Are humans animals? Do animals have souls?

[New HastoffMaljagan]

what happened to archueland and Baughistan? that guy was funny

[Goddess Relief Office]

what happened to archueland and Baughistan? that guy was funny

No idea but my guess is he did something illegal and got deleted?

o.o

[South Pacific Republic]

what happened to archueland and Baughistan? that guy was funny

Maybe the mods got tired of his YEC views

[Godular]

Maybe deleted his own nation in disgust at not being able to instantly convert people to Hamite Creationism?

In which case my faith in humanity is just slightly restored?

I admit that poor faith in humanity's pretty much cringing in the corner, afraid of the next kick to the head, but I think I just heard it giggle.

[Yuketobaniac]

Humans are humans, humans have souls. animals are animals they have no souls...exept cats...cats are cute

[Cetacea]

Humans are humans, humans have souls. animals are animals they have no souls...exept cats...cats are cute

Cats Aresouls

[Prezelly]

Humans are humans, humans have souls. animals are animals they have no souls...exept cats...cats are cute

Cats Aresouls

I would prefer to have a dog soul thanks

[Mavorpen]

what happened to archueland and Baughistan? that guy was funny

He got deleted for repeated threadjacking.

[Cetacea]

Well, due to the fact that we're alive, we're lifeforms, or living organisms, which means that we belong to one of two 'Empires'; 'Prokaryota' and 'Eukaryota'.

You forgot Viridae. Don't make me come over there and infect you!

As I've told you before Viruses are NOT alive and thus not Lifeforms, or living organisms - viruses are just code

[Prezelly]

You forgot Viridae. Don't make me come over there and infect you!

As I've told you before Viruses are NOT alive and thus not Lifeforms, or living organisms - viruses are just code

If viruses are not alive the what drives them to reproduce?

[Cetacea]

As I've told you before Viruses are NOT alive and thus not Lifeforms, or living organisms - viruses are just code

If viruses are not alive the what drives them to reproduce?

Thats one of the great mysteries of Life - Viruses are just RNA code in a protein shell and lack the metabolism to do the things that living things do - like replicate - unless they hijack them from the cells they infect. Of course it could be that the scientific definition of Life is wrong

but yeah I don't know, perhaps Ebola herself can tell us how she gets 'it' on -

[Shaggai]

If viruses are not alive the what drives them to reproduce?

Thats one of the great mysteries of Life - Viruses are just RNA code in a protein shell and lack the metabolism to do the things that living things do - like replicate - unless they hijack them from the cells they infect. Of course it could be that the scientific definition of Life is wrong

but yeah I don't know, perhaps Ebola herself can tell us how she gets 'it' on -

Definitions cannot be wrong. Definitions are categories. Life does require more than just self-replication. There are relatively simple self-replicating molecules other than viruses that aren't considered "alive", because they don't meet the rest of the definition.

[Prezelly]

If viruses are not alive the what drives them to reproduce?

Thats one of the great mysteries of Life - Viruses are just RNA code in a protein shell and lack the metabolism to do the things that living things do - like replicate - unless they hijack them from the cells they infect. Of course it could be that the scientific definition of Life is wrong

but yeah I don't know, perhaps Ebola herself can tell us how she gets 'it' on -

Well technically we are just DNA code with shells if you think about it that way. Viruses are just weird we can agree

[Sociobiology]

Thats one of the great mysteries of Life - Viruses are just RNA code in a protein shell and lack the metabolism to do the things that living things do - like replicate - unless they hijack them from the cells they infect. Of course it could be that the scientific definition of Life is wrong

but yeah I don't know, perhaps Ebola herself can tell us how she gets 'it' on -

Definitions cannot be wrong. Definitions are categories. Life does require more than just self-replication. There are relatively simple self-replicating molecules other than viruses that aren't considered "alive", because they don't meet the rest of the definition.

there is not just one definition for life, not even in biology because it is a gradation not a binary characteristic.
Even more well defined terms like replicator has problems.

the closest thing to a solid definition for life we have is something that ancestrally possess self or collectively replication and possesses robust heredity.
which again drops viruses in a gray area.

