Jerry Newcombe, spokesman for Truth in Action Ministries (formerly Coral Ridge Ministries, led by the late D. James Kennedy), has a column in the Worldnutdaily defending the idea that there was a literal Adam and Eve like the Bible says. He presents no evidence for this, of course, merely saying that he believes that because he believes in Jesus and Jesus quoted Genesis. Wow, what a compelling argument. But then he tries to argue against evolution and falls flat on his face.
How are we to understand claims of overwhelming “scientific facts” backing up the theory of evolution? Well, there are minor biological changes in nature. Some people call this “micro-evolution” (if you will), which simply refers to a limited range variation within a species or kind. In Genesis, God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind.” That’s why some dogs are poodles and some dogs are great Danes, while both still remain dogs.
Critics note that Darwinists have tried to make a word game by using undisputed microevolution (if you want to call it that), which can be observed everywhere, and claim it as proof of macroevolution - the theory that one species can change into another and that all life evolved ultimately from a common ancestor.
Those critics are abysmally ignorant. There is no distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” Just like one can measure time in seconds (micro) or centuries (macro), the latter is merely the accumulation of the former.
Who knows, maybe this could be better than the real United Nations.
Dashshund UN, an art instalment currently being staged by Toronto’s Harbourfront Centre’s World Stage festival, has critics’ and audiences’ tails wagging.
A dachshund is petted by its owner before the start of a performance installation “Dachshund UN”, where dogs were used to mimic a United Nations Commission on Human Rights meeting in Toronto
The 50-minute show, developed by Australian artist Bennett Miller, involves 36 dachshunds reenacting a meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
“It gets the audience to consider human behaviour differently,” Miller told CBC News.
“Shock, delight, cacophony! A meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is staged with the help of specially recruited dachshunds in this wild performance installation. Joyful and chaotic, spectacular and fascinating, Dachshund UN questions our capacity to imagine and achieve a universal system of justice,” Harbourfront Centre’s website states.
“It’s a simple concept. Some choral music with a martial tone and then the curtain rises on four tiers of dogs — apparently a replica of the UN office in Geneva — and then the audience watches the dogs, talks loudly and snaps photos throughout, and the dogs stare back, mostly in bafflement,” Toronto Star entertainment reporter Bruce DeMara writes.
How cute :)
UPDATE: It seems that several links from the original story are no longer available. I am removing them from the links below. Please see:
I added additional links at the bottom, as well.
I have been involved in the world of dogs for almost as long as I can remember. I spent the first 13 years of my life begging my parents for a dog, and then the rest of my life sharing my house, my heart, and my bed with the various dogs I have been fortunate enough to have.
To say I am a dog nut is an understatement. I am their food slave and love giver and they are my everything. I have shown dogs. I rescue dogs. I ran a breed club’s rescue for several years.
Few things sicken me more than people flocking to PETA because they love animals, because too few people know what PETA’s agenda is. It is not to protect animals. It is to ensure that you never own a Spot of Fluffy. They would rather kill an animal than have it “owned”.
When I showed dogs (about 15 years ago), there was a rabid part of PETA, people who would go to dog shows and release dogs from their crates because crating a dog was cruel. Two times, those dogs ran off and were hit by cars. That was not disturbing to the people who released them. It was better dead than owned.
I happened upon a series of articles last year concerning PETA and, for those who are so inclined, I suggest you read about this supposed do-good organization.
Nobody does the euthanasia thing quite like PETA, Ingrid Newkirk’s vaunted animal-rights organization. After long being dismissed as an outrageous slander — just another right-wing slur — this gruesome truth has finally gained traction in the mainstream press: PETA’s headquarters in Norfolk has the highest kill rate in the nation. A rescued pet has the same chances of surviving PETA’s sanctuary as it does of receiving genuine love and affection from Michael Vick.
This isn’t my opinion: It is a legally documented fact. In 2011, PETA killed 97 per cent of the animals delivered into its care.
PETA, for reasons near impossible to comprehend, decided to devote itself to precisely the treachery that inspired Newkirk’s mission in the first place. Her organization now routinely takes in animals, with the gentle lie that it intends to re-home them. It then exterminates them. Generally within twenty-four hours. All of them.
Correction: almost all. Some lucky 3 percent managed to escape PETA’s euthanasia machine last year. How these blessed few got chosen is an interesting question in itself. While we are being precise: the workers at that first shelter were not in fact treacherous — they did not lie about their intentions. They were less vicious than the organization that Newkirk founded in response to their blithe slaughter.
If you intern at PETA’s headquarters in Norfolk, you are expected to condone the killing of shelter animals. On the official application (which you can download here), the only question that requires a response longer than a couple of factual words is:
Have a look at our Web site, review our stance on euthanasia, and let me know if you agree or disagree with it and why.
This is not an organization that an animal lover wants to be associated with.
Paws for Purple Hearts is a unique program that uses dogs to treat soldiers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
The Kindness of Beasts: Dogs Rescue Their Friends and Elephants Care for Injured Kin- Humans Have No Monopoly on Moral Behaviour
When I became a father for the first time, at the ripe old age of 44, various historical contingencies saw to it that my nascent son would be sharing his home with two senescent canines. There was Nina, an endearing though occasionally ferocious German shepherd/Malamute cross. And there was Tess, a wolf-dog mix who, though gentle, had some rather highly developed predatory instincts. So, I was a little concerned about how the co-sharing arrangements were going to work. As things turned out, I needn’t have worried.
