The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Christian Fools


Subject:  Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date:  10/18/2012  4:32 PM
Author:  NigelGlitter Number:  183727 of 199115

No need to get all in a huff.

Not in a huff, Bryan. It was a legitimate response to the line of reasoning. Why bother with physics? Replicating the Big Bang doesn't demonstrate what actually happened 14 billion years ago.

Abiogenesis in a lab? Same thing.

So, let's focus on the fact that all over the globe, we find similar mating traits in aboriginal tribes. And, all over the globe, we see similar patterns in more advanced society.

It's fairly common for partners to venture outside of their primary relationship, or switch primary relationships over a lifetime, with or without the complexities of a sophisticated social structure. Sure sounds like human nature at work to me.

We see the concept of harems in some societies, but there is no culture that insists all females must mate with the Sultan/Caliph/alpha male. Most humans are involved in procreation. Sure sounds like human nature at work.

So, how do all these sperms have any reasonable guarantee that they are passing dad's gene pool along? How does that sperm have any confidence that the egg might not already be an embryo, or it might be involved in a swim over, kind of like fish do, and who knows who's what is landing where? And how does that fertilized egg have any guarantee it will have two, not one, adult working to ensure it's survival once it leaves the womb? Some kind of social institution has to exist to offer a reasonable assurance, because it's certainly in all life's nature to pass along genes, and it seems rigid monogamy is not a universal human trait.

We managed to do this long before religion and god were introduced, but well after we had developed the traits that require some kind of social convention to manage procreation.

Unless you're suggesting that humans 50,000 years ago just ran around and had sex with anyone they could find. Considering we're the same as them, I don't see where that follows.

Considering the bluntness of this post, you might want to find an analogy that doesn't use the word "swallow" in any response.
Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us