April 02, 2012

Amazing: Cristina Zenato Handles Sharks in the Wild

In case you haven't seen this film clip yet, it's worth a view. Nina Salerosa is a short film by underwater photographer Joe Romeiro featuring expert shark handler Cristina Zenato. What does this imply? Read on.

This film immediately reminded me of the following verse, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (Genesis 1.26, NIV)

This example demonstrates how humans have a unique authority over every other creature on the Earth. This authority may be used wisely or it may be abused to exploit nature. The uniqueness of human existence is known philosophically as human exceptionialism and this film offers one such example.

In 1998, Robert Redford's film "The Horse Whisperer" described the true story of a man who tames and trains seemingly impossible violent horses by reading their body language and communicating through his body language. Cristina Zenato could be described as a modern-day "shark whisperer."

Tags: Cristina Zenato shark handler, video of shark handler, Nina Salerosa video, human exceptionalism, the Bible and nature, God's word in nature, human exceptionalism and nature, nature confirms God's existence, Cristina Zenato shark whisperer,


Vilenkin's Math Supports Creation Model of Universe

The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth


  1. Rick: This example demonstrates how humans have a unique authority over every other creature on the Earth.
    This claim is undermined by the simple observation that the person in the video is an expert shark handler. Surely if your claim were correct, and Genesis were actually something other than a primitive and incorrect attempt to understand the world, a non-expert would be able to "command" the sharks - for instance, a surfer who is attacked.
    Being a supposed "man of God" yourself Rick, perhaps you'd like to put your claims to the text by hoping in a shark tank while bleeding slightly, and then try to "rule over" the sharks?

  2. This is a Havok Spam Reply,

    In the interest of avoiding comment moderating for all comments, I've created a standardized reply for certain people who seem unwilling to carry out civilized and respectful discourse. 

    For the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable and pointless to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commentator named Havok.

    Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence". However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.

    Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.

    Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics. There are 2 reasons why this is Dawkins' implied position,  as noted in my article. First, the parenthetical context of Dawkins' view:(though [I'm still] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of eugenics]).

    Second, the meaning of the word "though" relates to its context in a sentence and not just as a word definition."It is understood that the word "though" implies a challenge to overcome while the word "but" implies an obstacle. If Dawkins had wanted to contrast the positive results of scientific eugenics with a negative view of it's moral implications, then he would have used the word "but" at the beginning of the parenthetical phrase, but he did not."

    Havok is a good object lesson for 2 reasons. First, his need to resort to unsubstantiated slander and lies, instead of valid points and arguments, represents the frustration of many atheists. Second, his consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.


You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!