thenumberone : Those who do have drivers licenses can pass it and easily get drunk and kill people on the road. They can get road rage and kill people as well. Mental exams cannot filter out peoples problems in life nor can they censor ones temper and the same thing goes for guns.

You can easily go to any gas station or super market and create homemade bombs and you don't need an id to do it. So banning guns means you are begging for explosives and that is where it gets real ugly.

Just like with liquor, anyone can bypass id laws and mental exams to get hands on liquor and weapons. I think that those who think they are sane underestimate how smart the insane ones can be and for that you will lose the war.

Sane people usually ask the questions "how could they do this, why did they do this" after a tragedy. You would have to be stupid not to know what drives someone to the edge. There is a killer in all of us and when pushed killing is as easy as breathing just like John Rambo said.

Sword legion : I LOVE this post, really.  Very well put.  A gun can be used for good just as much as it can be used for bad.  Consider this:

Would bank robberies be so common if gun laws were not so insane?  I mean, they'd have to be pretty stupid to walk into a bank and pull out a gun.....  If citizens had them, a bank robber would just get 50 guns pulled out right back at him.

Sword legion :
"A gun is a tool"
That is the wrong attitude. A gtun is a weapon, designed to kill. To that exten, it should be treated with respect (as in, don't underestimate the danger of it).
"You can do good things, and bad things with it."
I cant speak for you, But i was brought up to believe murder is wrong. And i think its strange how many people who preach peace and non violence seem to condone furthering bloodshed.
I dont know how killing someone can be described as a good thing. If its a life or death struggle I can see it as a necessary thing, but a good thing? Its a very cold outlook.

"psychologically damaged."
And iv heard stories of people who become complete vegetables. I think that people dont really get what it would be like, to live with the memory of killing an innocent or having witnessed the massacre of those close to you. The amount of soldiers, people trained to deal with this kind of thing, who come back with PTSD is insane. I dont think kids would handle it half as well, or teachers.

I dont get how people can say its wrong to bring evolution, or sex education into the classrooms, things that teach you and prepare you for life, yet want to bring in weapons to a classroom. If as a society, it is found necessary that children cant even be educated without an armed guard in every class, its time to question where you've gone wrong as a society. Thats like living in a constant state of war. And that could seriously effect the mindset of the children. Learning environments are meant to feel safe and secure. To me, the necessity of a gun undermines that image to me.

Again, the drug argument. if the government didnt restrict that, how much worse would it be? If they were legal, would you state, sure its bad, but banning them/regulating them wont completely fix the problem, lets not bother? So unless it 100% fixes the problem, its not worth the effort? If these checks and regulations were enforced, and it prevented even 1 massacre a year, that wouldnt be worthwhile? Are you not willing to wait 2 weeks for checks before gaining your gun, to allow people to live out there full life? is it such a major inconvenience? They arent major changes.

But the effect could be.



JigSaw :
There is a small difference, cars are designed, and used, for commercial or transmuting purposes. Its objective is to get from A to B.

Guns are needed only to kill, either animals or people.

The death rate with bombs is really not that high, and lets face it, most people are too thick to work it out. The majority of bomb attacks result in mostly injuries, nor are they rapid fire, and immediate. On top of that, regulations couldnt really effect that, you can make bombs out of fertilizer or toasters.

Because some people are able to bypass the filters, it dosent mean they should be removed, they stop a good chunk.

Most people have things that restrain them from killing, those that dont are generally
1. not right in the head
2. Bad upbringing
3. Abused by society

If people were less self absorbed, those points could be addressed.

I have to say, im often surprised at how many americans are so nationalistic, yet dont actually want to help each other, if thats the case then your pride is pretty pointless, because it means nothing.
Its one of the annoying things about christmas, the season to be nice and caring to everyone.
Youre a pretty false individual of youre not willing to act that way year round.

Yes, im pretty much blaming society for crime, not just America.

thenumberone : It's not that two weeks is a long time, but the government tends to get backed up with work and then it can take months. And as jigsaw pointed out why do all of that if it doesn't help?

A gun is a tool, you want an example?

You can use a gun to feed a family. to defend a family from wild animals. and too shoot a murderer before he shoots you.

Even bombs are tools that can be used for good or evil.

No? ever heard of mining? Miners use explosives to greatly speed up the procces of removing ore from the earth.


