text:
Evolution (Way of the Master)
Evolution is the title of the eighth episode from season two of Way of the Master.
- 1 Episode Synopsis
- 2 Episode Walkthrough
- 2.1 Introduction
- 2.2 Street Interviews
- 2.3 Missing Evidence
- 2.4 Ancient hominids and hoaxes
- 2.5 Misrepresenting Gould
- 2.6 Common Blueprints
- 2.7 Lunch with an orangutan
- 2.8 Discrediting Darwin
- 2.9 Expert testimony
- 2.10 Rejection of the Bible
- 2.11 Street Interviews 2
- 2.12 Turn off your brain
- 2.13 The Purpose of the Church
- 2.14 The Atheist Test
- 2.15 Closing Comments
- 3 External Links
Episode Synopsis[edit]
In the opening scene, shot in black-and-white, Kirk is meant to resemble Rod Serling and delivers a modified version of Serling's traditional Twilight Zone introduction:
- "You've traveled to another dimension, a dimension not only of contradiction and speculation but also one that defies logic and is based on blind faith. A journey into a nebulous land whose limits are that of imagination. You've just crossed over into, The Evolution Zone."
Comment: This introduction lays the groundwork for the case against evolution presented in this episode. Kirk's assertions are that evolution is:
- replete with contradictions
- rooted in speculation
- logically unsound
- based on blind faith
- nebulous
- the result of an active imagination
In using the Twilight Zone imagery, they intend to represent evolutionary theory as being more science fiction than science.
As the particular objections he raises are usually attributed to creationism, this is the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?" This is an attempt to muddy the issue by making evolutionary theory appear to be, at a minimum, equally subject to the criticisms of creationism and support the idea that, lacking absolute knowledge, we should "teach the controversy."
This notion, popular with the Intelligent Design movement, establishes a false dilemma (by ignoring other creation myths) and relies on a general ignorance of scientific theories and methods in the hopes that public opinion, rather than evidence, will be sufficient to raise the status of their claims to a level which can compete openly with established scientific explanations.
Episode Walkthrough[edit]
(0:53 - 2:21)
- Kirk, "What you're about to see, was not planned. There was no script, there were no writers, there were no cameras, no production crew, no lighting, no graphic artists and no editors. The entire program 'just happened' ... there was a big bang in our production studio...and here we are."
- Ray, "Could you believe that? Of course you couldn't. No one in their right mind could. And yet many evolutionists would have us believe that, in the name of science."
Comment: Ray and Kirk are fond of analogies which completely misrepresent the current scientific explanations they mean to denounce. Here they're combining big bang cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution into one theory. This false oversimplification isn't remotely accurate and any scientist who made such an elementary mistake would lose all credibility. In science, those theories are completely separate and in very different states.
Evolutionary theory is wholly unconcerned with the big bang and abiogenesis. Regardless of how the universe was created or how life began, evolution (descent with modification) does occur. This is a simple, scientific observation...a fact which requires an explanation (later discovered to be errors in DNA replication) and can be used within theories to explain other things. Evolutionary theory holds that the process of natural selection determines which of these changes (mutations) survive and which die off. Over long periods of time, this process is responsible for speciation (another observed fact) and it seems to be a reasonably sufficient explanation for the diversity of life.
- Ray, "There was no creator. No space, no energy, no matter, there was nothing. And then there was this big bang and out came the sea and the land...the birds and flowers and trees and elephants and giraffes and horses and cats and dogs and, of course man and woman...and this took countless millions of years."
Comment: This program, which purports to be a critique of evolution, has started off with a lot of criticism of big bang cosmology and abiogenesis, which have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Ray's statement seems absurd, because it is...yet it doesn't accurately represent any scientific theory.
His objection is structured in such a way that it implies that all of these things were directly produced by a big bang and he completely ignores the very thing he wants to argue against - evolutionary theory. The only portion of his statement which remotely correlates to evolutionary theory is his dismissive remark that, "...this took countless millions of years." Presented as an afterthought, it's meant to appear as absurd as the rest of his remarks.
- Ray, "We're now gonna look closely at some of the believers of the theory of evolution and we want you to listen very closely to the type of language they use. True believers use, what we call, the language of speculation. They'll start off sounding like an expert, but because there's such a lack of factual evidence for the theory, they're forced to use words like, "we surmise", "we believe", "perhaps", "maybe", "could've" and "possibly." And then they'll end up saying things like, well, "I really don't know", "I'm not an expert." So watch for these phrases and these words."
Comment: As if misrepresenting the theory of evolution was not enough, Ray prepares us for an incredibly dishonest adventure. Instead of speaking to actual experts who could provide scientific explanations, they're heading out to accost individuals on the street. This isn't an attempt to provide a scientific objection to evolutionary theory, it's a cheap theatric. It's a weak argument from incredulity which asserts that if these individuals don't have a good explanation, none exists and the theory is just wild speculation. If we were to use their methodology, no scientific theory would stand up.
The people being interviewed are being honest in their explanations. The "language of speculation" that Ray wants us to watch for is, in fact, honesty. Instead of acknowledging that these non-experts willingly admitted they weren't experts, he seeks to use this admission as an indictment against the theory. It's hardly surprising, given Ray's gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, that he would avoid experts and seek out lay people.
