IMHO this is not unlike the question as to what point a fertilised ovum becomes a human being(complete with soul), so, for the sake of debate, there’s the position that the whole question of [having a soul]/[not having a soul] is a misrepresentation of the way things really are; maybe [soul] is not a boolean function; maybe souls can grow and develop.
(I don’t have any firm views on this subject, I just thought I’d add that to the pot).
Now that I think of it, I’ve never seen an animal attend church [Jerry Falwell excepted]. If dogs have souls, should not they all gather on the Sabbath, lap up some holy water, do tricks for body of Christ, perhaps trot around in procession and piddle on each station of the cross? What can this mean? There is no God!
No wait… I’ve got another hypothesis: Dogs are Satanists. You know, the whole ‘Do what thou wilt’ sentiment certainly applies to them. Sniffing your neighbors butt, humping legs, eating poop… those amoral hounds are Satanic.
Hold up there Dr. Dolittle, how do you know they’re not? Say, maybe you can tell me what those blue jays keep squawking about?
Oh OK. That’s why.
Let’s see. hmmmmmm. Why don’t animals have temples? No grasp of basic carpentry skills? Inept stone masonry? No architecture schools? Lack of opposable thumbs maybe?
I got a better one. Why don’t fish have bicycles?
On a more serious note, I’ve always taken more of an “Eastern” view of the soul. Everything has one and is part of one all at the same time. My soul may be more sentient than that of a daffodil, but it doesn’t mean that it is more advanced or evolved than the daffodil’s. The soul is just the essence of the thing.
I’d like to compliment Lolo on this thread. Instead of the attacking, insult-laden posts he’s made before, this is a thought-provoking and honest question. I’d like to ask him to continue in this vein and avoid the intransigent one-liners of recent memory.
The answers to this question have considerable implications. For instance, the abortion issue can be affected by your answer to Lolo’s question:
To take what Darwin’s Finch asked a little farther, at what point does a soul enter a person? At conception, at birth, after the zygote implants into the uterus? Third trimester?
I’d like to give an answer, but I don’t have one ready. I lean to a panentheism, or perhaps process theology. So in that respect, I think God (by whatever name) is a part of all the universe, whether human or other. Does the God present in all life constitute a soul? Maybe.
Does my soul carry on? I don’t know. I don’t really care. I’m still trying to figure out how best to live my life in this world. I haven’t the time to worry about what happens after I die.
If you believe that evolution is the method used for Creation, then the soul would have to evolve too…
So, yeah, animals would have to have souls, though perhaps less advanced ones as Humans (assuming Humans are the end result of evolution)…
There aren’t necessarily any moral implications to this…
I don’t know about dinosaurs. And I don’t even know about us. But if there are creatures with souls on earth, I’m inclined to think it’s dogs.
I think the general answer given by theistic Evolutionists is that while the body evolves, when the creature becomes human, at whatever point that is (be it Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, or whenever), G-d gives that human being a soul.
Just for an example, the Pope, who’s a theistic Evolutionist, said (referring to prior statement on evolution released by Pope Pius XII:
admit you liked the dumbo analogy.
Historical-theology answer:
Yep. All living things are “inspirited” by souls appropriate to their form of life. (This treads closely on animism, but I’d rather not get into that in this thread.) The general idea is that the body and the soul work together to equip the living thing with its life.
Plants have “vegetative souls” of which the prime characteristics are growth and replication. “Beasts” have “animal souls” incorporating the characteristics of the vegetative souls and also volitive movement.
Humans have “rational souls” which incorporate the characteristics of vegetative and animal souls plus the ability to reason, make moral choices, act with free will, etc.
To me, this appears to be saying much the same thing as behavioral biology: living things do things (albeit the General Sherman tree does not reward watching it with active behavior, it does in fact grow, transfer nutrients between needles and roots, etc.). They do this according to the characteristics embedded in their DNA and their reactions to their environment.
I suspect Lolo was questioning whether a religionist would feel that animal souls need saving, and the answer would be “No.” With the possible exception of a few cats I’ve known ;), animals do not sin – they cannot make moral choices but are constrained by the characteristics of their lives.
Contrary to popular opinion, God is not particularly interested in being worshipped. Apposite Bible quotes:
Worship of God is good, not because God needs or wants it for Himself, but because it makes people see themselves in proper perspective – neither as the scum of the earth nor as the lords of creation, but as those He has made and equipped for their place in the world.
to be self aware, seems to me, to be an introduction to a supposed God.
If God has no need for anyone or anything to be aware of God, why bother creating anything?
it all seems… superfluous.
Dinosaurs don’t impress me.
keep it comin
Well, Lolo, when somebody made the comment about animals not worshipping and praying, I thought of making the remark:
Maybe He doesn’t impress them! 
I decided to do a serious answer instead. Clearly you are not interested in buying into Thomas Aquinas’s doctrine on souls, but I’d be curious whether, given the assumption that such a thing as a soul exists, it makes sense to you.
I’m afraid after it’s all pops and buzzes at a certain point, holding no more meaning than television commercial; sometimes I laugh, other times I get angry, but I’m always watching.
Clearly Trol-Lo isn’t interested into fighting his own ignorance or expanding his vision. He simply plays his own personal version of the Arguement Clinic, never debating, just tossing out generalism and assumptions from an obviously uninformed opinion. He has locked in on his own thoughts and is simply trying different ways to get the same reactions out of people. He is no better than the fundamentalists he crusdades against, too busy waving his own banner to see the middle ground. I find him quite sad actually. Maybe if he was even slightly humourous he would almost be tolerable, but instead he is just juvenille and repeatative. As a long time lurker in religious debates, I can’t believe people like Satan and Danielinthewolvesden get banned and posters like Trol-lo here are still around. I find that sad as well.
ohhhhhhhhhh! Trol-lo, how clever.
**
Mayor simply plays his own personal version of the Arguement Clinic, never debating, just tossing out generalism and assumptions from an obviously uninformed opinion.
Could you tell me why I’m uninformed? or are you confusing my lack of placation with ignorance?
**
oh yeah? well you’re ugly.
**
By “middle ground” do you mean “unshakable delusion”?
**
The feeling is mutual.
**
you misspelled repetitive. 
**
na nanny boo boo
stick your head in doo doo
Thank you for proving my point.
The question that upsets Mayor Quimby, myself, and apparently a host of other regulars here, Lolo, is that you don’t debate.
I’m quite content with the idea that Christian doctrine is self-contradictory and pointless to you. Doctrine is not what Christians are selling – at least the ones who realize what their instructions really are.
But you never seem to take interest in pointing out the inherent errors in the stuff you pooh-pooh, or citing reasons why you think as you do.
David B. could not disagree with me more. But I welcome debates with him, because I know he’s coming from a Lockean stance where only the evidence of the senses and inferences from them can be accepted, and sometimes not even them. (See confabulation and other interesting tricks one’s memory plays on one.)
In short, we’re working on common ground, defining our different assumptions, and attempting to arrive at some sort of sound conclusions despite disparity in worldview.
You think it bothers God, even if He exists, that you have a supercilious, sophomoric attitude towards Him? Not in the slightest. He’s probably just sighing and waiting for you to grow up and start using the brains He gave you. And it won’t concern me if you take a total atheist viewpoint if you do.
What does gripe everyone is the blase, pseudo-sophisticated “it’s all a bunch of crap” attitude. Perhaps it is, but it’s sufficiently well-documented crap to have convinced people more insightful and brilliant than you or me. And to have failed to convince others equally insightful and brilliant.
Which means it’s worth discussing. With sane arguments.
irony can be so ironic sometimes