You talk about getting children ready for real life, isn't violence part of real life?
Parents (not the school) need to teach their children about sex.
And you want evolution to be taught in the schools? Evolution teaches:

1 there is no God

2 since there is no God, you decide what is right and what is wrong

3 there is no hell, so don't worry about going there

4 there is no meaning in life, so you may as well have fun, if it feels good, do it!


About guns in the classroom:

I already told you,it's better if a child gets caught in the crossfire and then for the murderer get shot then to have everyone in the classroom die
Are you saying that it's better if they all die and the murderer keeps killing more people when he is through with everyone in that room?


Answer this question, then I will answer your question about psychological damage.
Make your decision! choose one of the following:

1 Murderer kills everyone in the classroom.

2 Teacher accidentally shoots one child, then she shoots the murderer.


I don't understand why it's so complicated. it's as if you prefer option one all along, and that just. . .
defies common sense!

Plus, is it really all that likely that a child would get shot in the crossfire? It's not all that likely.

Why would anyone feel unsafe in an environment where someone you know and can trust has a gun. Are you suggesting that the teacher might suddenly turn evil and shoot her students?

bombchu link : I respect everyone’s opinion on this but I believe there should be no guns although I do understand why those who serve on the police and other agencies need them. There is too much violence in the world and I believe giving everyone guns under some kind of mandate would only increase violence. Some I am close to have said the same things that you have and have told me that they feel although in their words violence would increase initially, that violence would gradually decrease over time. In my opinion the best way to end something like this is to outlaw the distribution of guns to the general public. I am realistic in knowing that you’re not going to totally eliminate the making of guns all together but I do believe that cutting distribution and increasing crack downs on illegal distribution will gradually decrease violence.

I realize and will admit that I am a sentimental person but I just feel that something like that would be a better approach then merely giving everyone guns. It isn’t worth seeing more tragedy to eventually see a decrease in violence. Least that’s how I feel about it.

It is also not as simple as an open, shut issue. No matter what those who are in positions of power and have the ability to make decisions do, there will always be people who will not like things and will want to see things change. Sometimes there is no solid answer to something like this but I do believe if you outlaw distribution and take necessary steps to crack down on illegal distribution things might change.

Singelli : Thanks for the compliment! I wanted to say thanks earlier but I had to get off the computer.


thenumberone : If you answer my above question then I will answer your question about psychological damage.

You know the government can't solve everything, what people teach their children affects the next generation.
Parents need to do a better job. I'm not saying that all parents are not doing their job, but some need to step it up.
The most influential people in the world are parents, they bring up, teach, and instill the values of children.
They are the ones who influence the next generation.

Drugs being legal may not be as bad as you think. Look, cigarettes are legal, but not everyone smokes. In fact, A lot of people
know of the terrible consequences of smoking, that's why they choose not to do it. 40 years ago, smoking was much more popular
but society turned against it, because of all of the harmful effects of smoking. If drugs became legal, would you use them? I sure 
wouldn't! It might be popular for a while, but then society would turn against it. Just like smoking. Then people would want little to do 
with it. If you did drugs, people would shun you. And you can't really hide it if you were using them, people can see the symptoms.

I'm not saying that drugs should be legal. Guns should be legal but not drugs because you don't use drugs to defend
yourself from people using drugs. 

The whole gun control movement is just the government finding a way to get more control. There are politicians at work 
trying to take away your freedom. to apply gun control is unconstitutional. Do realize that to say that citizens should not have guns
is to take away their only defence against criminals who obtained their guns illegally? No gun control law can keep guns out of the
wrong hands, so citizens must have guns to defend themselves against those who use them for evil.

Why do you think that the government can solve these issues? It has proven that it can't. It can't keep illegal drugs out of peoples hands

Now, how do you keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? Well, if you have firearms in your house alongside a mentally ill child,
keep the guns locked in a gun cabinant. Also firearms sales people should not sell guns to people who are mentally retarded, have autism
etc. . .

But that's just common sense, you might make a law that says no one may sell firearms to anyone else with mental disorder.
but I've never heard of someone with mental disorder trying to buy a gun.

So, I related this conversation to a group of my coworkers. My conservative, ex-military, gun-owning, deer hunting coworkers.

