@white-dog said:

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

@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?

@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?

@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.

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

WSS

@sampsonqyb said:

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

@koalabazooka 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

@westside-steve said:

there may be inconsistent sources...

WSS

Yes, that's probably the case here.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

@koalabazooka said:

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

there may be inconsistent sources...

WSS

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

@mld-woody said:

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

@westside-steve said:

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).

WSS

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 said:

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.

@koalabazooka said:

Because only the best of the genetic crop evolve, according to Darwinian theory.

Not since mankind has learned how to keep members of society alive that would otherwise be dead.

Keeping an invalid alive by artificial means is not creating a stronger or better human. For what it's worth.

WSS

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man's existence without a Creator. We can do better.

Charles Darwin was a devout Christian.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

It is a myth. If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? You really have no clue.

Because only the best of the genetic crop evolve, according to Darwinian theory.

@osiris said:

I would posit that it is considered immoral to have as many sex partners as one can, on a survival basis, for several reasons. The first is that by remaining monogamous, the chances of survival of the offspring is increased. You will notice that in many mammals that have long gestation and maturation stages (like humans, elephants) there is more of a tendency to remain with one partner. That's because these offspring are a major investment in time and resources, and therefore the parents want to protect that investment. So it is a concept of producing quality offspring. Other animals opt for quantity over quality: fish, reptiles, turtles, that lay large numbers of eggs, for example, but do little in the way of parenting.

Vultures will gang up and beat up adulterous fathers because both parents need to sit on the egg in tandem.

As for homosexuality, there is ample scientific proof that it's due to genetic defects. One can note the prominent feminine traits in most male homosexuals or the machismo in most female homosexuals. They were born with unnatural hormonal ratios.

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

“And while it underscores the truth that most people truly don't believe man came from rats, fish, and single-celled organisms up through the primates”

The author claims something to be true (that most people don’t believe man is a result of an evolutionary process) yet provides no evidence to support that claim. That’s probably because polling the public on this will yield different results every time. Some polls support the claim, and some polls dispute it.

Regardless, what most people believe is irrelevant to the truth. A long time ago, most people believed the world was flat, yet that was proven untrue.

“[Evolutionists] insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered.”

and

“Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don't we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? … The fact is, we don't have them!”

False, false, and false. There are several candidates for the transitional fossil. The most recent finding is this Australopithecus sediba.

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2092438,00.html

Furthermore, we have transitional fossils and complete lineages for other organisms. So this whole argument about 'missing links' is moot, unless you somehow believe there are two system for life, one in which man was created, and another in which other organisms evolved.

“We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation.”

Misleading. While the consequences of a mutation don’t influence the probability of them occurring (though they can influence the probability of the organism surviving) and based on this, some say mutations are random, it is untrue that they are random if you consider the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability.

Second, random mutation is not the only way for an organism to acquire new genes. It may be the only known way for humans, but bacteria can acquire new genes via lateral gene transfer, in which genes from two different species of bacteria hop from one to another through something called a plasmid. This, as I mentioned before, is one of the ways in which bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance.

Now, for everyone that wants to claim that either creationism or evolution are false, the fact is you cannot prove or disprove either, that is why they are both called theories. You can only weigh the evidence for both and decide which to believe.