LP 2008-11-23 10:54:00|
Excellent point about the judges. a dog like this isn't going to associate so intimately with just anybody.
I'm not going to get into an evolution argument with you in the comments section. Let's just say I don't agree with everything you said in your post or represented of my argument. I freely regret my mistake in linking. Just enjoy the video. Dogs are way cooler and more myserious than ANY scientist understands.
Penny 2008-11-23 02:03:00|
This was a wonderful video, Loco.
Interesting to watch the judges give their glowing reviews to Gin, and not specifically to this young girl, Amanda, who clearly stated out of the box that she would have no life at all if it were not for Gin. Big miss on the part of this adult panel. They had the opportunity to jump start this girl's life as a future trainer or teacher of other dogs or perhaps, more preferably, human "stars"? She didn't mind though. Did you watch her eyes as the compliments rolled in? She was owning each and every one of the kudos bestowed on Gin. They clearly have a symbiotic relationship. The glitterati, on the other hand, had one thing in mind...dollar signs coming at them in the form of some border collie mix doing the canine version of the Michael Jackson moonwalk.
Do I have "faith" this will all work out for Amanda and the glitterati in the long term? You betcha!
We give what we can; we take what we must.
The Bible says it's so; biologists agree.
Dirtyrottenvarmint 2008-11-20 11:38:00|
What a wonderful video. Thank you. I'd like to comment on the 2005 post by RFLaird, however, which I hadn't read (sorry).
It's not true that an evolutionist describes traits in terms of purpose. A true "evolutionist" speaks only of result. Organisms and species which were unable to survive and reproduce did not, resulting, incredible as it may seem, in the perceived result. There is no "purpose" to evolution - merely trial, and outcome.
Evolution is not a Theory. It is an incontrovertible fact. It can be observed, in closed conditions, in the laboratory. (Commonly this is done by breeding drosophila.)
What is not a fact is the supposition that evolution is stochastic. The honest scientist is silent regarding the potentiality of acts of God. There is no means of devising a scientific experiment that can prove or disprove that a particular outcome is due, not to the omniscient guidance of God, but to random chance. Even were an outcome due to random chance the randomness itself might be at the will of God. The honest scientist is willing to say, "I don't know."
In general I agree with the 2005 post. It is true that the debate has been oversimplified. In truth there is no room for debate between evolution and "creationism". It is true that the debate has been falsely advanced by militant atheists. In truth, evolution and creationism are discrete philosophical ideas each with its own sphere of explanation. Evolution explains how species evolve, today, as we can observe them. It is a reputable explanation for how species have evolved historically. It is silent on the cause of this evolution. The cause may be random chance, the will of God, or some other explanation. We do not know. This is the realm of faith, not science. The honest man is willing to draw the line between that which is comprehensible by man - science - and that which is an element of faith.