All of them agreed with my last post 100%. Furthermore they added that the statement that it's okay if the teacher kills a child so long as the shooter gets shot is the most disgusting thing that they have ever heard. They also add that saying a gun is a tool is foolish. It is a weapon, made solely to kill, and to even try to state anything otherwise is to disrespect the power of the weapon. And saying "psychological damage can be healed" is just asinine. Go take a walk through the psych ward at a VA Hospital and then reevaluate that statement.

These are people that are very pro gun... and they think your statements are naive.

You keep bringing up the government and how it can't solve everything... yet you advocate more government involvement by wanting to arm teachers. So which is it? Less government or more?

And for the love of all things holy, if I hear one more person say that "the government is trying to take all guns away" I am going to punch something. No one has said this except for the people on Fox who like to make up stuff to whip the ignorant and gullible into a frenzy. The only things that have been mentioned are banning the things I mentioned already... something that 90% of Americans agree with, including the pro-gun crowd.

Never heard of a person with a mental disorder trying to buy a gun... really? Did you even bother to do research before you made that statement? Aurora? Fort Hood? Virginia Tech? They bought those guns themselves.

     bvd1022: Now THAT is a very respectable man. says his opinion with reasoning, respect others opinion, I like it.  
 
Now I personally think that criminals target schools because they don't have guns inside (or very few) give the schools guns you make the criminals go else where..
 
     Elara: I see that you are just trying to push you opinion down our throats instead of debating. and saying the same thing twice doesn't prove your point any further.
 
Why is it so disgusting that if a Teacher saves 30 lives and loses one in cross fire? Why it seem that you are the heartless one because you are saying. "Why should we shoot one child and the criminal, when the criminal can just shoot us all!" That just defy's logic. period. 
  
 -EDIT-
 
fail summon, anyone mind summoning them for me, thanks.

bvd1022 :
Elara :

bombchu tried to summon both of you.

bombchu link :

In response to your to reply to Elara, you've created a false dichotomy. Unlike the points made against it so far, I'd be most worried about the safety of children when there are no intruders at all. What's to guarantee that some teacher won't leave the gun lying around somewhere or accidentally set it off? What guarantees that one of these teachers won't be the next to have a mass shooting? Locking a bunch of children in a room with one person that has a gun that I'm supposed to trust is not my idea of safety.

bombchu link : First I appreciate that thank you. Now in regard to what you said about criminals targeting schools. I have been thinking about what the NRA has recommended that there should be armed guards at every school in the United States. I’m not so sure about that but I did go to a school during my Jr. High years which was kind of like a prison to a degree. There were bars on the windows and there were a lot of administrators and security around at all times. I remember during lunch they would let us go outside if we wanted providing the weather wasn’t too bad and there were security around at all times. This was in the mid 90’s so this was long before any of the notable school shootings that have taken place in the last decade and a half.

I use to joke with people that going to the school was like going to prison for six or seven hours a day and such. Admittedly I was an immature, stupid and in some ways inauthentic kid during that period of my life. In hindsight seeing as this school was in New York, with the crime rate at the time and such and seeing what has happened in the years since with these other schools, I do not blame the school one bit for having those kinds of precautions in place and making sure the students were safe and that the school was safe.

In regard to what the NRA has stated as I said I’m not sure about that but I do agree that something needs to be done to ensure that tragedies like what has happened don’t happen or at least the likelihood of something happening is greatly decreased. I do know where I live that if there is a situation where someone has fled from police or something along those lines or, if there was a robbery or god forbid something worse and it took place in the general area of a school during school hours that the schools go on immediate lockdown and it has been that way for several years. I believe there are schools that are mindful of things like that and are always ready to take the necessary precautions when needed.

I do believe though that in the case of what happened in Connecticut last week that it was an unlikely scenario and one that wasn’t thought of when plans are made should something happen. I also believe that there is more to it then we will probably ever know nor should we know about the kid responsible for what happened. I think at the end of the day it is something that should be looked at as a tragedy but also something that can be used to prevent further things from happening. This also means that maybe that includes not listening to the media who may be well intentioned but at the same time are conflicted because of their desire for things like profits and ratings. At least that’s the way I feel about it.

A good movie to watch in regard to what we’re talking about and particularly the media’s role in things like this is Mad City. It really is a good movie and well worth watching.

soxfan849 : I got the notice... Perhaps it has to do with the HTML editor and such. If you use the regular editor to put your text in, there shouldn't be a problem with summoning anyone. Thanks for letting us know.

Elara :
Im glad to see that even those who approve of guns are taking the issue seriously and rationaly, it helps restore some faith in humanity.

