No, retard, until that point it's an open question. Your argument is like saying, "until you can prove that God is not an intestinal parasite, God is an intestinal parasite" or "until you can prove there's no life on other planets, there is." A lack of evidence does not prove anything at all. I mean, duh!

And no, I have no interest in posting pics of myself or anyone else. I am not your masturbation aid. Yuck. Get a life.

I don't look at females as a lesser kind

Then why do you keep verbally abusing us, insulting us, and describing us as ugly, gay, and/or "nazi"-esque?

I said that THIS site attracted lesbians and feminazis.

And you based that on what (other than your anal interior)?

Forum sites, on the other hand, usually attracts unattractive girls.

See above query.

Old age? How's that work? No "human being" is going to be dependent on the womb of another for more than about 10 months. Once it's out of the womb, it is by definition no longer dependent on said womb for survival.

The standard is flexible, not arbitrary. It is flexible to a certain defined degree (as it should be) and that degree should, to my thinking, correspond to the level of prenatal physiological development. In other words, rights vest as the being grows and matures.

Seriously. If this had been just one more stupid "where's all the hot chix lulz" posts I would have just ignored it and let it go.

But in case y'all hadn't noticed, the slurs against intelligent women (if you're smart you must be ugly, a lesbian, and/or a "feminazi") are not funny and lulzy -- they're just sexist and dumb, and reflect very very poorly on all the guys who posted here.

Is it that these girls are unnattractive and so spend their time on the internet showing the world their rage through their so called intelligence?

No, it's probably just that you're pathetic and girls generally ignore you, which is why you have to post such an asinine and sexist "debate" to show the world your rage and your lack of intelligence ... although why you'd want to advertise your total ineptitude with women and your inability to get a date is a bit beyond me!

Good Christ. Pyg, oh so aptly named, you prove again that you remain among the most sexist, retarded asshats I have ever encountered on this entire planet. No, you aren't being funny. As with pretty much every other occassion where you've ever mentioned women, you're just being a douche and looking for an excuse to accuse any and all thinking women of being lesbians or "feminazis."

It's a basic fact that you talk out your ass with no evidence whatsoever to support your notions and for no purpose other than to bash on women, and it's also a basic fact that you will probably never ever have sex that you don't have to pay for ... because it's a basic fact that the only men on forum sites (and especially debate sites) are 350-lb. pasty-faced pimple-ridden morons with no jobs and barely-functional-level educations who live with mommy until they turn 45. (And just like you, I don't need any proof because these are "basic facts." Right?)

Nah. Everyone in showbiz has joined up with those wacky Scientologists (who will probably now sue me, you, CD, the entirety of teh Intrawebs, and the Free Speech Clause of the U.S. Constitution for contributing to my ability to call them "wacky").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scientologists#Notable_Scientologists

http://www.cracked.com/article_14932_top-10-secret-celebrity-scientologists.html

http://www.topsocialite.com/67-celebrities-who-are-scientologists/

We actually don't know how fast a T. Rex could move. Various palentologists have suggested speeds ranging from as low as 11 mph up to 30 mph. Horner thinks they were slow movers, based on both the Rex's leg proportions and the fact that if it toppled over while running (not unlikely given its high center of gravity) it would break a bunch of bones and probably die.

The running speed of T. Rex has been mathematically modeled and, based on the assumption that Rex weighed 6-8 tons, it could not have physically moved faster than 18 mph. Other palentologists argue, based on the femur length, that T. Rex had a walking speed of 12-15 mph. The debate now is on the Rex's weight, as if it was (as some palentologists think) more like a 4-ton animal than a 6- or 8-ton animal, it could have moved a bit faster. Current estimates of its running speed range from about 12 mph to 25 mph.

And, it wasn't really very agile, either. Its center of gravity was six feet off the ground, its arms puny, its weight considerable by any estimation, and its legs bulky. This was not an animal that jumped or made quick turns because again, (1) its body wasn't capable of doing that, and (2) if it fell over it would quite possibly die due to shattered bones and internal injuries.

The shape of T. Rex's teeth don't go to show anything other than that it was a carnivore, and that is not in any dispute. Sharp teeth are useful to meat-eaters, whether the meat is alive or dead. That's why we have steak-knives instead of butter-knives for cutting meat.

Big head size is good for eating great big mouthfuls of flesh, also generally helpful if you are a large carnivore no matter whether you scavenge or you hunt. Again, that shows nothing other than that Rex was a carnivore, and we knew that.

Given that T. Rex had both traits that would assist a predator (e.g., binocular vision) and traits that would assist a scavenger (e.g., a terrific sense of smell), it seems logical to think that T. Rex was probably an opportunistic feeder -- it hunted if it had to or if prey was readily available, and scavenged when it found a fairly fresh carcass. But we can't tell for sure, based only on its bones, exactly how it fed.

First off, J-Park's consulting palentologist Jack Horner said that T. Rex's vision might have been based on movement. Not that it definetely was so, but that it was possible and consistent with what we know of like animals. We don't know for sure how a Rex's eyes worked, because the eyes, brain, and optic nerves are all soft tissues that don't fossilize, and so we have no Rex eyes to study.

But the issue of vision is not decisive, because we do know for certain from the size and shape of the Rex skull that the Rex had a far better sense of smell than it did vision. (Remember also from J-Park that the only animal in all of history with a proportionately larger and more developed olfactory center than the Rex is the turkey vulture.)

And while dead things don't move, they do stink.

Horner himself went on to say in Discovery's Walking With (and this is not quite verbatim but close): "Here we have an animal whose center of gravity is six feet off the ground, who can't run particularly fast and can't grab with its arms, and who has one of the best senses of smell in the fossil record. What would be the most likely way for it to get its food? I would say, being a scavenger."

You're still giving specious examples here, man. Even the historic "messiah" would not qualify for a Nobel Peace Prize given your criteria of enacting or perfecting a process for enacting peace. That's because (1) there is no "perfect" peace process, and therefore (2) that's not what the Nobel is given for, and ergo (3) the award wasn't given for what Obama had done with the first 11 days of his office. It was given in recognition of the election of an American leader commited to withdrawal from West Asia, to unilateral nuclear disarmament, and to international cooperation. That doesn't make him a "messiah," just a competent president.

And since the U.S. hasn't had anybody competent in the big chair for the last several years, yeah, it actually is globally significant that one of the world's major superpowers is no longer under the direction of a coke-addled egomaniacal warmonger. ;)