During the year or so that their old lives overlapped with that of my son, I was alternately touched, shocked, amazed, and dumbfounded by the kindness and patience they exhibited towards him. They would follow him from room to room, everywhere he went in the house, and lie down next to him while he slept. Crawled on, dribbled on, kicked, elbowed and kneed: these occurrences were all treated with a resigned fatalism. The fingers in the eye they received on a daily basis would be shrugged off with an almost Zen-like calm. In many respects, they were better parents than me. If my son so much as squeaked during the night, I would instantly feel two cold noses pressed in my face: get up, you negligent father — your son needs you.
Kindness and patience seem to have a clear moral dimension. They are forms of what we might call ‘concern’ — emotional states that have as their focus the wellbeing of another — and concern for the welfare of others lies at the heart of morality. If Nina and Tess were concerned for the welfare of my son then, perhaps, they were acting morally: their behaviour had, at least in part, a moral motivation. And so, in those foggy, sleepless nights of early fatherhood, a puzzle was born inside of me, one that has been gnawing away at me ever since. If there is one thing on which most philosophers and scientists have always been in agreement it is the subject of human moral exceptionalism: humans, and humans alone, are capable of acting morally. Yet, this didn’t seem to tally with the way I came to think of Nina and Tess.
Binti Jua lifted the unconscious boy, gently cradled him in her arms, and growled warnings at other gorillas that tried to get close
The Marine Corps is debunking an offer to provide bomb-sniffing dogs for adoption that has been published by numerous websites, blogs and e-mail lists.
There are currently no bomb detection dogs available for adoption, the Marine Corps Systems Command said in a statement.
An e-mail whose origin is not clear and that appeared to circulate widely said the Corps was looking for good homes for “incredibly well-trained” Labradors, Belgian Malinois, border collies, German shepherds and Rottweilers that served in war zones.
The e-mail went on to say that the approximately 400 dogs were “war heroes,” having saved countless American lives by sniffing out improvised explosive devices before they could blow up. Adoptive families were told they must go to Washington to pick up the dogs or arrange transport at their own expense.
Cesar Millan: If Dogs Could Vote: Why We Could Learn a Valuable Lesson From Our Dogs About How to Choose a Great Pack Leader
How many millions of words do you think will be spoken and written this year by people trying to persuade you to vote for them? And how often will you hear promises that you already know in your heart will be forgotten as soon as the election is over and they have your vote?
It makes me wish that I could invite the candidates to my Dog Psychology Center and introduce them to my pack. Trust me, the dogs would quickly figure out who the natural Pack Leader is!
And one of the biggest advantages that the dogs have over human voters is that all those millions of words are just so much noise to them! The pack would make a tough audience for a town hall debate, because you can’t lie to a dog — their instinctive intelligence would see right through it!
Dogs — and, in fact, all animals that live in packs — will never follow an unstable leader. They know that balance and calm, assertive energy in a leader are essential to the survival of the entire pack. But humans will not only follow an unstable leader — sometimes we will even go to the polls and re-elect them for a second or third time! The difference is that instead of trusting our instincts, we actually listen to all those words.
Every modern president has had dogs at the White House. I can’t begin to imagine how tough that job is, but I know it would be impossible for me without the companionship of a dog. When you are under that kind of pressure, who wouldn’t want a friend as loyal and trustworthy as a dog? And the beauty is that the dog doesn’t care whether home is the White House or a park bench — she’ll love you just the same.
I’m always amused when I see a picture of a U.S. president, Republican or Democrat, with his dog. Here is the most powerful man in the world but the dog is calling the shots, pulling ahead on the leash and clearly taking control. It’s something I have observed firsthand over the years with clients who are powerful figures in the business world but can’t take the role of Pack Leader with their own dogs.
Lisa Baruzzi admits she used to slip Richie a few too many treats. She just wanted to show him how much she loved him — “he’s just the sweetest dog you’ll ever meet.”
Then, Richie started having heart trouble. A cardiologist told Baruzzi the golden retriever would have a better recovery if he weren’t 20 pounds overweight, and referred the dog to a pet nutritionist.
America’s pets are having their own obesity crisis, studies show, with at least 35 percent of household dogs and cats above their ideal weight. And the nation’s two obesity epidemics — pet and human — are tightly entwined: Americans, it seems, are as indulgent with their animals as they are with themselves.
Last month, Dr. Deborah Linder of Tufts University opened an obesity clinic at the school’s North Grafton campus to help people help their pets lose weight. She recently taught Baruzzi to show her love for Richie with attention instead of bullysticks and Frosty Paws. The board-certified veterinary nutritionist also put Richie on a strict diet of kibbles, helping him shed 5 pounds in six weeks.
Linder expects to see a handful of cats and dogs a day while conducting research into pet obesity. The clinic’s standard care package costs $250 for an extensive initial session and six checkups, plus phone and e-mail follow-up, as needed.
‘They believe they’re showing it love, but they’re killing it with kindness.’
For some of us, dogs and cats are more than just pets. They’re blood pressure meds with wet noses.
A new study suggests having your pet nearby—or even thinking about him or her—can boost confidence and reduce stress, along with its physical symptoms.
But there’s a caveat: This dynamic only applies to owners who feel a loving connection to their feline or canine companion. If you think of Fluffy as a flea-infested nuisance, no benefits.
“Proximity to a pet can empower its owner,” writes a research team led by psychologist Sigal Zilcha-Mano of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. Specifically, the scholars argue, pets can help people relax and grow by serving “as a safe haven and secure base.”
The team’s findings, published in the Journal of Research in Personality, are the third in a series of papers examining pet ownership from the perspective of attachment theory.
According to this school of psychology, children and adolescents who have “attachment figures who are available and supportive in times of need”—say, good parents—develop a sense of internal security, giving them the confidence they need to explore the world.
Later in life, a supportive spouse or network of close friends can play a similar role. Zilcha-Mano and colleagues contend that pets can serve this same important function.