Sword legion :
Parents are the most important in upbringing, yes, but the fact society plays a part is unquestionable. Society must lead by example.
The government has base responsibilitys, safeguarding your life is one. Just because they dont always succeed that isnt grounds to stop trying.
I am seeing a theme in your arguments, if you fail give up. Even one less murder a year is a success story, if I had to pay a few extra dollars a year, or incur a few inconveniances, I flatter myself that im enough of a humanitarian to make that sacrifice.
If ciggaretes werent legal, less people would smoke. Legality eases obtainment, from there peer pressure and corporate bribes sink there teeth in.
If heroin was legal, the us would probably have a pandemic on its hands.
And if your government stopped trying to combat drugs you'd see it get much worse.

The constitution gives you the right to bear arms. Unless im mistaken it dosent forbid the usa to regulate them though.

The government needs to have a seperate body for gun regulation if it dosent already, i think given you would be charged for the admin cost the work could be done in 2 weeks.

A device purely for killing isnt a tool, that is a weapon. I dont mean for this to sound rude but I dont think you should own a gun. You dont seem to take it seriously. And that is where the danger lies. People with guns shouldnt have such a cavalier attitude to them.

Explosives can be tools, they arent purely for killing. And they are more strictly controlled too.

So you dont want sex education or evolution, taught in schools.
But you want guns brought in...
Words fail me.
Incidently, you clearly dont know how evolution is taught, because those points have nothing to do with evolution.

Violence may be real but teaching it only concedes to it. It dosent solve the problems, it agrovates them.

Both your choice 1 and 2 are unaceptable, and the result of your failure as a society.
Cant remember the exact quote, something like-
A boy will face the consequences of his actions, a man will admit his mistakes.

Point being, if you as a society dont admit these mistakes, those kids died for absolutely nothing, and the next time it happens, the blood is on societys hands. Lessons need to be learned.
Even most of the parents want restrictions and opose arming teachers.

Teachers are intelectuals, not soldiers.
And yes, teachers have gone psycho at there pupils before, put a gun in there hands when that happens, chaos.

thenumberone : To fend for sword legion, Evolution teaches that you are a animal with a very complex brain. Do whatever feels good to you, there is no law, or order in the teaching. like this  
 
    Evolution teaches that you are made from rocks and can do anything you want. (yes it's true we came from an organic soup that came from raining on the rock for millions of years) The only problem is that there are the dumb 'Christians' that get in the way from letting us have sex with whoever and marrying others of the same gender. Good thing that's not a problem any more, we had to put up with it for over 1,000 years Now things will be back to normal like Sodom and Gamorra. We will still not be able to kill others, but that's ok. as long as we can fulfill all our desires. . .  
 
 soxfan849: I don't know what to say, let me get back to you with a better response then something off the top of my head.  
 
 bvd1022: your welcome 
  
You posted:
 
   believe there are schools that are mindful of things like that and are always ready to take the necessary precautions when needed.  
 
 That is golden.
   
 
    EDIT fail summoned again, anyone mind summoning them?
 
 

bombchu link :
Sword legion :

You two seem to be confused about the definition of evolution, so let's just make this clear for everyone.


Evolution is defined as "the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations," or, simply put, the way life changes over time.

Evolution is demonstrably true since we can and have observed these changes, and it happens regardless of whether or not life arose from "rocks" or God. In fact, evolution does not even specify which one it prefers. The origin of life through inorganic means is strictly in the realm of abiogenesis, and this is a topic which isn't required to be taught in schools.

Since evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it certainly doesn't deal with whether or not God exists either; even abiogenesis doesn't really deal with it since it doesn't specify where the aforementioned inorganic matter came from.

Finally, it's an extreme leap of logic to say that evolution teaches that morals don't exist and that people can do whatever they want. That's like claiming that the theory of gravity teaches that you're not allowed to jump because that "defies" gravity. It's simply ridiculous, and it's not true.


Evolution is no more atheistic or hedonistic than any branch of science, and, statistically speaking, about half of all Christians openly believe in evolution. I fail to see what this has to do with having guns in the classroom, but hopefully this ends the confusion on the matter.

thank you
Q :
For being the voice of reason.
bombchu link :
I cant tell if you're being serious or sarcastic, the grammar is somewhat off.
Il just state, evolution dosent tell you how to live life, and not telling people they cant marry or have sex with whatever gender, is not a bad thing.
I cant see the justification in persecuting minoritys, refusing to teach a proven theory (evolution) yet teaching about killing and violence. School is for academic study, not militia training.

thenumberone : A gun may be a weapon used to kill, but it is still a tool.

