I'm sure you've told yourself you are intelligent all your life, but i can assure you this is the opposite of intelligence. And you being studied in subjects that others aren't does not counter such a fact.
Yes it does because experiments require casual time. But you aren't able to grasp such a simple fact are you?

ok, then, please elaborate on how cell phones will feed us in 10 years?

1. we use them as spoons?
2. order pizza?
3. they emit sufficient heat such as to act as a portable microwave or oven?
4. They function as a sort of 3d printer that can print food pellets from some source that is not already food?
5. something else?

some of these already exist now, others will never happen in the next 10 years. so i firmly stand by my assertion that your claim is laughable.

This is the issue:
We can do it, but over millions of years. It doesn't matter if we can do it today...knowing thats how science works shows we can't use science to show a moralistic or spiritual division between animals plants and man.

Yet the atheist scientist makes this division clearly based on belief.

I did not read your post, nor should I, nor should you treat fellow man the way you do, it is archaic, and its ridiculous to suggest you are smarter than a dog that would never ridicule a fellow being for its questions.

Why would you want to change animals and give them more human like qualitys if you dont see them as separate or lower?

This is not a relevant question to the subject, i am not suggesting they are below us on the evo scale so we must raise them. I am saying we aren't treating them the same, and so we should, unless religious prejudice.

Your question is valid but slightly of topic.

By wanting them to be more human like it seems you are saying they are bellow us. But alright.

He didn't, he just said we can "direct evolution." The newguy just mismatched statements.

How about the point someone made about killing millions of lifeforms by showering and combing your hair in the morning. Are you willing to stop that since you would not kill humans to shower and comb your hair?

insert comment about Germans and sense of humour

I'm saying because evolution is a fact, and we are capable of raising all life to not have to eat each other, or enslave each other then there is no scientific basis to do so.

Its your implication that I am suggesting we do so.

Zumby says I don't understand science because science doesn't give us moral basis.

But that is my point, without religion, you cannot suggest man should not be enslaved and eaten, without suggesting animals and plants should be treated equally.

You don't have to evolve them to see this as fact.

I don't believe that we should either cage or eat humans (usually). However, my justification for thinking this is not based on the kind of atoms which make up the human body. Rather, it is based on the fact that humans are sentient, self-aware animals. I think we should, all things being equal, refrain from causing such animals pain and suffering and increase their happiness. I also think we should, all things being equal, attempt to live in a way that allows them to live their own lives as they wish.

Since none of these considerations apply to plants (since they are not sentient, self-aware animals), I have a justification which, if correct, applies to humans but not plants.

At the core, the mistake you're making is the same mistake you've made on many other issues--you assume that the only kind of difference which can matter is a difference in the kind of stuff of which an object is made. That is, because plants and animals are made of the same kind of stuff--sub-atomic particles, etc.--you think there is no real difference between them. The human right to not be caged doesn't spring from their being made of atoms, but from their having minds.

You keep, for reasons I can't fathom*, ignoring the existence of philosophy. So your point in bold is false.

*OK, I guess it's probably because if you admit philosophy exists then you'd have to post this crap in SMP and you are banned from there.

I'm willing to admit the hypocrisy of evolution and understanding of it vs our application. If you look at it on a really large scale you can see we can deal with these things as well.

But seriously think about this, that is your logic for why we should eat/cage animals, because of smaller types. But I can't suggest that we shouldn't eat animals because we dont' believe in eating humans?

Thats hypocritical at best I think.

Not at all. Game theory suggests that we'll progress to peace (i.e. cooperative and fruitful conversation) faster if we punish those who make nonsensical remarks and are unable to follow a logical argument. Ridicule is an appropriate means of punishment.

Lets face it : Germans and The Void

But you agree that is a belief and science cannot prove or show such a thing?

Science does not tell us where the lines of sentience are right?

Furthermore evolution suggests you might be wrong, it says at the very least, we evolved to have sentience. At what point does science suggest this happened? My guess is science won't touch this.

We might understand that Jainism is not just people that have these beliefs (don't kill for self) but rather a living embodiment of this question/topic.

Here are a couple of unwarranted assumptions you are making. Zumby says that science cannot give us a moral basis for not eating or enslaving humans because morality is not based on science. You then claim on this basis that without religion we cannot give a moral basis for not eating or enslaving humans. Your unwarranted (I would say false) assumption here is that if science cannot give us a basis for morality, then religion must give us a basis for morality.

Second, you are claiming that people are being inconsistent by not treating humans equally with plants and animals on a purely scientific level. This is more obviously a false assumption. You are assuming that equality is the default, that if there is no basis on which to distinguish between humans and other animals or plants then we shouldn't treat them differently. But that is itself a moral claim (that we should treat everything the same) which cannot (per your own assumptions) be justified on scientific grounds.

Philosophy is a science and deals with these type of questions. But it cannot make moral basis and foundation without crossing lines of belief which is religion.

It can only do so given assumptions.
In other words you cannot extract moral foundations from a game.

Or differently put, there is no experiment to test for sentience. Nor can there ever be.

Game theory makes the ******ed assumption we are not all on the same team.

Drivel. Back on ignore, with the other trolls.

I can't really read this, but I'll lay money at good odds that you are wrong here and don't understand what you're talking about and attribute some view to me that I don't hold.

Science cannot do it without religion, that is not to say it can do it(logically) with religion. To be clear it cannot be shown.
I have not made an argument to do something that therefore needs justification.

I am showing there is no justification for our actions of today, you point at what batair does and I hoped I clarified to at least one of you.

You are going to lay good odds and good money that I am attributing some view to you that I don't hold (and some other x).

I asked questions and attributed nothing.
You should send me only 100 bux and just read it anyways .

Show me the sentience test.