March 19, 2008
-
Are Humans Meant to be Monogamous?
I was just reading an article that asked the question “Are Humans Meant to be Monogamous?”
The article pointed out the recent trend of politicians and their extramarital affairs. The article also pointed out that “only 3 percent to 5 percent of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals
(including humans) are known to form lifelong, monogamous bonds.” Here is the link: LinkAre humans meant to be monogamous?
Comments (131)
Yes but they don’t do it very well, do they?
they’re SUPPOSED to be….. but fail, regularly.
yes no yes no yes no…
It depends on the day…
It kind of varies from person to person. Some people can pull this off successfully.
I don’t know how.
According to my Anthropology professor who is an expert in great apes, it definitely works out better when humans are monogamous.
It’s a very interesting question. Very few animals are monogamous.
It’s also interesting the split between polygamy (men marrying multiple women) and polyandry (women with multiple men).
Polygamy is quite common in human society. Polyandry is not.
Depends on the group of people.
yes.
yes. a bond grows with time. to experience a relationship to it’s fullest- to feel truly connected with someone else- the relationship should have full dedication.
Absolutely, but unlike any species of creature on the earth, we are meant to be sacramentally monogamous.
I say they are.
no, we’re meant to spread our “seeds” as far and wide as possible.
in an evolutionary sense, that is.
yes, i think we are supposed to be monogamous. however, we definitely suck at it.
monogamy is definitely not for everybody.
Not all.
If not, then why are multiple partners so hard on a woman’s reproductive system? If promiscuity were natural, then why does promiscuity cause pelvic inflammatory disease? without antibiotics that will sterilize you
yes.. they’re MEANT to be.. but who knows if they CAN…
we’re socialized to be, sure, but that doesn’t mean much.
i say yes! I dont share my boyfriend.
Xo
I think so.
hell no.
I don’t know. If we are, most people (including me) do a crappy job.
In their original, unfallen state, yes.
We’re no longer in our original and unfallen state, so it’s not surprising that so many of us are not monogamous. But that doesn’t mean it’s how we’re meant to be.
“unfallen”
poppycock.
I’m not sure. I know we can feel different types of romantic love for different people at the same time, but I would say that it’s possible to, as they say, “keep it in the pants” – but couples who acknowledge this and allow freedoms to each other are not to be condemned.
meh
Not all that much is natural to humans… we’re taught pretty much everything we know, or even consider natural.
If we’re socialized to be, then we will be. That’s all there is to it.
Well I think most of us are and a large % of us remain so. Politicans and anyone else in the media become front page news and that’s all we hear. We don’t hear about the politicians who are monogamous. Good stuff doesn’t sell.
Over the course of our history monogamy has guaranteed…
What the hell am I talking about?
I have no clue.
I want to have sex with all attractive females.
Depends on how you define monogamous. As mammals, all the research I’ve done (I actually wrote a research paper about this last semester) seems to indicate that we are not, but that did not seem to take into account the neocortex. By reducing humans to mere mammals, we are at the mercy of hormones. As we mature, the neocortex becomes more developed and relationship become vastly more complex. That’s why people continue having sex well beyond their reproductive capabilities.
But then that also depends on how well we follow the “use it or lose it” rule.
I say no……..then again they were not back in the olden days either……..if one is lucky they will be sinle minded……but the %’s dont lie………
of course
politicians have been having affairs for a long time. This isn’t a new thing. We just get to hear about it more because of investigative reporting etc…
yes. humans are meant to be monogamous.
I like to think so.
@Kestryl - I agree.
if my husband married other women, I would be pissed … unless they were bisexual. =]
as for the question …
monogamous? yes, but monogamy just means one mate. monogamy doesnt necesarily imply “forveer” so, once the children have grown up …
I am heavily interested in evolutionary psychology and questioned once this Harvard psychology grad who was saying that since everything stems from the need to reproduce, that spouse love ends after a certain number of months. Here’s the exchange.
<table class=”BwDhwd”><tbody><tr><td class=”zyVlgb XZlFIc”><table class=”O5Harb”><tbody><tr><td>David Wood to markdevon <td class=”i8p5Ld”>show details 8/14/07 <td class=”i8p5Ld”><table class=”gQ8wIf” id=”1eld”><tbody><tr><td class=”cTzXV ltbccf t9k9me” idlink=”"><td class=”cTzXV t9k9me” idlink=”">Reply<td class=”t9K9Me”>
<td class=”wtnCQd tP6gIf t9K9Me”>Hey! I just saw your website (theoriginofemotions.com) and I was wondering what you would think of a couple ideas I had.