I choose to call it a tool because the term expresses the fact that the gun is not good or evil, it depends on how it is used.
You seem to fear guns very much, I can tell from how you insisted on the possibility of a teacher accidentally shooting a
child while trying to shoot the murderer, even though it is very unlikely. You would have society have as little to do with
guns as possible, allowing only the police force and military to use them. If you teach children that guns are evil and should be feared,
than you have totally missed how they have been used to defend people from wild animals, used to hunt animals for meat, and 
even used in target shooting sports for fun. If you fear guns and withdraw from them as much as possible, then they will be used
against you. 

In the UK, guns are almost illegal, but people still use them for murder. 344 deaths were caused by weapons other than knives
Jan 1st through Dec 31st 2011 in the UK.

You don't have to teach violence just because you hold a gun, otherwise the police force would be doing that.

Words may have failed you when you were shocked that I didn't want evolution and sex education taught in schools.
But it seems that words might have failed me since you would rather have everyone in the classroom dead rather than the murderer
shoot by a teacher (without accidentally shooting a child).

No? that is what would happen if guns were illegal. The shooter would just get a firearm off of the black market.



I believe citizens should have guns to use them for the following reasons.

1 To shoot criminals/nutcases before they shoot innocents.

2 To shoot animals for meat, skins, and other animal products.

3 To rebel against an evil government. (That is why we should be able to purchase automatic weapons).


Anti gun advocates say that more lives can be saved if they can keep guns out of citizens hands.
But that's really all that you can do, keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands.
Allowing citizens to have firearms is much more fail safe. If a criminal gets a gun and there are no
citizens with there own guns, then the only hope is the police force, which takes much longer to respond
than a good citizen with a gun. That's why allowing citizens to have firearms is much more fail safe. 
Citizens can respond much faster than the police force. Why depend on the government for your safety
when you take it into your own hands? I'm not saying to get rid of the police force, policemen should be 
honored for the work that they do, they see the worst side of people, almost every day.


One leader of a European country said that we could track the murderers by the serial numbers on their
firearms. So he had all of the people register their firearms at the police stations. After everyone had registered 
their firearms, the police said that it would be best if everyone turned in their guns. So, everyone had to turn in
their firearms. If anyone didn't do it, the police knew who had the the guns and could arrest them.
So, everyone just turned them in. Later, the ruler of the country took all of the Jews, loaded them up, and sent
them off to the prison camps to die.

That is correct, the ruler was Hitler, the chancellor of Nazi Germany

And that is how he got the Jews without a fight.

Would you have supported a rebellion against Hitler if it had happened? What about our own revolution?
Would you have supported it when it was happening? Or would have been wanting firearms to be illegal?

A government has a harder time forcing it's will on people who can fight back.

I understand that you are ok with guns in America, but you think  that they should be illegal everywhere else.
If I am correct, the only reason that you think that the government should not confiscate all of the guns is 
because it would take way to long and be way to hard.

Earlier, I presented two bad situations for you to choose between.
When given two bad situations, you should the one that is less evil.

Which would you rather have?

1 Everyone gets shot with a gun that the terrorist/nutcase bought off of
   the black market because firearms are illegal.

2 Teacher uses a gun that she purchased and shoots the murderer before he can kill everyone.

Elara: I didn't say that it was good if a child accidentally got shot . It is very unlikely that a child would get shot.


You seem to think it's better if everyone got shot in the room rather than the teacher having a gun because
of all of the things that could go wrong however unlikely they may be.

Well, it looks like you don't have to worry about psychological damage any more,
just 27 dead children and a dead teacher.

I have presented facts and logical reasoning to support my argument. You've used fallacies. At least you are trying harder in your conversation with thenumberone. Debate works by presenting a valid, logical argument and then listing to and acknowledging the other person's argument and evaluating it.

And you seem to be completely missing the point of my statement. I am saying that the death of a child, any child, is not a cost that any logical caring person would ever, under any circumstance, deem an acceptable loss. I have never said that I would prefer they all get shot... that is, once again, the use of a logical fallacy. I'm saying that there are better options that protect those children without giving teachers guns, because that is not a logical response... it is very illogical and can make the situation worse.

