Killing Jesus

Osiris

@westside-steve said:

Of course in order to refute creationism you must first prove that all life came from a single microbe or something lower than that right?

I would suggest there's no reason to think that, if that were true, there couldn't more likely have been more than one microbe? Possibly thousands.

And just from a simply logical standpoint I'd expect to see fossilized remains of the missing links from every minute step along the road to manhood. If in fact this is an ongoing process. Besides, of course, Piltdown man.

But no I don't believe in creationism. I just sometimes laugh at the certainty of some folks pounding on tables and preaching the virtues of science Almighty.

I imagine in a couple hundred years they will be laughing at us like we laugh at cavemen.

as to the Supreme Being why not? If, as use a, evolution is the complete truth why then shouldn't there be species as far ahead of humans as we are of cats and dogs? It's a little bit vain to believe we are the end all be all.

Keep in mind that cats and dogs don't understand hardly anything we do. Probably just like ourselves and whoever that next species might be.

WSS

I don't see that the path to refuting creationism is through proving evolution. To refute creationism you have to refute the possibility of a supreme creator. There is currently more evidence on this planet against the creationist narrative than there is to support it. Creationism can remain viable so long as the narrative remains in the realm of things that can not be disproven. The evidence for the age of planet at 4.4 billion years old disproves the 6,000 year old planet part of creationism, but it doesn't disprove the idea that there is a supreme creator.

And I don't really think vanity has anything to do with it. We are the species that exists at this point in time, we are superior to our distant evolutionary ancestors, and we'll be inferior to our distant evolutionary offspring. I think it is better to think of each species as being perfectly adapted in their form of survival. Cats and dogs are far superior to humans in many things. They run faster, have better senses and reflexes, and are generally better adapted for hunting their prey than we are without our tools. Our adaptation, our brains and thumbs, pretty much trump any other adaptation on the planet, however, and that's why humans are on the top of totem poll on Earth.

MLD Woody

Idk, I'm enjoying reading this. DieHard is just digging a hole deeper and deeper, Osiris is posting interesting to read posts, and Cal isn't here to make it worse.

I remember reading somewhere that a homosexual offspring could be the result of a more fertile mother. So at the expense of an offspring that wouldn't reproduce, the mother herself would more easily spread her genes. It was like a side affect of something that was beneficial to their survival.

Westside Steve

Keep in mind that dogs and cats, actually any living creature, live longer in captivity even though by doing so they lose the ability to exist at all in the wild. And I still think that the next step in evolution, should it be true, might be in a completely spiritual sense. I would guess that if there is a Supreme Being, 1 for advanced from ourselves, that we wouldn't understand his desires anymore then my cat understands mine. Oh she knows when the snacks are coming and if she wants her head scratched but I can't really read a book to her. She knows the results of interacting with me but has no idea why. Quite possibly, says I, just like me and God.

WSS

Osiris

@westside-steve said:

Keep in mind that dogs and cats, actually any living creature, live longer in captivity even though by doing so they lose the ability to exist at all in the wild. And I still think that the next step in evolution, should it be true, might be in a completely spiritual sense. I would guess that if there is a Supreme Being, 1 for advanced from ourselves, that we wouldn't understand his desires anymore then my cat understands mine. Oh she knows when the snacks are coming and if she wants her head scratched but I can't really read a book to her. She knows the results of interacting with me but has no idea why. Quite possibly, says I, just like me and God.

WSS

Cats and dogs live in captivity longer because they've been domesticated, and are small enough to live in the restricted spaces of captivity. Other animals, like elephants, live 3x longer in the wild than they do in captivity, and 40% of lion cubs born in zoos die (the statistic is 30% for wild cubs).

DieHardBrownsFan

@mld-woody said:

Idk, I'm enjoying reading this. DieHard is just digging a hole deeper and deeper, Osiris is posting interesting to read posts, and Cal isn't here to make it worse.

I remember reading somewhere that a homosexual offspring could be the result of a more fertile mother. So at the expense of an offspring that wouldn't reproduce, the mother herself would more easily spread her genes. It was like a side affect of something that was beneficial to their survival.

I'm feeding the fire, and your the kindling, lol.

Westside Steve

Again I think you may be mistaken again about elephants who, as I recall, are the only breed ( or at least one of a few) who live even similar lengths in the wild and the zoo. yes they live longer in the wild but just a little bit. Tigers on the other hand live a lot longer in captivity.

It isn't a mystery, in a controlled environment they have food and are basically protected from predators. Not only that but they receive veterinary treatment for old age ailments.

WSS

koalabazooka

Lol, Osiris needs to brush up on his pachyderm trivia.

Westside Steve

@koalabazooka said:
Lol, Osiris needs to brush up on his pachyderm trivia.

there may be inconsistent sources...

WSS

MLD Woody

@diehardbrownsfan said:
I'm feeding the fire, and your the kindling, lol.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Osiris

@koalabazooka said:
Lol, Osiris needs to brush up on his pachyderm trivia.

Nah uh, here are my sources on Elephants that say they live 2-3x longer in the wild:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081211-zoo-elephants.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=6449110&page=1

And on tigers:

http://www.captiveanimals.org/news/2010/03/10-facts-about-zoos

@westside-steve said:

there may be inconsistent sources...

WSS

Yes, that's probably the case here.

Osiris

@sampsonqyb said:
It's not a requirement--nor even recommended--that film figures be adorable angels free of imperfections,

And now this thread has officially been trolled by a bot.

Westside Steve

@osiris said:

Nah uh, here are my sources on Elephants that say they live 2-3x longer in the wild:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081211-zoo-elephants.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=6449110&page=1

And on tigers:

http://www.captiveanimals.org/news/2010/03/10-facts-about-zoos

Yes, that's probably the case here.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/good-question-do-animals-live-longer-in-zoos/

This says that wild tigers live substantially longer in a Zoo. And elephants only slightly longer in the wild. That one site you posted reminds me a little of PETA. Not that that makes them wrong just agenda driven.

WSS

White Dog

@mld-woody said:

I mocking O'Reilly bro

Or is mocking someone that thinks God talks to him mocking Christianity?

Maybe mocking religion in general, sure, but Christianity?

How about I mock you after I suck your dick! What a low life pos you have turned out to be.

The Cysko Kid

@white-dog said:
How about I mock you after I suck your dick! What a low life pos you have turned out to be.

Quoted. You're going to suck his dick, then mock him?

The Cysko Kid

Tell us more about your homosexual fantasies.

koalabazooka

@white-dog said:
How about I mock you after I suck your dick! What a low life pos you have turned out to be.