So
you see, your notion of love (from men) is a highly controversial one,
and for good reason – it suggests that the entire institution of
marriage is flawed and faulty.
I think I may have cracked the lock on this one. There IS a
reason why most every society has that marriage institution, it is
because, indeed, prolonged love does in fact derive from evolution. Not
that I’m saying your speculations on the emotion of the love of men is
wrong – I’m suggesting that there are two parallel methods of
reproduction.
The first is lifelong love which is a product of
wanting to reproduce and focusing
on these specific children, and, with the help of the mother, nurture
them into the best legacies you could possibly leave. This is why the
marriage institution exists and why it is always returned to. People
ask me,
but wouldn’t it make more sense if a man just went around and planted
his seed in every woman? Turns out, many men do this exactly.
This is the second method, the one you described, in which a man only loves a women for 44 months or whatever it was.
It’s
not
a better method of leaving a legacy, it’s an ALTERNATIVE – instead of
nurturing a couple children and raising them the best that they can be
and giving them thus the best chance of survival (following the married
path), a man has multitudes
of offspring, giving him many legacies, but in not focusing on any of
the children he is hoping for quantity over quality. That maybe a
couple might be able-minded and able-bodied creations fit to continue
his line. This latter course of action turns out to be seen as immoral,
because I believe morality is just the evolved tool of
society (this is a difficult issue but just assume this for the
moment), and in doing this, not only do you endanger the children YOU
leave, but you also endanger the mothers, and throw them back
considerably in society, since they have to care for the child all on
their own.
That would explain why many men feel the moral
compassions for their lifelong wives, and why others divorce like crazy
and act on their primal urges.
Thanks for reading!
–
-David
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
<table class=”BwDhwd”><tbody><tr><td class=”zyVlgb XZlFIc”><table class=”O5Harb”><tbody><tr><td>markdevon@theoriginofemotions.com to me <td class=”i8p5Ld”>show details 8/15/07 <td class=”i8p5Ld”><table class=”gQ8wIf” id=”1el5″><tbody><tr><td class=”cTzXV ltbccf t9k9me” idlink=”"><td class=”cTzXV t9k9me” idlink=”">Reply<td class=”t9K9Me”>
<td class=”wtnCQd tP6gIf t9K9Me”>David,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree with your view that there are two strategies for maximizing
reproduction – stay-with-one-partner and mate-with-many.
Marriage is a cultural adaptation that has evolved in some societies
which helps support the stay-with-one-partner strategy.
The mate-with-many strategy is obviously better in the long run.
Humans do not mate for life, like some species.
Half of marriages end in divorce.
The other half continue, but as friends.
Love has a limited duration to discourage staying-with-one-partner.
Marriage makes things better in the short term because there is less
emotional harm if families stay together.
However, marriage harms a society by reducing the rate of evolution
by reducing the number of genetic combinations, which slows the rate
of evolution and therefore a species ability to evolve defenses
required to survive, such as new antibodies.
On a separate note, I wanted to clarify the duration of monogynistic love.
Men love a woman for 42 months.
Men fall in love over 4 months.
The total cycle time is 42+4=46 months.
Brad Pitt met Angelina Jolie in August 2004, when they met while filming
Mr & Mrs Smith.
Pitt’s love for Jolie will stop in June 2008.
After June 2008, Pitt will just feel affection for Jolie, a positive mental
effect triggered by the sight or sound of anybody familiar, including
friend or pets.
Mark Devon
@trunthepaige - You take all the fun out of multiple partners
@RdKingClassic03 -
Whats the mater, is unfamiliar microflora not your idea of a fun night?
Probably. But I think it shows a lot about us as a species that we’re able to overcome our natural instincts.
Yes, I believe we are.
yes
empirical evidence would indicate otherwise
Absolutely. God saw that Adam was lonely, and He created Eve. . .”two become one flesh” and “what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”. . I actually BELIEVE all that stuff.
No. Marriage is a three-way street – the husband, the wife, and God.
trun said it
Yes, but they fail regularly.
in the case of humans, we are created for one other person. in the case of animals, look at the monogamous ones, are any of them endangered? not so much.
No. I think monogamy is a social invention. Believing in YOUR definition of monogamy is fine for your relationships but I don’t think we were meant to be. I believe in monogamy defined as one person at a time in a relationship…but I don’t condemn those who don’t.
Yes.
