Muslim: In other words, you eat animals because it is convenient for you. And that is supposed to make it moral, is it? What standard of ethics do you have? From the above, it seems to be "whatever Muslim finds pleasurable or convenient must be right and good". Am I correct? Vegetarianism may be less convenient, but it is more moral. This line of argument is irrelevant. Let's break it down for you. I define "sentient" in the first instance as "able to experience pain and suffering". Using that definition, do you deny that animals are sentient? If they are, I say it means that animals should be given ethical consideration. If you think animals do not feel pain, then we will need to pursue that line to convince you otherwise. Next, consider plants. You ask whether I have proof that plants are not sentient. No, I do not. Do you have any evidence that plants can feel pain? It is up to the claimant to prove a statement, so the ball is in your court on this one. Lastly, let's assume that plants can feel pain. Do they feel pain to the same extent as animals, do you think? If so, then aren't you making an argument that we shouldn't eat either plants or animals? How does it follow that if plants can feel pain, it is ok to eat animals? "Humane" means treating something in a way which minimises or avoids suffering. Since we have yet to establish that plants can feel pain, we will need to put off consideration of this argument until you can answer the questions above. Why do you quote definition number 2 from your dictionary instead of number 1? You're being dishonest and evasive. Definition 1 says an "animal" is "A multicellular organism of the kindom Animalia..." etc. The species Homo sapiens (which is human beings) is part of the biological kingdom Animalia, so according to your own dictionary, humans are animals. Yet you choose to ignore that definition. You are being dishonest. Again, you are dishonest. This time you quote definition number 6 from your dictionary. Why? So you can ignore definition 1 again: "Theory: a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one which has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted..." Do you know how dictionaries work, Muslim? They give the best, most common definitions first, and lesser or alternative definitions further down the list. The definitions you are trying to use are in your dictionary because they are common usages by uneducated people. The "proper" definitions, accepted by educated people, are listed as number 1 in your dictionary. I advise you to use them in the future, and stop using the sloppy definitions of pop culture - at least when you are engaged in an intellectual debate. Otherwise, you make yourself look like an idiot. I don't know where to start with such inanity. Do you have any pets? I aked before, and you didn't answer. I can only assume you have never spent time with any animals which weren't dead on your plate. Ask anybody who owns a pet whether it can reason or not, then get back to me. Did you miss my point? Do I really need to dumb everything down for you? My point was that the innovators in every field did not learn from books. They studied phenomena and drew their own conclusions. Leonardo did it. So did Watson and Crick. And so did Darwin. I think you're going off on a tangent here. If this line of argument is somehow relevant to something, please explain it for me. Otherwise, let's just drop it. When I say "air" I mean "air", not "oxygen". I am correct. Fish cannot survive in air. They extract oxygen from water using their gills. I did not say that fish are human. I'm sorry I confused you into thinking that fish are human. Let me try to explain in simpler terms. According to evolution, species adapt to their environments. In an environment such as the ocean, fish evolved to have streamlined bodies, to get oxygen through their gills, to eat plankton etc. But the ocean is full of many different species, all competing for limited resources. At the time when the first land animals arose, there was potential food on land which was not exploited by any animal. Therefore, there was an empty ecological niche begging to be exploited. By chance, some species of fish adapted so as to be able to breathe air. Initially, species lived in the tidal ones, but gradually they too evolved so as to be able to live inland. Did that mean fish disappeared from the ocean? No. Obviously, only certain species changed, while others successfully continued to exploit their current environments. Your attitude is like that of the uneducated people who ask "If humans descended from apes, why are there still apes?" Do you know the answer to that? Where do you draw the line between "improving its condition" and "changing into another creature"? Did the fish which left the ocean to live in the tidal zones "improve their condition" or "change into another creature"? Or, did that never happen at all, according to you? I don't understand this. Are you saying God can't cause evolution? Or are you saying God can cause evolution if He wants to? Really? Does it tell us in the Koran that Allah did not cause evolution to occur? Can you please quote the relevant parts? Evolution by natural selection consists of two processes, not one: 1. Variation is produced in individuals by random processes, including mutation. 2. The variation is acted upon by natural selection, so that the "fittest" survive. You sound like you believe evolution must either be fully random or fully determined in advance. Neither approach is correct. Only a child would make such a claim. Suppose you want to build a house. How will you measure out the timber you require? How will you know what area the house will occupy? How will you plan the construction? How will you imagine what the house will look like when completed? Answer: abstract thinking. You claimed Darwin could not have invented evolution because he could only learn it from a book. Remember? This is the real you, now. You will believe what you want to believe, and you won't let anything change your mind. Your mind is closed. You're set in your ways and not open to change. No wonder you can't learn anything. It's a pity you didn't pay attention to what she was trying to teach you. Since you don't know the basics that evolution requires variation and selection, this claim is obviously a complete self-delusion. Will you make an effort to learn or is "no one going to change your mind"?