whats the deal with dinosaurs?... i know!

if you assume god exists, and you assume that humans are here to have their morality tested for use in our afterlife, which i do, then where do dinosaurs fit with that?

if you think humans are the ultimate culmination of earthly evolution, then dinosaurs dont fit at all. my theory is that they were a culmination in evolution comparable to our own, just simpler.

where humans have to fit into and shape their neighbors in society, dinosaurs fit into their family, and maybe a small group. god wanted them to treat their neighbors like themselves, and the task was much simpler then. youd still have guys who would bite and snarl while crowded around the corpse more than they had to, and that was a sin.

then at some point, the plan changed to allow for a more organized sentient ruler of the earth. the sun used its magnetic field to whip an asteroid into the earth which allowed the rise of mammals with their superior brain structure. soon, our nuclear weapons will detroy mammals and allow for superior insects to take over.

the main basis of my theory here is the assumption that bugs are the next animals that will take over as sentient rulers of the earth. when you draw a line through the three different rulers, there are a couple of evolutionary patterns that emerge.

first is the pattern of the interaction between animal and environment. this is where the whole idea came from. i was wondering how the hell are the dinosaurs so huge and cool looking. if they had some kind of unusually large predilection towards killing their runt children and helping the big one with a cool new spike, that might explain it. this is the effect that the dinosaur had on its environment, it could change the shape of itself by using itself.

the effect that humans have is that we change the shape of our environment using the environment. we use a tree to make spears, we dont wait until we have a baby with a spear arm.

the effect that bugs have is they create their own environment using their bodies. imagine you and your friends shit and puked an entire gigantic mile high city. thats what termites do.

the other pattern is of increasing communal existence. dinosaurs are mainly independent, coming together at most in small bands or herds. humans are clearly more communal, and bugs even more.

so is there something about the earth that made dinosaurs the logical, sole possibility at the time? does the church say anything besides the bones were put there to fool us?

heres the coolest question: assume that what i am saying is true, what would it be like to be an insect? if a worker experiences individual reality the same way we do, then that is a life barely worth living, empty of thought.

if insects can experience life through the eyes of many, instead of one…wwhooaa dude. is there any reason to think that this is possible? what triggers an insect to leave a chemical trail if all he knows how to do is follow a chemical trail? what if the queen controls them like fingers? is there any reason to believe that?

even more mind blowingly, what would it be like to live a less communal life than we do now, as the dinosaurs would according to me.

im not a christian, however i can tell you the general oppinion of the church on the matter of dinosaurs.

i watch an evangelical scientist in a documentary explaining the science of what he believes he reads in the bible. regardless of christianity and what the bible says, its a pretty good theorum.

no1; the bible talks in genesis about god creating the waters above and the waters below. the scientist suggested a layer of water surrounding the earth, this was the waters above. and the oceans and seas were the waters below. with the atmosphere inbetween. now, for some reason (cant remember) this would have lead to a high concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere. reptiles dont stop growing and it is a well known fact that more oxygen = more growth. this is why athletes are put into oxygen chambers - so they heal quicker. so with the high oxygen content the reptiles grew huge!
it wasnt just the reptiles however that grew big. humans, birds, mammals, insects all grew really very big in those days - fossil records!!

there have been fossils of human footprints next to dinosaur prints, that suggest humans of 15 foot tall!

then it goes that the waters above collapsed in and caused the great flood. the problems with the above is that it is known that large amounts of oxygen are harmfull and cancerous. but theres nothing to say we havent adapted in the several thousand years since then. (the scientist also suggested the earth was only 6000 years old, which might well be possible as far i as i know).

the other church oppinon (now this says a lot believe me!); is that the dinosaurs were put there as a bit of a joke, gods sence of humour. now thats just bloody rediculous, but the first idea seems credible.

im not sure that answers any of what you were asking but i hope it helps a bit. paul

rude snicker

what the!! i am under the impression that the only humans around at the time of the dinosaurs looked like mice. homo sapiens is like 40,000 yrs old? and austrolopithecenes or whatever the approximate missing link is is like 2 million yrs old? i know dinos were gone 65 million yrs ago.