[Sociobiology]

Thats one of the great mysteries of Life - Viruses are just RNA code in a protein shell and lack the metabolism to do the things that living things do - like replicate - unless they hijack them from the cells they infect. Of course it could be that the scientific definition of Life is wrong

but yeah I don't know, perhaps Ebola herself can tell us how she gets 'it' on -

Well technically we are just DNA code with shells if you think about it that way. Viruses are just weird we can agree

Also there are DNA viruses.

[Imyoji]

Dualities like the soul is irrelevant. Qualia is interesting though.

[Olerand]

what happened to archueland and Baughistan? that guy was funny

Indeed he was. He will be missed.

[-Ebola-]

If viruses are not alive the what drives them to reproduce?

Thats one of the great mysteries of Life - Viruses are just RNA code in a protein shell and lack the metabolism to do the things that living things do - like replicate - unless they hijack them from the cells they infect. Of course it could be that the scientific definition of Life is wrong

but yeah I don't know, perhaps Ebola herself can tell us how she gets 'it' on -

It's all about chemistry.

[Rotovia-]

Yes to animals. No to souls.

Unless they're into jazz, then they definitely got soul.

And maybe fish... cuz they got Sole.

I laughed way too loudly at this...

[CTALNH]

Yes we are animals,no animals don't have soul and yes that extends to us too.

[Kilobugya]

Souls don't exist, neither humans nor animals have them.

"Are X Y ?" is usually a pretty silly question outside of a clear context and formalized science.. Words in common tongue aren't absolute strict categories, but fuzzy clusters. Is a toy Lego table a table ? Is a photo of a table a table ? Is a tree stump used as improvised table a table ? Is a half-broken table a table ? Even for simple things like "a table" there is no absolute answer to the question "is X a table ?" how can there be one for a more complicated context ? It all depends what purpose you're classifying for, what features you consider important within the context.

For biology, humans are animals. For law, humans aren't animals. For most daily use of the word "animal", humans aren't animals, because they are way too different in the way they behave and the role they play in our lives and societies to be bundled together.

As for consciousness, the closest thing to "souls" that really exist, most animals don't have it (remember, most animals aren't mammals or even birds, but insects and spiders), and it's being debated to which extend the "upper animals" (like apes, dolphins, elephants, ...) do have some amount of it.

[Hyfling]

Biologically yes.

There are animal cells and plant cells (and others), we have animal cells and are therefore animals. We are far more intelligent than any other critter on the planet though.

EDIT: I don't believe in souls though.

[Arab Jamahiriyahs]

My view of a soul should be a type of special particle existing inside most organisms, so yes.

[L Ron Cupboard]

what happened to archueland and Baughistan? that guy was funny

Indeed he was. He will be missed.

Seriously? I though he was tiresome.

[Benuty]

Souls don't exist, neither humans nor animals have them.

"Are X Y ?" is usually a pretty silly question outside of a clear context and formalized science.. Words in common tongue aren't absolute strict categories, but fuzzy clusters. Is a toy Lego table a table ? Is a photo of a table a table ? Is a tree stump used as improvised table a table ? Is a half-broken table a table ? Even for simple things like "a table" there is no absolute answer to the question "is X a table ?" how can there be one for a more complicated context ? It all depends what purpose you're classifying for, what features you consider important within the context.

For biology, humans are animals. For law, humans aren't animals. For most daily use of the word "animal", humans aren't animals, because they are way too different in the way they behave and the role they play in our lives and societies to be bundled together.

As for consciousness, the closest thing to "souls" that really exist, most animals don't have it (remember, most animals aren't mammals or even birds, but insects and spiders), and it's being debated to which extend the "upper animals" (like apes, dolphins, elephants, ...) do have some amount of it.

Do you have solid theological proof?
*Given Archeuland, formally a rampant creationist who unfortunately got DEAT'd I was hoping this thread would bring out a theological debate not a biology lesson.