So what if animals are "sentient" based on your definition? Can you direct that point back to why it's being discussed in the first place, or do you just want to win points?
No, Egan, I cannot. Because you said... "Some more fruitful questions the creationists might consider asking of the evolutionists are: scientifically speaking, what is the purpose of sentience and why are we the only animals possessed with it - what is its purpose in nature?"...
Because the fact is, human beings are not the only 'animals' possessed with it. You can argue with the definition if you'd like, argue even with the EU also then, whose own laws require that animals headed to slaughter be treated humanely because they are sentient. It's impossible for me to direct that point back to why it's being discussed because I have no idea why you are making such an erroneous claim. I also have no idea why you are trying to defend it since it's so obviously erroneous.
If you disagree with that and believe that there is no difference whatsoever between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, you're certainly welcome to your opinions
I never said any such thing except to assert that animals are sentient beings. I was responding to you, who said this "And lastly, are you afraid to interact with other primates and marvel at the multitude of similarities we have in common with them?"
I'm sorry. Please direct me to where you have proven anything beyond conjecture. Furthermore, what alleged text books have I used in this discussion? You said I can't prove anything without my text books. Which ones were those? You're again painting a picture of yourself akin to your Christian predessors (who made painstaking attempts to suppress knowledge and learning) when you suggest that books should not be used in an argument.
Oh, well it was you made the suggestion when you said "Moreover, how do you know this and can you verify it without the use of any written text? In the modern era, science students are told to prove a thing for themselves rather than simply trust a book (scripture)."
Mostly, Egan, the problem I have with your arguments is that they are rather self-gratifying. You argue with a double standard approach, requiring something from others that you have not yet been able to provide for yourself.
Migration is hardly new age btw. And humans are most definitely born with certain instincts. As Russ pointed out, if it were not so, babies would never suckle. To take it even further, boys would not suddenly like girls at 15, and vice versa. Children would not feel an urge to leave home as young adults without the natural instinct to do so, neither would they ever rebel against their parents. Our natural instincts are mostly related to mating and establishing the next generation, just like the animal kingdom (not forgetting the basic 'survival' instincts that all creatures share). We build houses of wood and stone rather than nests of straw but in essence it is the same thing.
Raise a child Egan and you will see human instinct in action daily.
Acussing Christians of slaughtering athiests is akin to accusing Serbians of slaughtering muslims. Though there may be some truth in it, it is a warped truth and applies more to governments than individuals and their actual beliefs. The Roman Catholic church likewise burned believing Christians at the stake and destroyed their villages for refusing to concede to it's power and roman based belief and heirarchy system. It did quite a bit of wrangling with basic first century Christian theology in order to make room for people whose beliefs differed. The interests of the RCC was/is that of being a central authority figure/power/ruler and it has used many means to try to accomplish that. The kings of Europe were crowned by the RCC and subject to it, not vice versa.
Study Luther and the protestant reformation.