like clouds or some kind of super clouds that are denser or permanently overcast?

it is theorized that the big flood is actually the black sea like 10,000 or less yrs ago. some straights leading into the meditereanean overflowed one day when the world wide water level was rising due to the end of the ice age. the black sea was a regular maybe big lake, then it became a sea in a matter of weeks.

either the earth is way older than that, or everything we know about radioactive decay is wrong, or is intentionally misleading thanks to god the joker.

rude snicker

what the!! i am under the impression that the only humans around at the time of the dinosaurs looked like mice. homo sapiens is like 40,000 yrs old? and austrolopithecenes or whatever the approximate missing link is is like 2 million yrs old? i know dinos were gone 65 million yrs ago.

like clouds or some kind of super clouds that are denser or permanently overcast?

it is theorized that the big flood is actually the black sea like 10,000 or less yrs ago. some straights leading into the meditereanean overflowed one day when the world wide water level was rising due to the end of the ice age. the black sea was a regular maybe big lake, then it became a sea in a matter of weeks.

either the earth is way older than that, or everything we know about radioactive decay is wrong, or is intentionally misleading thanks to god the joker.

lol, ok fair enough, seems to me that this guy has got some things wrong. but he showed evidence of the footprints thing. but said that it was censored. maybe maybe not. oh well.

I’ll try to dispute the evanglical scientist as best I can.

The layer of water is an old old idea from aristotelian days. There is no way that a sphere of water could exist as a layer in our atmosphere because of gravity. It would rain down instantly. It might be a thick layer of clouds, but that has it’s own difficulties, particularly because it would nto have allowed photosynthesizing plants to evolve.

Byt the way, the evolution is not really debatable at this point. The shape of the tree and the location of it’s branches are not exact yet, but we know that the tree exists.

Anyway, a high concentration of oxygen is hardly enough to make animals grow to sauropod size. The real limitation for animal growth is food, not air. An explosion of large land plants would allow herbivorous dinosaurs to evolve very large; a richer atmosphere would just make them frisky.

The fossil record shows that birds evolved after dinosaurs, but the beggings of birds were small feathered predators in the cretaceous. Similarly, human footprints and dinosaur footprints are 65 million years apart in the fossil record.

your theory is all fine and dandy because its a theory, but theres a couple things wroung with it. 1) since you belive in god, i say this around noahs time it said that great and terrible beasts roamed the earth. could it be that these beasts were dinosaurs? and that they were left because they would have eaten noah? 2) Whats stopping the insects from evolving? really there are so many of them that they should have evolved and eaten us. they would have to become larger than they are now and thats not going to happen as they are only the size of a rat at most.

They’ve specialized to their particular niches so efficiently that they have not had to adapt in any fashion for millions of years. Perhaps, facing a species with the intelligence and the will to kill everything that we see, insects will begin to change once more… but even if they do, it will still be a hell of a long time before they change enough for us to notice.

what are the natural enemies of insects? why dont they dominate the entire surface of the world today? perhaps if all anteaters and honey loving pooh bears were nuked, colonies would grow much larger than they do today.

why dont flowers dominate the surface of the earth? bees i think would be the most likely heirs to our throne. the borg efficiency of the ants with the ability to fly for miles. they would of course need flowers, but they help the spread of flowers. their relationship is symbiotic; they dont pollute the crap out of their resources like we parasites do, they help them grow and reproduce.

so what stops flowers from providing bees with infinite food? i would think that any plant that lives near bees that made an evolutionary step towards producing pollinating flowers would be naturally selected faster than any other kind ofevolutionary change.

i mean say your kid is born with the ability to reproduce by way of little machines that fly around and implant sperm into females as opposed to the normal baby who throws his sperm in the air and hopes to god it lands in a vagina. obviously his genes will reproduce unimaginably faster than his lonely loser neighbors.

flowers surrounded by bees clearly have the ability to reproduce as much as their environment has the capacity for. what part of the environment limits that? if that part of the environment changes, the only thing limiting the bees is the number of flowers. if something about the environment changes so that flowering plants are the dominating ones, so that trees and all plants can produce flowers that bees can use, surely the bee population will grow far above the civilization threatening killer bees that already annoy southwesterners to death.

could a nuclear disaster do this? what makes flowering plants different from others? what conditions are conducive to flowers? what conditions prevent flower growth? is there a hive-collective insect that has a source of food that would flourish infinitely in a nuclear/meteor disaster?

hehehe this has been the ultimately cutest thread i ever read on these boards.

