The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

And secondly the differences between humans, most of whom can demonstrate
they can think at least to a certain extent,

By their behaviour.

What has that got to do with the price of fish?

seem to have no bearing on the lack of rational thought in animals.

Which can be assessed by their behaviour.

Certainly the lack of rational thought can be assessed by their
behaviour but you would have us believe that they are capable of
rational thought and not just some statistical anomaly but actually
creating the concept of vermin and construct a list of vermin.

Incidentally you should note before you attempt to take me to task for
using animals in this context again that one of the several dictionary
definitions specifically excludes man.

I understood that we were discussing science and ethics. If you're
relying on
dictionary and legal definitions its no surprise that your understanding is
limited. You might as well confine yourself to the science of Genesis.

If you weren't so keen to demonstrate what a patronising prat you are
this argument would be over much sooner. In order to communicate we need
a common language. I use English and when in doubt I consult a
dictionary for the accepted meanings of the words in question. You on
the other hand are happy to distort meanings to fit your arguments with
no regard to actual meaning. And as for Genesis if you believe there is
any science in Genesis you are a bigger prat than even I took you to be.

--
Roger Chapman