Do animals have souls?

What about marine moluscs such as hydrozoa and scyphozoa?
In hydrozoa the polyp (plant like) stage is dominant, but in scyphozoa the medusa (jellyfish) stage is dominant.
They both exhibit 'plant like' and 'animal like' behavior, so are they animals or plants? Do they have a soul?

-Another human
-What ever it is that we recognize in a human.
If you saw a hairless, large headed, two arm, two leg, two eye, wearing clothes - what would you think it to be?
It might be a human or it might be a hairless circus monkey. My point is that there is no determining factor of what a human is apart from what we decide the farctor should be. The factor could also change regardless of whether the human changed or not - in short, defining a human or a dog or a cat is ultimatly arrbitrary.

I'm not saying that they are - but I can only say that because I have a scientific (matterialistic) way of differentiating them. If you were a child that didnt know the difference between them, then yes, I can. How would you tell the difference? The words 'humans' and 'monkeys' are man-made words, agreed?
If I were to call all humans - 'Bloits', would that make all the formerly catagorized humans, Bloits? Yes it would. If you cant tell the difference between them then no.

How do you know, beyond material perception, that there is a difference? How can you test this? Very good. Now how would you say that we differentiate, apart from sensory perception, these concepts - how can we measure the immeasurable: The qustions scientists ask themselves is not if 'there realy is something (like a human)', but 'how can we prove (tentatively) that there is'. Saying that there is "possibly an immaterial reality" without being able to measure it is unscientific. You can just replace the word "immaterial reality" with "flying pigs". There is no such thing as objectivity ('competely', I think you meant), but only a subjective perception of sensual information. After all, the only thing doing any cognitive work here is your brain, how is that not subjective? Whaaaaat? Once again, you can only see that because you preceve their differences by your senses. What else is there (perception)?

I wouldnt be so sure - alot of new sciences are being developed, I suspect we will be able to measure more things in the future. Elevated pork are also material subctances. The main thing to remember here is that we dont if there are immaterial things, about immaterial things (if you suggest they exist) and any way to test those things. Therefore, immateriality is a hypothesis without merit.

In "being", do you mean self conscience? If so, that has been disproven. (If you need evidence just say so) What do you mean by "one"? (and dont say that "one" is the soul because that is curcular reasoning
{soul = one--->soul}

Yes, not all living things have a sence of self conscience. first of all, you didnt write "you" you wrote "one".
second, when you ask "who..." you are looking for identification, not definition. I think you mean "what are 'you'" - that makes the question easy:
1. I'm a man (male).
2. I'm a human.
3. I'm a collective of nuerons (causing conscience).
exc.
I have no indication of anything that is reffered to as "soul".

actualy I said: {bold mine}MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos Do you know of other perspectives - that are not human? You mean that a critical investigation of the world around me that resides only on evidence will cause me to 'miss the point'? That's interesting. The word 'meanind' implies intent, an inteligence - therefore there doesnt have to be a meaning to anything if there is no perpose or inteligence.Meaning Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster really, because I've heard that the justifications were quite different ('black people are inferior' and all that nonsense) and were deeply rooted in religion. 'spiritual ballance'? care to elaborate on that? what do you mean 'on here'? can you give an example?

I asked you for a perspective that is not human and you say that we are not the center of everything? that doesnt say anything except that you cant answer the question.
I didnt say that we are the center of everything - we are just the only ones with an inteligent perspective. Thats not what the article says - maybe you should finish reading it. Obviously my perspective of the world reflects my perseption , but what does that have to do with what I said - and can you be a little less vague ('what is within'). Religions are based on faith - 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof' Faith Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
therefore as long as our perseption of the world continues to change, religion must lead to prejudice. Religion or prejudice? You have to stop being vague - if you say 'core motivations' - you have to specify what thay are. What? (scraches his head in curiosity) Except that it provides evidence. (Its a small difference - I know) Obviously thay are to you. Whos intent? More vague remarks? Amazing! - this is even more vague then the last sentence. I am one of these - ????????

Mirror test - Wikipedia Assertions. That is despite the fact that it cant be any more vague.
(1) Science does not 'come to a difinitive answer'; everything in science is tentative - from the very nature of our perspective being limited (physicaly).
(2) You have to show why you think this is true - that is what scientists do - in order to have a logical conection between the hypothetical situation you proposed and your conclusion of what will have to happen. You dont have to beleive in life in order to live it - therefore it requires nighther knowledge nor faith. Religion is based on faith by definition : Religion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster (1) Science does not 'come to a difinitive answer'; everything in science is tentative - from the very nature of our perspective being limited (physicaly).
(2)I dont have to have faith, only tentative knowledge of things I can define - and the perpose of a conversation is not to rehearse "difinitive truthes" (not that they exist) - that would be pointless - its purpose is to explore the things we dont know about. You mean simplistic. Assertions - please explaine the sentences and the logic behind them. Maybe the fact that you cant test or falsify the existance of a soul is enough to persuade you (seeing as how the soul is 'out of the realm of science') - or maybe you can try to prove it to me.
If you cant prove it or falsify it - the soul is not a default hypotheisis (it could be elves running your body) - then you must abandon the hypotheisis. That has nothing to do with it. Occham's razor takes care of the soul hypotheisis, thats about it. I dont have to bring opposing evidence because nothing has been proven to the contrary.

No, I dont share your opinion - I just happen to have evidence for mine - unlike yourself. Are you saying that your belief is 100% true - if so then you, logicaly, must be wrong. I'll explain - lets say you had all the evidence in the world pointing towards your opinion. Because:
(1) In order to 100% prove your point you would have to falsify all other possible scenarios.
(2) There are an infinite number of scenarios then the chances of you proving you opinion become the limit of 1 over x when x goes to infinity, and that equals zero.
Now lets say you had no evidence (how familiar) - then then the probability density function of proving your opinion 100% is a continuous one, and so P(X=whatever your opinion is)=0%.
In short, if you have no evidence and want to prove something or if you want to prove something to 100% - you will have to wait a long time indeed. Do you consider the results of an experiment an opinion.(of course the interpitation of those results is an opinion - but they have to corrilate with the results over and over again (like the song...) Huh? are you just typing random words? Of course not - there is evidence, althogh the interpitation of this is an opinion, it still limits the conversation.
Unless you have something other than opinion in a conversation? (I want an answer to this one). which is...? 'why' and 'reason' imply intent - the only intent here is mine and so life is worth living for whatever reasons I decide. same as before only that 'meaning' impies intent. and yet you somehow can?!?!? no, scientifically I must deny the soul. pointless - no basis.

If you cant observe it how do you know its coming from there? A phenomenon such as...?
I remined you that forces can be observed, and therefore defined scientificaly, and you said that a soul cant be defined scientificaly -

Ahhhh....thats what I wanted to say (Its sooooo obvious) ,
I guess squirrles are fasrter that cats.

Is this some type of Monty Python sort of logic? 'If all forces are observed, then all that is obsrved are forces'.
http://pressurecooker.phil.cmu.edu/logic.html

Actually, these emotions (Curiousity, Wonder, Greed, Hate ect.) are an essential part of the survival of social creatures like us - maybe not as basic as a heart - but still essential. The ability to interact with other individuals is crucial for survival.
I dont think he meant that a soul is not essential for our survival, but that the concept of a soul is not essential in order to explain things such as emotion and conscience - I tend to agree.