I guess I should summarize what the discussion was about. The Harvard grad said that love basically as we know it doesn’t exist and doesn’t last for more than a year or so. This is because as reproduction machines we are always on the lookout for new genetics to add to the gene pool to best give rise to the best evolutions.
I argued that there were actually TWO strategies, monogamous love and also random mating. With monogamous love, the couple can focus on their offspring and with the two of them together they can give their offspring the best chance to survive and continue their legacy. Whereas with random mating, all your different offspring, while they won’t have a positive upbringing (for having a deserting father) will be many in number, greatly increasing the chance of leaving a legacy.
He then agreed with my postulation, of there existing two strategies but contends still that monogamous “love” wasn’t really love in the end, and that, on top of this, is only good in the short run because it limits the variety in the gene pool while giving a rare few offspring with unchanging genetics the tools to survive and do well.
In the end, I decided he was probably right.
-David
yes.
I think it’s in every fertile male’s nature to go and mate with as many fertile females as he can get. And those who say they don’t most likely do so because they were taught so by their mothers.
I believe so. There are plenty of married people who don’t cheat on thier spouses.
I think so, but I’m too lazy to think deeply about it.
Of course not.
If we would just get this through our skulls, life would be much easier.
With out monogamy there can be no foundation for any relationships, and kids would be totaly messed up. If we were all monogamy there would be no need to worry about STD’s.
I love the fact that my husband and I have never had to worry about that.
Genetic Variation anyone? The answer to this is going to depend on a persons beliefs. I believe in science and evolution which contradicts this idea that we are meant to be monogamous.
I think our brains are hard wired to want more than one mate. It spreads our seed around more…a greater chance for survival. Other than that having multiple partners…in our society at least, creates quite a quandry.
i am not sure. i wish they would be.
I don’t believe so, by limiting ourselves, we slow down the biological natural selection process. we need to expand the gene pool and have a greater variety in our offspring. the only thing it really does is slow down STIs and beneficial to our partner who wants a dedicated partner to protect the offspring while he/she goes looking for a more perfect ate and hides that fact. much more difficult for women.
Gah. who cares?
Almost no people are actually monogamous. Even if you have never cheated on someone, and don’t sleep around, you’re most likely a serial monogamist. Actual monogamy is finding one person and staying with them for life. Most people flutter between relationships, and only have one mate at a time, but aren’t actually monogamous. My parents are actually the only people I’ve eer known who are truly monogamous.
That being said, if we were actually supposed to be monogamous there’d be a much larger percent of the population actually doing it, don’t you think? True monogamy is practically deviant these days.
Yes.
Nowadays, I don’t think it really matters, but some need the lifelong stable bond that comes with a monogamous relationship.
Anything can work if you put your full dedication into it.
Not at all. We’re animals, after all. HOWEVER, we’re evolved enough to be able to control ourselves. Monogamy has become more enforced with Victorian values, though.
Orgies and adulterous affairs were happening (and fairly accepted) long before Jesus came along.
We’re told to be, but it doesn’t seem to sit to well with many does it?
Humans are meant to be whatever they want to be. You can love more than one person.
I’d say on a purely natural-based perspective we were probably able to be polygamous or even polyandrous at one point, but because we have the ability to develop morals (which goes with or without religion, because even atheists can be monogamous) not to mention the rise in STI’s and STD’s, we’ve made ourselves monogamous; or at least have made it so there’s more of a popularity towards the latter. And today it seems it does depend on the individual as well. I am a monogamous person and if my boyfriend ever decided he wanted to be *ahem* polygamous, then I would let him do so….that is not without removing his genitalia first or at least kicking them until they were black and blue. Stomp on my heart, then I stomp on your balls lol. Don’t worry I’m kidding…I think…
@QuantumStorm -
I agree. A perfect relationship in a marriage is a mirror image of a perfect relationship between God and us.
No, not according to what my science had teach me in college.
Humans are meant to be monogamous. Politicians are not monogamous. Politicians are not human. (For proof, see Bill Clinton.)
stds !
No. If the point of life is to reproduce that we should run around and make babies galore with whomever. If the point of life is to enjoy it, sexual pleasure is one way to do so. Animals do it. We just make it a big deal.
No. Humans are inherently animalistic. It’s just human nature to want more than one person.
I’d like to think so. This topic depresses the hell out of me.
Yes, but unfortunately it doesn’t always work.
We aren’t “meant” to be anything.
But it depends on how you define monogamous. I think it also varies by person. So I may have 3 or 4 serious boyfriends in my life, none a lifelong mate, but all monogamous relationships.
