[cool]

You're right, this is getting silly. If you're not misrepresenting me, then perhaps you're just misreading everything I say. But that may be the way I write (as a none native English person, my level of the written English may not be very precise) as well so the blame goes both ways. I think generally when it comes to touchy subjects like gender in-equalities, one both sides will get emotional and argue from that persepective and not at the truth of things.

Originally Posted by puzzlegirl

Herein lies the dilemma. Thanks to religious values of monogamy, men and women who mate and reproduce with one partner (aka marriage) have become the majority. Since women value emotional connection with their mate, the philanderers would be rooted out (even less likely- since the advent of birth control- that a woman would choose to reproduce with a man who will not stay with her). Combine these values passed on with many other social factors that discourage promiscuity and the "promiscuous" gene would be the one which gets bred out. It's not the natural order of things, but it's how we have slowly become.
Of course, these things come in waves. Whether there's a social wave of monogamous values or a sexual revolution, each generation will be slightly different.

I will try to explain why your entire argument here doesn't work out and thus, why I may have said you didn't get evolution in the first place. Evolution only works when a particular environment causes a particular gene to get bred out like you were trying to explain. In the past, this mechanism generally involve death. For example, people who live in cold mountains needed certain genes to survive better such as having more body hair, ability to breath in thin oxygen levels, etc, and people who don't are not as successful in surviving before they grow up and mate and over time, the hairy, bigger lungs people will be the majority. Take millions of years and you would have a perfect being living on those conditions.

The reason why I say evolution in humans have basically stopped today in the modern world is that we interfere with nature and we don't die as a result of lack of 'something' for our current environment.

Let's see if your scenario holds out. You say that because women chooses men who would marry them to have children so the more philandering ones gets 'gened' out of the pool. But this is not true simply because the philandering men are all getting married as well... they all get to pass on their philandering genes... they may actually pass on their philandering genes to women they sleep with on one night stands as well, thus, you get the single moms... no difference from the past.

This is easy to check. How many percent of people get married and have children? You'll find that it does not generally involve the difference between 'philandering men'.

In fact, in the book 'The female brain', research have shown that women chooses philandering men more than non philandering ones... Why? They found a link between good looks in men and philanderings.. ie, the better looking the less monogamous they are. And women tend to choose the better looking ones (and you can say they don't all you like).

But the above doesn't really add to the argument, because all i can see is that practically everyone today gets to pass on their genes, philandering or not. Even ones who would not have survived the past age, such as 'special' people.

I should have said: FROM priest molesters TO serial philanderers- thinking with your dick kind of applies to both on opposite extremes.

If society deem them the same then both would carry a heavy jail sentence. They don't. Again, I think you're extreme in this case. Just because a guy thinks about sex all the time means he's evil and should be thrown into jail with the keys thrown away. I shudder if you should every become the President, cause all men would be persecuted for being who they are. Just as gay people are who they are.

Sorry, but your concrete way of laying down point 1,2 and 3 in presenting your opinions does draw that conclusion.

Exactly my point. You read a few sentences then misrepresent them. Just because someone lay out a point that says 'Apples are nice to eat' does not mean he thinks 'oranges are not nice to eat'.

In fact if you read this thread fully, you'll find that I have specifically said women cheats as well but I was concentrating on the fact that men cheats more and more easily for the physical sex reasons alone and that may not mean they don't love their wives.. you then go on jumping all over me like I was advocating 'cheats' while I was just stating the facts of life. My position is that men and women both cheats on love and that we are not made to be monogamous and so what do you do about it? You either accept it or you don't... either way is fine with me...

Here's a paragraph that I mention women cheats as well, and probably in a couple of other places:

But that does not mean women do not cheat on their 'so called picked men'. They do. In fact a research indicates that as high as 30% of children born are not related to the 'husband'. But the 'husbands' do not know it. Women after having sex with their 'chosen guy, cave men', may still secretly have sex with other cave-men. The more spern she can get inside her, the better because then the strongest sperms will fight to get to her womb thus providing the best offspring. There's an article in Scientific American called 'The sperm wars' which shows how sperms war among other sperms from other guys. There are actually all kinds of sperms. We have sperms that specialize in defence such as they block sperms from the opponent from entering the 'cave'. And there are attack sperms with actual war heads that explodes on contact with the other sperms. That's a whole other story there and there's not enough space here to elaborate... look this up...

Ooh- here lies our problem. Can I take a wild guess and say that you were raised Roman catholic, or something equally orthodox? Yeah- I'm Presbytarien/Protestant (basically the laziest tradition-wise and the most liberal) and Catholicism hates us cause they think we're not extreme enough.

Nope. I am protestant as well... anglican.

Luckily, I came away with my religion intact and unscathed.
So orthodox Christians will tell me that I'm not Christian because I don't believe in the entire bible or interpret it literally. But I feel that because the bible was written by humans and thus flawed by the opinions of those who wrote it (thus the misogyny, the contradictions, the prejudice, etc) I can't trust most of it. The only things I feel obligated to follow word for word are the teachings of Christ.

You really can't have it two ways. Either the bible is the word of god or it is full of holes and you can't believe anything of it. You can't just pick and choose which part is god's words. If that's the case, then who interprets which is to be believed? You're better off picking up grimms fairy tales and then pick some sentence here and there and follow those moral values.

I keep to my original point that you probably learned your values from a 'secular scientific society' rather than the bible. Then you choose which part of the secular moral values you learned to agree with the bible.

And doesn't believing in Christ make you Christian? Jesus says that's all you need. What a contradiction, huh? Jesus says this IN THE BIBLE, but Catholics say you're not because you've ALSO got to believe in the Bible.
If it's confusing, feel free to think of me as something else that believes in Jesus and is not Christian, and that is what I am.

It's an illogical question here. You can't believe in Christ if you don't believe the bible if 100% accurate. Because which parts are true? I can even question the entire Christ part, because those are also written by people as you said. Again, you can't have it two ways. You say you believe in Christ. But why? If the bible is not accurate. The entire 'Christ' section will likely be just as flawed as the rest of the bible.

Wouldn't it be nice if religion and science could be integrated? Both blasphemous and illogical, but nice.

Religious is illogical, untrue and complete utter nonsense and science is blasphemous, contradicting almost everything religions tells us. They can't live side by side.