No court room case ever argued in favor of animal rights and evolution based on the constitution. the arguments and the so called "facts" listed on that web page are faulty. First of all, man is an animal, a mammal to be exact. That's scientific fact. Second, there is no argument from scientists that have ever gone to court that argues for the rights of monkeys. Your right wing extremist, Phyllis Schafley run web site is nothing but bullsh*t.
2007-05-31 08:10:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Human beings ARE animals. Some act more like it than others. There are differences between human animals and others. We are the only animal that wonders about where we came from or that worships a supreme being. Most of our choices in life are not due to instinct or reaction but to thought and reason.
Perhaps when God created us in His image that it is our soul that resembles him. Since no one has ever seen God how do we know what He looks like? Maybe it is more of a spiritual thing rather than a physical thing.
Why not believe in both creationism and evolution? If God is omnipotant He can do anything He wants. He can make days any length he wants and make whatever He wants. Who is going to tell Him that He can't?
The Constitution was written by human animals with brains and souls. Yes we are animals but very special animals. Reality like it or not. Whatever humankind does affects not only human animals but all living things and the earth itself. That makes us have dominion over the world. No other creature has such power. To simply refer to humans as any other animals is to degrade human existance. To carry the human existance into a total realm of faith without considering proven facts is also ridiculous.
So if The Great Creator is also The Great Manipulator than why do we need a thought process at all. Couldn't He or shouldn't He just manipulate us and events to suit His will.
One can wonder that if God rested on the 7th day, has he started a new week? He sure isn't resting now with all that is asked of Him.
Just a little food for thought.
2007-05-31 15:22:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you think about it, people created laws to benefit the community. The main reason the majority of people are conscious and follow the rules is because of the punishment their peers can implement on them. But far worse, people are really afraid of the judgement in the afterlife by God. There is a minority of group who doesnt care what happens and they break the laws purposely. But imagine the scientific community acknowledge that God does not exist. There would be chaos between social economical classes. If there is no purpose, no reason to live but that same as any other animal, people wouldnt think twice about harming other people, taking their belongings and satisfying all their desires. We all have desires, some of them are very bad but we come to our senses and think twice because weve been fed by our parents and the community that A God Does Exist. Next time look around and see if you notice that the poorest people in the world are the most religious aswell. It has been that way for a long time and I think its going to continue.
2007-05-31 16:05:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Immortal Teknique 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Constitution is the law and rules of how the state is governed, it has nothing to do with people being animals or descendants of God.
People are people, society is people living amongst one another, there are rules that people follow, these rules are put into a Constitution. The Constitution just says that society and the leaders of that society have to act fair; it is probably the greatest document in world history.
2007-05-31 15:03:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Cords 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Dumbest.... argument....ever.
Evolution is fact, but it talks about processes of biological change that play out over thousands and millions of years.
That says nothing, one way or another about the existence or non-existence of any supreme being. Unless you are a biblical literalist, in which case evolution is the least of your factual worries.
Whether God exists or not, we are a type of animal. Whether He exists or not, we are a specific subset of animal known as human beings.
The Constitution was the document that laid the foundation for a distinctly secular form of government (and, yes, it is possible to have a secular government run by and for a nation of religious people), with no clauses in there that rest upon the necessity of any particular variation of a supreme being.
Your question, argument and link are specious and weak to the point of absurdity.
2007-05-31 15:04:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Mainstream scientists consider it a fact that evolution occurred; how it occurred is still considered a theory. Stephen J. Gould describes this difference best:
"In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact' -- part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is 'only' a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): 'Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science -- that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.'
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection -- to explain the mechanism of evolution."
Some nit-pickers might try to argue that nothing can ever be proven 100 percent in science, therefore there is no such thing as a fact, let alone evolution standing as a fact. H.J. Muller tackles this argument:
"The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation...
"So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."
2007-05-31 15:02:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Well, if nothing else, you're proof against evolution. Or maybe it just skipped a generation.
Anyway, human being are, technically, animals. Your argument is, thus, totally meaningless. It isn't the conclusion that's preposterous, its the whole concept. Anything else you want to say?
2007-05-31 15:09:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Ah ! the human animal.....I wonder what the next million years will bring.....(in physics) " if it cannot be proven as fact,it must then remain theory,and while categorized as such,can never be construed as an absolute truth,thus must now be classified as false by it's own nature "....the preponderance of evidence points toward evolution,however....
2007-05-31 15:01:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Evolution and creation per the Bible are not mutually exclusive. The Bible tells us what God did, evolution and other sciences tell us how he did it! I mean, did you think He did it with a bucket and spade?
2007-05-31 19:32:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Tonka2 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I care only slightly less than I care who won american Idol
2007-05-31 15:34:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