In general, I would say that humans (particularly women) are programmed to have just one mate at a time, but very rarely forever.
@Direshark - In the coming millennium, we will begin to experience exponential generational leaps in evolution, as science take over nature to select the “best” children. Even though evolutionarily, it was advantageous to widen the gene pool, it is no longer applicable today.
Technically speaking, the average size of a male compared to the average size of the female indicates the average number of females per male in most social species. Because men are larger than women on average, there is more than one woman per man on average (I don’t have the exact numbers with me.) I keep redundantly saying “on average” because it is important- since averages are spread out over an entire population, it means that it can be ”natural” for there to be two females per male in one case and still one female per male in another.
In practice, human breeding strategy most closely resembles that of birds that live in colonies- they form mating pairs, but both male and females have ‘affairs” very often. Without the front of monogamy, it would be a totally different strategy, and perhaps one that is not very effective for the species. After all, life on earth has had a lot of time to become established and optimized- if monogamy was nothing more than polygyny in disguise, than the pointless aspects of pretending to be monogamous would disappear. There is some benefit to still being monogamous most of the time, or at least acting like it, otherwise it wouldn’t occur.
So I am cautious to answer this question either yes or no- no, because humans are “meant” to occasionally cheat on their partners without defying some natural order as explained in paragraph one, and yes because if we are still monogamous a lot of the time and if we were to act as if we weren’t, then it might end up being a subpar strategy as explained in paragraph two.
I think a lot of the science behind this is still pretty controversial however. Maybe I should read the article you linked haha.
yes
i believe the only reason most animals aren’t is because they don’t have feelings and emotions like humans do. granted, some mammals do, and most of the ones that do….are monogamous.
does anyone think i am wrong?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - You’re damn right if it does happen, which it most likely will. Another GATTACA fan, I see?
-David
Yes.
Yes (in a way).
Our evolutionary strategy for survival is to invest heavily in a handful of younglings. The family unit is key towards this end.
Looking to all other mammals for role models? What % piss on things to mark their territory? eat their young?
I think humans are designed to be monogamous.
Probably?
i’m not going to say we were MEANT to be a monogamous race… but i will say that we downright suck at polygamy…
How many of those 5,000 species of mammals give birth to young that require so much care, for so many years? Monogamy doesn’t matter when you’re birthing a litter and then they’re off on their merry way after 2 months. Evolutionarily, you kinda need both parents to stick around longer when the offspring won’t even be able to walk for a year, and certainly not fend for itself for a LONG time.
Besides, pointing to a few affairs and using that as an excuse against monogamy is like pointing to a pair of animals of a non-monogamous species that happens to stay together for life and claim that’s enough evidence to show that that species is monogamous.
YES
Monogamy is for me but I’m not sure it’s for everyone.
No. That’s WHY humans don’t do a very good job of it.
In the Old Testament, men had multiple wives.
In the New Testament, they don’t.
So my guess is that we’re not really supposed to be monogamous, but religion has forced it upon us…like so many other things.
<33
We are meant to be because we can supposedly exercise self-control.
No. The type of monogomy most of the people here are referring to is moral monogomy. Soceity has told us we should be monogomous. It doesn’t mean as a species we are designed to be that way.
Trunthepaige- What in the heck are you talking about in reference to it being hard on a woman’s system to have sex with different men? Do you have something to back that up?
A woman’s vagina is actually able to adjust and change depending on the man she is with at the time, so I am curious what part of her body sex with multiple partners is strained by this?
@Ancient_Scribe -
I agree wholeheartedly. Not to mention, human beings have the grace to be monogamous out of genuine love, not just instinct.
I met a woman once who was “polyamorous,” meaning that she and her “boyfriend” agreed to have intercourse with people outside of their relationship freely. She was one of the most unhappy people I ever saw, and I don’t think that is a coincidence.
On the other hand, the married couples I know who’ve stayed together and been faithful to each other are usually pretty happy. I know that’s not always the case (unfortunately),
While we’re on the subject, the problem with polygamy in the case of a man with many wives, for example, is that the wives tend to fight with each other and form jealousies.
Yes, sacramental monogamy all the way.
And Dan, I think the picture you used is lovely, by the way.
