That's not at all the case. Our desires are somewhat blind, which makes sense since they arose from a goalless process. An individual which wants to survive and reproduce is likely to reproduce. An inability to reproduce doesn't diminish either of those desires.

Besides, humans aren't really changing significantly right now anyway. We don't have many strong selective pressures on us. The reason it might be advantageous at the population level for infertile individuals to die off is that they no longer consume resources. Our species is not in danger of extinction from lack of resources, so there's no real reason that would be advantageous to our survival.

This argument is secondary and not necessary though, since our goals are not simple utilitarian desires for the greater good. We're much more complex. It's a mistake to believe that evolution will necessarily produce organisms that are maximally efficient.

---

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. ~Richard Dawkins