Dogs ‘Just Get’ Humans in Ways Other Animals Can’t, Evolutionary Scientists Conclude

Study Finds ^ | JULY 17, 2021 | Study Finds

[MoochPooch]

I currently have on my reading list Rupert Sheldrake’s “Dogs That Know When Their Owners are Coming Home”. The thesis is that there might be some sort of telepathy between dogs and humans. I’ve heard some interesting anecdotes from dog owners that do make me wonder.

Our dogs always started to bark excitedly before my dad's car even pulled into the driveway. They just sensed his arrival.

Dogs seem to get excited whenever I walk past them. I don't know what they pick up. (Hopefully not any B.O.!) I like dogs, but don't keep any as pets.

[BroJoeK]

"These people don’t understand or want to admit adaptation?
It’s all evolution to atheists."

The alleged distinction between evolution and "adaptation" is a concoction of anti-scientists who can't deny what they see but wish desperately to deny parts of science they can't see.
Hence: "adaptation" = the part we can see.
"Evolution" = the theory they don't want to see.

[BroJoeK]

Olog-hai: "Prior scientists were inspired by the notion of proving God’s existence through their methods."

Not quite.
Enlightenment scientists like for example, Isaac Newton, believed they were studying the Mind of God in nature.
Since they believed God is rational, so they believed must be His natural creations.
Therefore, they weren't trying to "prove" God, only to discover Him.

Even today many scientists still believe nature is God's creation, though sadly the numbers are said to be shrinking.
But natural-science itself makes no demands either way -- science's naturalistic assumption is only methodological, not philosophical or theological
For those atheist scientists who make it philosophical/theological that is their, in effect, religious choice, not a requirement of science itself.

Olog-hai: "The ones who came after were consumed by a lust to try to prove the opposite and draw a false picture of a steady-state universe consisting only of matter."

No, nearly all scientists today accept the "Big Bang" theory as the best explanation for the Universe's beginning in time & space.
Some scientists, desperately seeking to avoid the question of First Cause, have concocted a fantasy called "multi-verse" from which our Universe is imagined to have descended.
But "multi-verse" is not a scientific theory, or even a falsifiable hypothesis, it's just a fantasy hoping to dazzle us away from the question of First Cause.

[Candor7]

we don’t live in close quarters with them (or with dolphins)

Oh yes we do...ever go on a month long trail ride or a surfing caravan in the tropics.

Empathetic parrots?

You can see it here with Pebbles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM8aBESf8EI

[Olog-hai]

Oh, you again. As far as the “Big Bang” goes, pseudoscientists were forced to accept the clear evidence that started to pour in when Hubble first discovered red shift. Also, my point stands since your interjection here is anachronistic.

Your premise with respect to Newton is reversed, since he was a firm believer in God. Newton’s words with respect to God were “masterful creator” and “universal ruler”. He had a strong interest in end-time prophecy also.

[BroJoeK]

Olog-hai: "Oh, you again."

?

Olog-hai: "As far as the “Big Bang” goes, pseudoscientists were forced to accept the clear evidence that started to pour in when Hubble first discovered red shift."

"pseudoscientists"? What kind of talk is that?
Scientists, the real thing, accepted the Big Bang idea when and only when it was confirmed by strong lines of evidence -- just as they accept every other confirmed scientific theory.
That's how science works, that's what scientists do.
So what is this "pseudoscientist" rubbish?

I remember the debates with Fred Hoyle (who coined the term "Big Bang") & others in the 1960s.
Steady-staters lost then and their ideas have not been seriously defended since.
Even Hoyle's 1993 updated "Quasi-steady State Model" found very little support.

Olog-hai: "Also, my point stands since your interjection here is anachronistic."

What point?
What anachronism?

Olog-hai: "Your premise with respect to Newton is reversed..."

Now I "get" it -- you have zero reading comprehension, that part of your brain has atrophied and so you just substitute whatever idea pops into your head for what I actually posted.
My suggestion to you is a healthier diet, exercise and maybe even supplements to help you with cognition.
Then try to understand what was posted before you embarrass yourself again.

[Olog-hai]

Thanks for the concession. All argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad hominem; not a shred of logic.

You replied to my comment about a “steady-state universe”, which was in the context of the Enlightenment, with a comment about the “Big Bang” and the acceptance by scientists thereof; that was the anachronism. So is your “reading comprehension” ad hominem really you projecting . . . ?

Pseudoscience has abounded since the rise of Marxism in the world and the takeover of scientific efforts by authoritarian governments, making them dependent upon the money supply controlled by those governments, with others sharing the nihilistic agenda thereof and subverting their principles to fabricate proof of their preconceptions. This is still happening today.

[BroJoeK]

You're just babbling nonsense, FRiend.
You should think before you post.