Not even close. I didn’t ask you to define the attributes of other animals. I asked you to characterize humans. You’ve still failed to give the criteria that you believe separates humans from other animals. You are correct in part of your characteristics for dolphins. Now what about humans?

Could it be any more obvious all through that episode

Let me paraphrase your answer. Humans are animals, but our conscience, laws, morals, art, architecture, etc are not what identifies us as a species. What does then? Clearly, even as animals, we are a separate species from every other animal on the planet.

The links you posted are someone else’s opinion. I asked for yours. Which other animal looks at a majestic mountain range and appreciates it’s beauty? Which other animal will go to a ballet and marvel at how fluidly the dancers move or will stop to admire the artists work in a beautiful painting? My question was, “Am I correct in assuming that you consider these things to be identifiers of us as a species?” You completely ignored that, and the answer is simply, “Yes,” or, “No.” You may choose to elaborate if you like, and I would like it if you did.

Basically, you refuse to answer the question. You just site someplace else, right? Show me the simple courtesy of an answer. You either consider these concepts to be identifiers for the homosapien species or you don’t. It’s yes or no.

First of all, you’re putting words in my mouth. The only argument I have made is not the existence of a deity or deities but simply that because. humans possess things like an appreciation for beauty, an understanding of morality, a conscience, etc… means that we are not animals. That is not an argument you accept. Am I correct in assuming that you consider these things to be identifiers of us as a species?

First of all, you’re putting words in my mouth. The only argument I have made is not the existence of a deity or deities but simply that because. humans possess things like an appreciation for beauty, an understanding of morality, a conscience, etc… means that we are not animals. That is not an argument you accept. Am I correct in assuming that you consider these things to be identifiers of us as a species?

I would like to address your argument as a former atheist. First of all, if we are animals without any deity (I’m not arguing which diety or religious book), right and wrong, uncaring, wrathful would not exist. A pet dog or cat can’t feel wrath or understand the concept of, “uncaring,” These are both examples of things that animals can’t experience but humans can. If we are animals, that’s not possible. There are tons of other examples of this. Do you have a conscience? Animals don’t. Do you have an appreciation for beauty? Animals don’t. The fact that you can judge a deity as uncaring proves that you’re not an animal. Your own logic is fallacious. The crimes of Hitler and Nero would not be bad or good. They would equal with the majesty of Victoria Falls. I’m not arguing the existence of God right now- just that there is a measure of good and bad. This measure would not exist if we were animals.

I would like to address your argument as a former atheist. First of all, if we are animals without any deity (I’m not arguing which diety or religious book), right and wrong, uncaring, wrathful would not exist. A pet dog or cat can’t feel wrath or understand the concept of, “uncaring,” These are both examples of things that animals can’t experience but humans can. If we are animals, that’s not possible. There are tons of other examples of this. Do you have a conscience? Animals don’t. Do you have an appreciation for beauty? Animals don’t. The fact that you can judge a deity as uncaring proves that you’re not an animal. Your own logic is fallacious. The crimes of Hitler and Nero would not be bad or good. They would equal with the majesty of Victoria Falls. I’m not arguing the existence of God right now- just that there is a measure of good and bad. This measure would not exist if we were animals.

it has nothing to do with the internet i would talk this way to you if i was in front of you

then dont fucking watch
we dont want you watching it anyways if thats how you are going to feel

what a joke . the story was a mess , the acting just God awful and funny for all the wrong reasons , Avoid this one at all costs , almost 3 hours of my life I’ll never get back and dont ever want to live again now anyway

I like Jessica Beil and I get she wants to be taken seriously as an actor , so why then does she insist on getting her kit off so regular?? we get it , she looks good naked and takes care of herself

REALLY BORED !!!! it seems to presume a lot of the audience . Theres to much unexplained and if it intends to explain this stuff later it needs to hurry . a lot has been spent on this and it looks great but is really confusing . Great if youve read the books but I have never heard of this let alone read the books , certainly not a stand alone watch . I can watch almost anything but I have had to switch off half way through the first episode and will come back to it maybe

Could the lead character be anymore annoying , 2nd season and still nothing has happened and all we see is her moping and whining about everything , I wish someone would just take her out , preferably with a sniper rifle