OT: Frank and Dave's Philosophical Kebab Emporium

Dolphins have already shown self awareness, along with several species of monkeys and elephants [random]! i.e. mirror tests.

The Catholic Church doesn't specifically teach about evolution so each individual makes their own opinions. For my part I don't think there's a conflict between creationism and scientific theories of evolution. I think God created original species of all living things that change through the ages. He created a soul and put it in a human body, there's no description of that original body but science has shown us man evolving just like animals have evolved. The soul is the important thing and not the vessel. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, hence the special uniqueness of each person. Our bodies are inherited from our parents, our souls aren't.

Boule's discovery of Neanderthal man was depicted as hunched over and walking like an ape. We've all seen the pictures. Further study on the bones showed they were arthritic which would indicate the ancient man would indeed have had a hunched stance but because of a condition he had and not because he was somehow at a half way point between ape and man as we know him now. Many ancient burial chambers have shown man buried with flowers which would mean there was a degree of humanness very often overlooked as Neanderthals were thought to be animalistic. Peking ape-man and Cro Magnon are almost identical to homo sapiens. I see no conflict between accepting evolution and belief in creation.

 

Try telling that to Richard Dawkins

 

They were probably arthritic because, historically, they'd only just started standing on two legs so hadn't evolved sufficiently for their bodies to compensate at that stage.

 

No they were always homo erectus.

 

I see no reason why someone who believes in God can't accept all the evidence for evolution, and the cosmological theories for the origins of the universe, and still retain their belief that God created it all.
That's why although it might be interesting to debate, neither side can win that debate. There is no irrefutable proof for the existence or non-existence of God, we can all look at the same data and come up with different conclusions.

 

Homo Erectus and Homo Neanderthalensis were not the same.
Generally it's believed that the latter is a descendent of the former and is a close relative of our own species.

 

What's in a name? Us 'Saps' have been on two feet a ****ing sight longer than they had

 

.

 

.

 

So is there a God or have I been wasting my time in praying for the title?

 

Butterflies, wrens, what's the difference?

 

That's what I'm screaming saint.

 

please log in to view this image

This is a Wren?

 

There's a lot of assumptions built into your post. The fact that we may be able to recognise similarities between dolphins and ourselves does not mean that we are the same. After all elephants communicate, elephants use prior knowledge in their decision making, elephants teach their young (as do the majority of animals). However we are not elephants and elephants are not human. So what if she does crack their communication code, she has no way of comprehending their actual communication. I therefore see no problem in either her research or in the results that she is able to present.

Now I am not going to even try and second guess God by speculating how and why he chose the paths that he did to arrive at our present situation. It is written that His ways are not our ways. I have no problems with us sharing large quantities of DNA with other species - the end result is that we are different. That is why I have no problem with Dolphins being clever and social as they will never be humans and we will never be dolphins. Whilst they are not a threat to us, we may well be a threat to them. So what are you and the language lady exactly trying to prove? As far as I can see that there are other areas than DNA in which we may share likenesses? If so then fine. As I say there is no problem with that.

So I'll put the same question back to you. If dolphins are sentient to the same degree as humans why have they not bothered themselves with all this scientific experimentation and would that change your opinion on the value of a science based existence?

 

Of course there were assumptions, I made that clear in my post lol.

So you would insist she's not merely translating but transferring human sensibilities onto the dolphins?if her translations end up interactive conversation including abstract ideas of life and death other than feed me, scared, run away etc would this not challenge our "uniqueness" and prove it wasn't transferrence like we do with our pet dogs. Apparently she's only a few years away from it if she's not a con. Wouldn't it be even more intriguing if conversation happened and the Dolphins expressed concepts of afterlife and God....that would throw the cat among the pigeons! Lol.

Regarding the practice of science they may not have needed great strives in science much like aboriginal human tribes who left alone had a balanced relationship with the world around them. In fact their lives fall into science models better than ours: they have survived where other species have not by adapting only enough to remain in balance with the world around them not more than the system itself could tolerate.

It was ideas from certain sections of humanity believing that they were more important than the rest of the planet and that the planet was given to them to use as they wish that imbalances in the system occurred. We disrupted it. Ironically you could argue it was a combination of religious ideas of superiority combined with our strives in science that allowed us to avoid the corrective order of nature. Personally I think we can only side step so much and that our destruction of the natural order will out pace our ability to avoid the consequences...I.e. nature plays the waiting game well too.

On JB's point though and anyone jump in if I'm wrong. But isn't it in Christian ideas that only humans have souls and therefore the afterlife?

If that's the case, how would that reconcile with an evolutionary concept even if driven by intelligent design? At what point from the single cell life form to homo sapiens did God infuse the spirit? And if it was always there from the start then what's to stop us saying it's present in other animals (like dolphins) that have not reached or due to their environments do not need to reach the ability we have, to overcome environmental conditions we can not naturally survive in?

Now obviously I know the answers will depend on what part of the Christian umbrella you are under.

 

The soul is the principle of life. Since animals and plants are living things, they have souls, - consider the word anima and animal - but not in the sense in which human beings have souls. Our souls are rational, theirs aren't and ours are rational because they're spiritual, not material. Also connected to the soul is 'moral'. Animals have no morals, they cannot be immoral hence their souls aren't as ours.

Animals and plants can't do anything which transcends the limitations of matter. Although some animals seem clever, they don't actually possess conceptional intelligence. They can't, for instance, conceive of the abstract notion of justice.

Whether or not you can talk about dogs or dolphins having language, or making "choices", it seems obvious to me that one cannot intelligibly talk about them having "responsibility", which is what it is to have a soul.

I suppose the point at which 'the spirit is infused' in humans is conception - I must admit I've never thought about it.

 

We are all going to be reincarnated anyway.

 

If you live the good life, Bluff, you will be reincarnated as British.










Behave badly and it'll be as a manc.

 

An interesting concept I came across a while back is that memory can be inherited, You know like when someone knows details of a place they've never been to, it was suggested that a predecessor of theirs could have been there and now they've inherited the memory. Spooky!

 

Or an old fat, grumpy, wart covered, man.