Not especially, no. I think that the human tendency to form attachments to romantic mates supports the idea that we can choose to be, and I think that institutions like religions and common social ethics tend to discourage that, so we have the power and idea to not do it. However, what clenches it in my mind is the fact that both the social and religious institutions believe that we have to control or repress the tendency or urge to take such actions… I mean, if your “God” wasn’t upset at how often you were being adulterous and instead was just happy with how chaste and faithful to their spouses everyone was, he wouldn’t have a commandment against it, would he? We wouldn’t have to fight it if it weren’t something that we did naturally because then we wouldn’t do it with such frequency. That is my two bits anyhow.
And by the way, in the context of the question, it is couched in terms of lifelong mates. There are so very few people who end up taking mating practices (intercourse) with just one other person who in turn has only that first person as their sole mate in life too. Odds are strongly against the chance of monogamy, much less for our being designed, intended or otherwise by nature monogamous.
Jealousy creates the need for monogomy.
Yes.
@Direshark - Why yes. But also, it’s the topic of Lee Silver’s Remaking Eden (among others), Brave New World, etc.
And I had a class which covered the topic last semester.
The brain releases chemicals that make us feel good and make us associate those good feelings with someone. Monogamous creatures do that.
That is a question of the heart… It truly depends on your feelings for your SO. I think that yes we can be monogamous but it is sooo easy not to be. I think it is ok to be serious about one person and have an unromantic romp with another – outside of marriage. But you have to be honest about that because sex can be so dangerous!
Meant by who?
I highly doubt it…
Considering we’re mammals and pretty much every other animal on this planet isnt…
I think so.
I know a couple who had an “open marriage” for a while, and it seemed fun at the time, but it destroyed their marriage. Looks like they’re getting a divorce now…
Many will feel that I am lying.
I dated my wife for 5 years. We have been married 52 years. I cannot speak for her with 100% certainy, but we married virgins and I never cheated. I did not say that I did not want to, but I did not.
Are we mono—no. Should we be mono–yes.
My wife has counselled many young women who got pregnant and then having the buy bail. Infidelity I think is the norm.
frank
da, or course they are… how else could u explain all the heartbreak!!!
If you choose your lover with your heart but not your mind – you will be monogamous, but we usually think but not feel, and make a wrong choice, so we think that we are polygamous…But that’s just a wrong choice…
Yes, I believe that we are meant to monogomous, or at least serial monogomists.
whatever gets you to sleep at night
I’d like to think so.
Probably No.
I don’t know about the rest of the human race, to each his own, but I know I’m meant to be monogamous.
hmm… this question tends to stump me on so many levels bc i’d like to say. but too many factors, both scientific as well as socially, tend to point to a big fat “no” now a days. and to someone like me, that’s just a very sad thing all around.
Yes. We are meant to, and designed to. But with free will, we have a tendancy to be unsatisfied with what it is we have.
Hahaha, freakin’ idiots comparing humans to animals. Animals have no sense, of COURSE they hump whatever they see. Humans know better, though. We aren’t animals.
@Southernlass -
You forgot to hit reply and yes i do, as would you if you just looked into it. Start with pelvic inflammatory disease
@trunthepaige - A STD doesn’t prove that having multiple partners is rough on a woman’s body. It proves that people ae ignorant about who they have sex with. There are ways to prevent STD’s as you well know. I don’t need to look into it, as I am well ware of what the consequences of ignorant sex are, however, AGAIN that does not make multiple partners rough on woman’s body anymore than it does a man who can also catch STD’s.
I think it’s something that changes from person to person. Much like in the animal kingdom there are some species that mate for life and others that mate for a season I think humans are much the same.
That article is probably stated in terms of their opinions. But in fact humans do not have to be monogamous. Years back people believed in two or more mates. However his or her lovers must be equally treated wether it be money, gifts, or physical love. This is why we don’t have more than one partner because it cost a lot of money for one person to take care of two more and to meet their needs and not your’s. Knowing that cultures change, and everything changes, we grow up learning the having several partners at a duration is wrong. Just like how people back then use to marry a member of their own family (as depicted in egypt so that they can retain their loyal line); today we call that incest.
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko - If humans became animals all of a sudden, we wouldn’t know how to survive. And they do not hump whatever they see; they only want to reproduce just like humans. Humans are sexual beings just like everything else that is living and have the reproductive organs to create offsprings. We, as humans, do “hump,” or initiate sexual activities, and it’s seen in pornography or what have you. So it is not right to say that we know better or more because every living thing have their own skills and abilities. Just like martial arts; most of their fields consists of animal-like respect such as the praying mantis.
@TANGENA - I know about porn, yes, and it has nothing to do with mating. It’s money-driven.