“the sun used its magnetic field to whip an asteroid into the earth”,
“i was wondering how the hell are the dinosaurs so huge and cool looking”,
“youd still have guys who would bite and snarl while crowded around the corpse more than they had to, and that was a sin”

now i could go about explaining why the views held in the starting topic are ignorant, uninformed, malformed, not self coherent and all the other crap. fact of the matter is, they are cute.

its like a cartoon, i can see it almost, super hero god with his trusty sidekick the sun, god flies about in some batmanish underwear and a cape and gestures to the sun, and the sun (with eyes, and maybe sunglasses like in that coke ad) uses his magnetic field super power and hits the earth… earth maybe hickups and poof dinos are dead… not that they didnt look cool, and besides there will be action figures made.

it is, in fact, like a myth. it is just as far fetched, ignorant, insane, incoherent, idiotic and YET very very human. it answers legitimate questions using an aesthetic manner. boring types might well think the best fighter will win the battle, but everyone else knows its the best LOOKING fighter that will win the battle. and them spikes and shit… whoa man, so cool. good looks, square mandibulae and some neat super powers and you’re set for world domination.

yeah it sure is stupid, i mean what kind of jerk ass retard assumes that god exists? what a ridiculous waste of time that is. i mean clearly, obviously, beyond any slight shadow of a doubt, god does not interact with life or humans or the universe at all, because weve all seen every possible thing he could have ever done and we have clearly seen that he did not do anything.

oh wait, no we havent. instead of giving evidence to the contrary, youve laughed and assumed the evidence is blatantly adorably obvious. thanks a lot.

i presumed nothing of the kind future man. my objection was a simple matter of form.

buuut… you forgot?

no, i got lazy. but since you insist, here goes :

you speak of how you presume god exists and humans are here to be tested then next paragraph you say humans are the ultimate culmination of earthly evolution. this is incoherent.

a culmination of evolution that is comparable to another, just simpler is not coherent

the concept that humans fit by shaping their neighbours in society is ill informed. societies do more to shape individuals than individuals to shape societies.

the concept animals can sin is very strange indeed, has historically caused much debate in theological circles (of which you are obviously not aware) and was eventually dropped more or less.

the idea that the sun can use its magnetic field is malformed. the sun can not use anything, since its in fact this amorphous blob of gas. a magnetic field could not be used if you can not start and stop that which generates it. that is impossible to do for the sun. precisely how an asteroid would be influenced by a magnetic field is anyone’s guess. maybe it was electrically charged ? how would an asteroid impact allow the rise of mammals ? why mammals and not bugs then ? why not birds ? why not worms ?

“when you draw a line through the three different rulers, there are a couple of evolutionary patterns that emerge”. that is THE definition of incoherence. you draw a line through three things and TWO patterns emerge ? what can be more dazed than that ?

dinosaurs killing their runt young and helping the ones with cool new spikes ? how did you came up with this ? oh, yea sorry i forgot, it would be cool. rather ignorant too, isnt it ?

your artificial schematic doesnt work too well either. dinosaurs change themselves by using themselves, humans change the environment by using the environment (forget about how humans actually stick artificial hearts and monkey’s kidneys into themselves to live longer, forget about plastic surgery etc etc) and now the third item is bugs create their environment using their bodies ? thats entirely unsymetrical. given that abstract symetry was the only possible value of your vision, to blow that is to be left hanging in the cold. at the very least find a 4th that changes their bodies using the environment… and answer the question why this order is necessary. and why 4 ? and dont forget, most bugs dont shit and puke cities, thats what termites do. most bugs just move about.

on the communal point, while it can be argued that both dinos and bugs lived their entire existance spawn with about the same degree of comunality, humans drastically evolved from a few banded together to 20 millions of them in the same city. so no, no pattern here either.

