Quote:

Yes, and exactly what would prove that? Can you prove that our social behavior isn't hardcoded in our genes? That we need devine inspiration to act clever? Come on, I can hardly take you serious when you come with arguments like these.



You can prove this one yourself. Next time a girl (who you find worthy) offers to sleep with you, don't do it. You've just acted contrary to your genes, which tell you to have sex with anything that looks good.

We don't need divine inspiration to act clever. I'm saying that we are more than our genes. There's no reason to believe that any other animal is, however.

Quote:

>Evolution makes things like rape, and doing whatever you feel like, sound ok.
>Or not as bad, what have you.

The biologists are coming! Quick, everybody inside!



Perhaps this might have made more sense if you weren't referring to someone who will soon be going to college for biology.

Quote:

back before radio-carbon dating



Because it would really be a huge loss if we didn't know the exact year that King Tut died....Radio Carbon dating has nothing to do with anything. They don't date rocks (that includes fossils) with it. So I don't see your point with this.

In fact, radio carbon dating backs up a young earth because if the earth were millions of years old the c14 in the atmosphere would have reached equilibrium.

The rest of your argument is a rant about people who opposed science, most of which included atheists, and that's somehow relevant to anything?

Quote:

Genes dont "dictate" behavior...because genes play no active role in how an organism functions on a day-to-day basis, something else must guide it.



You wouldn't be appealing to a supernatural force now, would you?

Certainly extremely complex behaviors can be encoded in an animal's genes. Take the walking fungus for example. It has no brain.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/fungus.asp

Quote:

agree that this is a contentious issue, and maybe not fully solvable. However, I think the concept of human uniqueness is species chauvinism



No, its common sense. Starfish aren't exactly like chimpanzees. Certainly, chimpanzees are unique in that non-chimpanzees are not chimpanzees. Its simple logic.

Apes aren't anywhere near as intelligent as people are. Birds themselves are more intelligent than monkeys. However, we are unique as the smartest animals on earth. I don't know why you find this idea so offensive.

Quote:

just because a chimp cant talk to us, doesnt mean they dont have some kind of self-awareness and sense of being.



Just because you want them to doesn't mean that they do, however.

Quote:

I think that many animals have emotions, and form attachments to other animals (including poeple), as most pet owners would agree.




The question is whether or not they have a consciousness of those emotions, however.

Quote:

A perfectly logical argument can be made by any idividual that he/she is the only self-aware person in existence, because there is no real way to prove otherwise.



This is yet another example of humanistic pseudo-logic that people use to feel smart about themselves.

I can logically say that I am not the only human with consciousness. We would agree that humans are humans because of their genetic code. If I have a consciousness because of my genetic code, then by extension so does every human. That's logically sound. In fact, I would have to purposely prove that there is something so different about other people that they wouldn't have a consciousness. For instance, I could prove this by showing everyone else is a robot, or what-have-you.

Otherwise, its logically unsound to say that I am the only conscious person in existence.

Quote:

"for all I know, everyone else is an android or a gollum created by an evil spirit, etc. They can insist that they aren't but they could be lying."




Okham's razor.

Quote:

To conclude: there are observable similarities between apes and humans that seem too close to be purely chance coincidences. When combined with the genetic evidence that show we share about 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, the evidence for a close and receent ancestral link is undeniable. This then naturally requires a process of biological change, which is provided by Darwin.



Quite. This is, once again, the argument that, "Animals look the same, so they must have evolved." This is an interesting hypothesis, but itself is not proof. If humans and chimps are 98% similar, why are our proteins 70% different? Why do we look more than 2% different? Why are we many many times more intelligent?

Science needs more than just interesting thoughts. We need proof.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/19/06 00:47.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."