Humans have morals and reasoning skills, animals do not. We murder, we lie, and sometimes for no reason at all. When an animal kills, it’s for a reason. Animals also do not lie. Know what I mean? Animals and humans are not the same.
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko - We are the same and different Do you have proof that animals do not lie or even have morals or reasoning skills (also logic)? Our actions have reasons. Wether we did something bad because of our dislikes towards another. I mean, humans have the ability to murder or kill (like sentence to death), hate, and have emotions just like animals. They go through pain, happiness, and so on just like we do. They just express it differently than us. If we lie and say that it’s for no reason, than that is a reason. If we do something that hurts others, we can purposely do it, accidentally do it, or even the case of a disorder that a person goes through without knowing that they have such a disorder. So yes animals and humans are indeed different, but they are also the same. Maybe if you were to take a biology/zoology class of some sort, it’ll help you understand this more.
Regardless, if monogamy only pertains to modern American culture, than it is preferred. But in some countries, people have no problem with polygamous relationships. It’s just that a person not only takes care of his/her partner, a person must take care of a second partner equally. Money and time are two of the many problems of polygamy.
@TANGENA - Polygamy is selfish, for one thing. It’s for people who don’t want just one woman, and it’s for chauvinist people. But yeah, the proof that animals do not lie is because they have no reason to. They have no morals. Why this is even being questioned amazes me. A dog can learn things, but he’s purely motivated by food. That’s not reason, that’s just learning. But the big proof, the absolute indisputable proof that animals don’t lie, is God. God made animals for humans and he gave humans morals, not animals. It’s humans He cares about. And if you don’t believe in God (you sound like you don’t), I can prove him to you with scientific facts you’ve probably never heard before. For serious
Also, I can give you quotes from evolutionary biologists who’ve admitted that the data they’ve come up with in the past was all forged because they were so desperate to find SOME evidence of evolution. Let me know if you’re willing to hear what I have to say. And if so, it’s a lot easier in real-time (AIM).
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko - I would really love to hear scientific results that there really is a god (or of someone/something of higher power) because my boyfriend is more of a science person and that kind of affected my ideas. And it’s probable that I would be too shocked to hear these evidences to even utter a sound. I think it would be great if you and my bf share each other findings, even greater if I was there to read them
But I have to warn you, he becomes quite competitive and I don’t want the both of you fighting, Hehe. Anyway, I do believe that there is a god and I also believe in science. So this will be quite interesting for the three of us. When do you usually go on aim? I haven’t used mine in a while because when I was in high school, a lot of people were spreading rumors and it started to annoy me. However this is something I would love to participate in. Thanks for replying in a friendly matter. Most of the replies I receive are like “You suck.” And one actually stated “your logic sucks.” I find that funny because we have our own way or method of reasoning.
@TANGENA -
Yeah, I was talking with the male member of a band called The Bastard Fairies, and they’re an atheistic band and they blame all the problems of the world on religion in general (even though in the past 100 years, studies have shown that atheism is the problem
) and so he and I have been talking back and forth, back and forth, on YouTube, he trying to disprove God (can calling me ignorant in the process), and I trying to PROVE God. My last message to him pointed out the fact that he still had not refuted one of my huge points (I forget now which one it was), and he never wrote back to me after that. So I assume he just doesn’t have an answer.
But yeah, I’m never rude about things unless someone else is rude first.
You DO believe in God, you’re saying? What about Jesus (not only as a historical figure)?
See, I’ve read science papers and all that stuff, and I use common sense, logic, AND science
You can’t just rely on one of them; you gotta use all of them. If the science defies logic, then you can’t use the “scientific” argument you just used, because it’s NOT scientific.
Anyway, yeah, I’ll get on AIM now. I don’t know how long I can be on, though. And this won’t just take an hour, you know. Nor will it take only one AIM session. It’s practically impossible to talk about this subject in one sitting.
And also, Christians ARE allowed to believe in evolution, but the ones who DO believe in evolution don’t use logic/science. Believing in God and evolution is not contradictory. Not sure if your boyfriend knows that.
Kay, I’m whothennow24 on AIM.
@TANGENA -
By the way, I forgot to mention this: I won’t be trying to prove the Christian God, but rather trying to prove in Something or Someone that is all-powerful. In A God, you know? Whether you call Him/Her/It Carol, Daniel, or God, I’ll be trying to get you guys to see that. And in order to do that, I have to disprove evolution. So that’s what I’ll be focusing on, just so you know.
yah accha hai.