well god created earth and its evolutionary processes why cant they follow a pattern that makes some organisms more important than others?..

what is a society made of?

does a big dino brother steal from little brothers? do those little brothers steal from their little brothers after knowing that being stolen from stinks? is there any evidence saying that what those middle children have done is not a sin? there are many things dinos would do that are analagous to us cutting grass. they see no reason why its wrong so its not a sin. if we knew that blades of grass were sentient it would be a sin.

id say my position on this topic is that some small number of things animals do are morally weighted like ours, and a large amount of the things they do are not.

unless you have evidence showing that the tree made a noise when nobody was there, you cant say it actually vibrated the air without assuming that everything is the way it appears when you observe it. theres no evidence that confirms this assumption.

and god has plenty of reason to keep the universe solidly factual and miracle-free today in this world when we will see his miracles and know that they violate physics and therefore wrongly work towards our selfless mission for selfish, reward-centered reasons. dinosaurs would not measure the way asteroids are “supposed” to be, therefore god can miracalize them without disrupting the selfless harmonizing mission. he can also miracalize the magnetic field of the sun or the weather and, since we CURRENTLY dont see the full picture, we can never pin it on god interfering with our supposedly absolute laws. who said god is unable to kno this and take advantage of it?

and im pretty sure that science attributes the rise of mammals to the specific conditions that arose after the dinosaur asteroid. whats sure is that if mice had to compete with trexes, they would not have turned into humans for a looong time.

lots of animals kill runts. if i can see that spikes are cool, or that a spiky kid is better at fighting his brothers, who said a dinosaur cant?

and as for my two kinds of patterns, i guess the one about the manipulation of the environment is a stretch, but think about it. humans dont use their bodies to do anything besides manipulate the environment. human bugs would make the same cool technology, but instead of putting fire wood in their technologically advanced fireplace in their house, they would just have to spit on it or something cool like that. and they would.

but the communal existence, that seems fine to me. humans only “changed” because their technology evolved. i imagine if bugs became as smart as humans, their separate colonies could band together unlike they do today in their primitive form. and it would probably happen for the same reason that human cultural evolution progressed.

when you use the term evolution, people will interpret it as part of the system of thought that came up with it, namely darwin’s theory of evolution. it is abusive to speak about “divine evolution” because that is a marriage of two concepts that have nothing in common. indeed neo-darwinists would protest you dont get what evolution means, and theologues would protest you dont get what god is. it’s like talking about pearish apples or applish pears. while you are entirely entitled to imagine any sort of unlikely conceptual menage, do not presume others will follow your elucubrations.

while a society is made of individuals, a society is also more than the sum of all the individuals that compose it. think gestalt. any quick glance on any of the numerous texts dealing with any social sciences will point this simple fact to you.

how can a dinosaur steal ? and is stealing a sin ? forget that, if there are some things that are morally wrong [for us ] and not morally wrong for dinosaurs, why should i belive there are any things morally wrong for dinosaurs ?

the bit about the tree making noise is entirely unrelated. the sun simply can not use anything. you need hands to use things. you need intent to use things. you need purpose to use things. sun’s magnetic field can not be used by the sun. it is there and cant be modified. how can something thats not alterable be used ?

let me say that a miracalized magnetic field is not a magnetic field. and please put a tell-tale sign on words that you use in this particular way from now on. here i sit naively answering your post on the obviously erroneous basis that you actually speak english, when in fact you speak some strange idiom only familiar to yourself. please let us know in advance that you are talking about miracalized magnetic fields. and just to make sure, are we talking about dinosaurs or miracalized dinosaurs ? humans or miracalized humans ? the earth or miracalized earth ?

coming back from the wonderful world of miracalization (does it flexionate like that ? or should i say miracalizeonate ?) let me point out with you that on the discussion about how and why mammals evolve, the proposed and most widely accepted theory (but no law, just theory) is that climate change (cooling) made big animals ineffective and smaller more energy effective animals had to arise. wether that change was brought about by an asteroid impact or anything else, is still largely debated however. and however, if mice had to compete with trexes they wouldnt have cared much. a dinosaur was virtually blind for our current standards. the relative sizes would have made mice entirely undetectable, and as such it wouldnt have mattered much for mice wether dinosaurs existed or not. in fact if dinosaurs would have managed the impossible, and resisted the chilling air, that wouldnt have influenced mammals all that much. in short, it wasnt the disparition of dinosaurs that lead to the rise of mammals, but a climatic change that lead to both effects.