But since you cannot construct a valid argument, as seen by your insistence on using fallacies whenever you are presented with a differing point of view, I think we are done here. Go look up fallacies and educate yourself. When you can make an argument without using one of those, then maybe we can continue our discussion.

thenumberone : Proven theory? If it is proven can you answer these questions please.
 
(1 What made the big bang explode? 
  
(2 How could it come from nothing? 
 
(3 How many times have you seen something come from nothing? 
 
(4 How many times has anyone seen something come from nothing? 
 
(5 How could Dino flesh survive for 1,000,000 years  (or longer)    "Dinosaur Mummy" Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue

(6 The Moon is currently getting farther and farther away from us at a rate of 1.48 inch (according to this article BBC News - Why the Moon is getting further away from Earth) . If you re-wind time the moon will get closer. How far back into time can you get before the Moon crashes into the earth? 
 
 https://www.vizzed.com/boards/../smd/photo_album_pics/fullsize/175395-1356451297.png 
 
 (7 Does Evolution say that Man is God (we are in fact the most advanced animal on the face of this earth)

bombchu link : You might want to read Q's post a few posts above. It'll help answer those questions for you yourself.

Also, I'll have to agree: The life of a child should NEVER be lost in a situation where the teacher, or anyone else, is trying to shoot the gunman, whether to immobilize or to kill. to say otherwise is honestly disgusting, and shows that the person is really no better than the gunman themselves.

Though, personally, like I've said before, I wouldn't even want the Gunman dead. I'd want him sent to prison, where he would indeed be tortured for what he did. Even some prisoners have children that they want to live a safe life, and if the gunman ends up giving info to the wrong guy of why he's there, assuming there's no way to receive news in prison, the gunman will be experiencing unimaginable suffering from those with kids. Killing them on the spot just gives them an easy escape, Nya~.

bombchu link : None of these questions have anything to do with evolution (or firearms, for that matter), but I'll answer them anyway.

1) We don't know. As far as we can tell, the universe was a very different place during its early stages, and the laws of physics as we know them did not apply. If you want to believe that God created the Big Bang, that's fine, but, as far as science is concerned, we just don't know what caused it. That, however, does not make the Big Bang theory invalid. For example, we're still not entirely sure what causes gravity to happen, but the theory of gravity is still perfectly valid.

2) This question presumes that science claims that the Big Bang came from nothing, which isn't really true. We can't discount the possibility (see the next question), but, like I said before, we just don't know where it came from. Any claim to the origin of the universe is a hypothesis at best.

3 & 4) Incidentally, vacuums (i.e. nothing) have been observed to decay into particles (i.e. something) under the right circumstances. This is explained through quantum mechanics, and I'm afraid it's too complex to go into here. If you'd like to read about it, though, this is a good place to start. Regardless, this phenomenon does open the possibility of the entire universe coming from nothing, but, like I said, it's only a hypothesis at this point.

5) Under the right conditions (basically anything that prevents the growth of bacteria and whatnot, which is what causes flesh to decay), flesh can be preserved indefinitely. This rarely occurs in nature, and, when it does, it usually doesn't last that long either. So, it is very impressive and pretty unlikely that a dinosaur would be preserved this way, but it certainly isn't impossible, and given how many dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years, it was bound to happen to at least one. If you'd like more details, try reading the article you linked to.

6) About 4.527 billion years ago. We're not entirely sure where the moon came from either, but science has a leading hypothesis for this one. Simply put, back then, something roughly the size of Mars collided with Earth and knocked off a chunk that became the moon. So, yes, if you do look at it backwards, it is as if the moon crashes into the earth as you go back in time. Once again, if you'd like more details, try reading the article you linked to.

7) No. The "most advanced animal" is entirely a matter of opinion. We certainly have the most brainpower out of all the species, but we aren't as far ahead as you might think we are (ants in particular have a pretty shocking collective intelligence), and all other life forms are more "advanced" than humans in some respect. For example, we can't fly, we can't grow back lost limbs, we have a terrible sense of smell and virtually no sense of direction, we're not very strong, and we're not very fast, yet you'll find all sorts of animals that are much better than us at these things. Humanity is hardly "God" no matter what definition you use, and evolution certainly doesn't make any theological claims about us. (Kindly see my previous post on the matter.)