mind you, a dinosaur doesnt watch the same morning tv programs as you. how is he to decide a spike is cool ? and i thought fighting your brothers was a sin anyway.

i insist humans do alot of self manipulation too. look at bush winning the elections, whats that ? and what about michael jackson’s new face ? and why did perfume ever get invented ? and do you think a hooker is really using her body to manipulate the environment ? like stop the acid rains and shit ? maybe we should pay them to reduce global warming ?

there are people who knit their own hair, build things out of their own toe nails etc. you are abusively trying to limit people’s vast preocupation to save some room for your favorite bugs. sorry to say, there isnt much. most bugs just move about pointlessly. face it !

and bugs never can have nor will they ever have anything remotely like culture or technology. for a numeric processor (yes the brain is a numeric processor, multistate, true, but still numeric) to become sentient there is a critical mass. you cant have it as simple as you want. it has to be a minimum complexity (in number of neurons and connections between them). why the heck do you think human brains grew in size ? why not out kidneys ? or livers ? and it will never fit in a bug’s head. ever. for a simple reason of heat dissipation. if you made it that small, it would get so hot as to break up the complex molecules it would need.

and finally, it is entirely unclear wether humans became more comunal because their technology advanced or their technology advanced because they became more comunal.

“divine evolution” works just fine unless you stupidly adhere completely to one polarized and wrong-proven dogma. my whole point here is to bring them together. christians have no way to explain dinos except as a trick from god made to fool us into thinking we should be atheist. darwinists rely on 1:20^999 odds being violated during the cambrian explosion. they are all wrong, and i am always right.

the universal law that defines all of human morality: “if you know that something will hurt your neighbor, then you must consider how selfish you are being and you should treat him the way you would want to be treated”

without any doubt, the decisions dinosaurs made would be largely outside the scope of this rule. they cant decide that their prey is being hurt because they believe that their prey is a fundamentally different thing that doesnt hurt the same way that they do, etc.

what they are morally accountable for are the things that happen inside of their family who they consider equal to themselves. when their big brother steals their food, they are sad, they know that having food stolen by big bro sucks and they consciously try to avoid their brother while eating for this reason. ive watched the alligators do this on tv. if this same dino has a little brother, and he steals from him, then it is VERY possible that that guy just sinned.

if he had a human brain, then he definetely did. the jury is still out on whether animal brains are fundamentally different in this regard. i know humans brains are very different, but nobody knows that animals arent conscious at all.

because our brains are different as you say and there are some things that we have a much fuller understanding of.

no, hydrogen gas does not have any of those things. but we dont know that god is unable to possess those things with his omnipotent hands in order to further his purpose of creating the next stage of life. we cant see the whole universe, god is still able to hide from us and miracalize at the same time. (you know what miracle means? how bout the suffix -ize? good)

animals play fight. i love to play fight, there are few physical activities more fun. if i had a spike and didnt notice, then its entirely possible that, while play fighting, my spike will help me win every time, and mom will notice that and give me more food so that i might get laid more and spread my spiky genes. whats hard about that?

as for the morality of mom killing my shitty runt brother, mom knows that runts will live a crappy starvation wrought life that will end by the end of the year. she has seen it happen like 5 times by now, and so she takes matters into her own hands and expedites the poor little guy to the next world. so abortion is also moral.

thats because weve found out how to use the environment for this purpose. we dont breed ourselves. we should, but its not a natural part of our society.

dinosaurs breed themselves, we breed nature. we make cows who are good for our purposes, we “propagate” the specific rocks we need by bringing them to the surface and manipulating them so that we may use them. we are not fundamentally different from the dinosaurs anyway, so its fine if we have stuff in common with them.

neither will mice, but give them a free world to overpopulate and evolve with like they have never evolved before and maybe their brains will grow.

what cause we started thinking first and then our brains needed to grow to accomodate our thinking? or perhaps a funky monkey was born one day who just so happened to have a big brain and that particular monkey was better suited for the world. why exactly are bugs unable to do that? and besides, we dont know that the mechanics of the bug brain arent some awesome borg-type collective with the queen, and therefore fundamentally more incomprehensibly interesting, a jump forward in consciousness analogous to the jump forward from dinos to humans.

humans were nomad hunter gatherers. they were unable to form communities because if they did, they would eventually suck up all the resources and be forced to nomadize out of there. then one day farming was invented and the society was born. progressive advances in farming led to more surplus food which led to job specialization which led to more technology. no?

divine evolution works even worse than evolution and religion separately. you have to understand when you add two doubtfull concepts you get a more doubtfull concept. errors amplify by addition. that is not to say you couldnt try and bring them together. but for that, you have to try and bring them together. thats not blindly putting them in the same phrase and ignoring the contradictions, but carefully analizing both and making a well argumented stand for their unification. preferably in another thread. i must agree tho, that as always they are always wrong and im always right :slight_smile:

you obviously didnt get the excellent refute somebody on this board (hang on, on 2nd thought im gonna go find em, modicum of courtesy)(fuck this imbecile search engine just wasted 10 minutes of my life. anyone who is the author of the following rebuttal please let me know so i update this link) posted. if for instance somebody sets your house on fire, you shouldnt put it out cause if you went to all the trouble of setting a house on fire you wouldnt want any old bloke to come by and spoil the fun ? that “law” is nothing but crap.

you contradict yourself every other sentence, on an average man. is that like a hoby ? today’s feature, how can “it only count if they consider them their equal” and then “BIG brother”. is big equal ?

actually people know animals (most) are conscious. what they are not is self aware, as best we can tell. the two arent the same, by a long shot.

you fail to adress my objection, namely that if some part of morality can be invalidated by the change of scope from humans to dinosaurs, there is no reason any other part should hold valid. this is not flea market, morality is a deductive approach, if p then q. if not q, then not p. ALL of p. take the wason test please.

my linguistics might be a tad outdated, or unapplicable to philly. BUT, miracle + suffix ize should yield miraclize. or maybe you mean miracal ?and while english borrows alot from latin, it does not go as far as being fully declinable. hence just because it uses the suffix ize now and again doesnt mean any word can be added that suffix to obtain an english word.

whoa hang on mate. so for a big brother to steal food is probably a sin, but for a mother to kill her offspring is entirely perfectly okay ? tell you what, if your bro stole your food it might suck. maybe. but if your mommy kicks the living shit out of you for being distrophic (which is usually cause she’s a drunken slut that cant keep a job to begin with)… that sounds like a new eminem album really. suppose you proofread from now on ?

course we breed ourselves. how do you suppose women in europe got such huge boobs ? compare to an ape. compare to people in other parts of the world. and come to think about it, the chinese have a good too many boys when compared to girls, you knew that ?

their brain may grow all they want. a bug cant be any larger than 5 inches, and thats generous. do you know how they breathe ? no lungs, just tubules. do you know what they have for a circulatory system ? u guessed it. tubules. there is a REASON bugs arent 10 foot long, and humans are not covered in feathers and etc etc. ill find a nice site for you documenting this sort of thing later on. oh, and i almost forgot. bugs have a virtually free world already, let em evolve. (yea, they are the main beneficiaries of human civilisation, with all its garbage dumps and water pipes and whatnot.

awesome borg type ? the borgs were somewhat of a tad wee bit more than just squishy bugs you know ? i kinda think we’d notice if it was like you said, ey ? oh, wait, they dont want us to notice, right ?

there is no jump forward from dinos to humans. dinos are a dead branch in the tree. we arent descending from dinos.

and no. agriculture didnt just “get invented”. and it is unclear as i said, if people got together because of the technology or they got the technology because of the getting together. probably the two work together rather than one cause the other. just think about this : an army makes no food of its own. why did people have armies ever since ? and ny doesnt produce a millionth of the food it ingurgitates. there is more food (edible) in the ny sewer than actual food produced in ny.

the only thing food leads to is more people. no technology. look at the chinese, they sat on their silly asses for what, 5000 years ? 9000 years ?as a state, entirely organised, the way england wasnt yet in 1300ad. and they were what 100M ? at a time the brits where maybe a million and a half. and what is their technology after 5000 years ? oh, yea, firecrackers. didnt even have the sense to make a gun, or dynamite. they drank maybe 5 trillion gallons of hot, steaming tea, never occured to them there can be such a thing as a steam engine. they calligraphed pieces of revered shit such as their ridiculous “histories” over and over and over again for 20 thousand fucking generations. disgusting.

no im using the assumption of one doubtful concept that some of us are comfortable assuming and using it to describe the evidence that we clearly see. we assume god exists, we know evolution happened. what other conclusion could we reach? god planted dino bones to fool us? christians are silly. 1:20^999 odds mean nothing? darwinists have no reason to believe anything.

this guy was actually talking to me. small world.
my response: i am unable to know what it is like to get caught with arson when i am truly guilty of it. all that i can do is imagine what it would be like if i were a multiple personality and my roomate was an arsonist. in that case i would do all that i could to exorcise him, even if it included getting prosecuted for arson. i damn sure wouldnt want that brainmate living with me, secretly burning more families when im not looking.

BIG brother is equal if you can imagine that youll be big like him in a matter of months. little brother is also equal if you remember that you were in his position months earlier. as long as dinos understand the idea of change through time and they are self aware (right, doubtful) then they are accountable. and i would actually change this so that they are not accountable if they dont realize that they are sinning, but they are ‘accomplishing the re-harmonizing mission’ when they do good.

seems to me like big things shoud have big brains. i know reptiles are dumb especially compared to mammals, and trex has a walnut sized brain, but we havent seen a dino in action so we dont know. we definetely havent seen through its eyes.

well if somebody grew up their whole life learning that their viking neighbors (and all vikings) do nothing but run out of their house and destroy those nearby, then i would not expect that person to invite the vikings over for tea. i wouldnt be surprised at all if that person got fed up with the vikings and killed them all, even the children who didnt appear to be a threat at the time. the key is that they dont consider the vikings equal to them, they consider them demonic soulless animals that are nothing but bad for the world.

different people can learn different things. dinosaurs would learn way different things.

no its not in a dictionary, but seriously, did you not know what it meant? i can shave off entire sentences by making up a super-long-hyphenizifiedicated-terms

the mother knows the baby will suffer for the rest of the year and then die anyway if he is considerably smaller than all of his brothers. she has seen it happen 5 times so far. she knows that if she steps in and kills him quickly then he will be expedited to the next world. i think people who say atheism is default are pretty darn wrong, and id imagine an animal would not agree.

the big brother knows that if he doesnt steal his brothers food, that brother will fill up his stomach and feel good. if the brother steals the food, he knows he will prevent this goodness and create badness.

the mother knows she will prevent badness and create goodness.

ok fine its a cumulating effect. bugs will also be able to use the environment as well as themselves. the three things i said each did, they are now the three steps forward that each of them took; they dont exclude previous.

yeah and a bacteria cant be much larger than a few microns. look at us bacteria today compared to our tiny, limited ancestors.

there is plenty of unexplaned hive bug behavior. the tunnels that workers build are perfect, and yet scientists dont know how they see where to go or how to organize themselves. but they do.

surplus food absolutely allows for specialized careers like blacksmith that allow him to spend his time inventing new things and perfecting them. if he was forced to farm for his food, he wouldnt have time to do this. (yeah his wife could make spearheads but not use good, purified metals for swords)

i admire their efficiency and reliance on themselves rather than their fancy tools that we have become obsessed with and dependent on.

i mean say your kid is born with the ability to reproduce by way of little machines that fly around and implant sperm into females as opposed to the normal baby who throws his sperm in the air and hopes to god it lands in a vagina. obviously his genes will reproduce unimaginably faster than his lonely loser neighbors. end quote]

WHAT THE CRAP, are you drunk, high, or do you always babble incoherntly?
(i think the latter)