Ray falsely asserts that the individuals are forced to use words like "maybe" and "possibly" because of the lack of factual evidence for the theory. This is logically unsound. The fact that a lay person may not be aware of or able to explain the factual evidence for the theory does not mean that the evidence doesn't exist. If Ray were really interested in discovering factual evidence, he should have sought out experts. The fact that he did not do this, betrays his true motives and demonstrates the weakness of his position.
Finally, even if Ray had sought out experts, we might still have heard many of the words he mentions, because science doesn't assert absolutes. Science is concerned with discovering the most reasonable, most likely explanation based on the available evidence.
The honesty of scientists and the integrity of the scientific method is often taken advantage of by apologists like Ray. Any admission to a lack of absolute certainty is perceived as a gap into which the apologist can insert their own assertion that "god did it." Ray, and his ilk, assert absolute answers with no supporting evidence, while science presents sound explanations based on the available evidence.
Street Interviews[edit]
(2:22 - 6:52)
- Ray asks several individuals, "Do you believe man evolved from apes?"
Comment: While each of the individuals affirmed that they believe this, Ray's question doesn't accurately reflect evolutionary theory in any sense beyond the colloquial. Evolutionary theory claims that man and ape evolved from a common ancestor, not that man evolved from apes, as we classify them today.
- Ray asks a young woman to be more specific about the evidence which supports evolutionary theory. She gives a brief explanation which begins with the formation of the earth and quickly mentions that single-cell organisms eventually developed and, over time, evolved into humans.
- Ray asks a young man, "How did it begin? His response is, "I don't know. Probably the big bang theory."
Comment: The man's honest admissions that he doesn't know the answer, but accepts that the current scientific explanation is probable, are highlighted with graphics as two of the phrases ("I don't know." and "probably") Ray wants us to watch for. Admitting one's ignorance is not always an easy thing to do. In the face of a question which does not have the absolute answer Ray is seeking, this individual's response is the only honest answer and Ray despicably exploits his honesty as an indictment on evolutionary theory. This is particularly dishonest given the nature of the question asked.
The response should have continued, "...and you don't know, either."
- Ray's response is, "What caused the big bang?"
Comment: While the young man's answer is fundamentally impossible ("probably an asteroid from another planet"), Ray is beginning to use the cosmological argument. One fundamental flaw in this line of reasoning is that the apologists' answer, that God is the uncaused first cause, denies the initial premise that nothing can exist without a cause.
- Ray asks a young woman about life emerging from the oceans, "When they came out, what came out of the ocean?" She responds, "I don't know, you tell me."
Comment: Ray's answer, if any was given, wasn't included and the clip cuts to the next interview.
Ray continues asking questions which, when answered honestly (especially by a lay person) must lead to the particular "language of speculation" responses he's looking for.
Other questions asked:
- "Cause I'm trying to think...here is this sort of animal who's coming out of the ocean without lungs, so he comes out with gills, goes [gasping noises] runs back to water and just keeps coming out until lungs develop?"
Comment: Fossil evidence and the swim bladders of some modern fish support evolutionary theory regarding the evolution from gills and gill-like features to lungs in the earliest amphibians. Ray, in attempting to make this sound as absurd as possible, relies on our inherent inability to properly conceive of large spans of time, portraying one individual creature, at one point in time. This oversimplification of speciation doesn't accurately reflect scientific explanations.
- "This animal that came out, without lungs, and breathed and went back in, was he male or female?"
- "He could have been alone? How did he reproduce?"
Comment: These questions betray Ray's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and speciation. Asexual and hermaphroditic species can, sometimes, form new species but among sexually reproducing species, we wouldn't see one spontaneous jump to a new species, we'd see gradual changes which allow reproduction but still represent a fundamental change from the ancestor. These changes, eventually, result in the rise of a new species.
Evolutionary theory, like the individuals responding to Ray's questions, doesn't purport to have an absolute explanation for every aspect of origins. It is a continuing field of research, yet the fundamentals of evolutionary theory are the very basis of all modern biology. For answers to these questions, and many others, visit the [talk origins website].
The interview segment concludes with the question, "Do you think God had anything to do with this?" The response is, "That's an area I've never explored but it's hard not to believe that, sometimes."
Comment: The camera freezes on his face and the still shot slowly zooms in on his face, as if this were some ominous admission that his lack of knowledge is support for the claim that God is responsible. Even if we were to discover that evolutionary theory is completely wrong, that still isn't evidence for the hypothesis that a god exists and is responsible for creating the universe. That hypothesis requires its own supporting evidence and testing. Something which has yet to prove fruitful, though Ray and other apologists would prefer to avoid that and simply proclaim that it is true.
This ominous zoom is an implied argument from ignorance. Ray's implication is that these answers are unknown to all believers in evolution and that the "real" answers are known to believers in creationism.
Episode 21 - Evolution
Missing Evidence[edit]
(6:53 - 8:55)
- Kirk, "Ok, here's a simple lesson on evolution. The theory of evolution basically teaches that every living creature, like you and me, evolved from a single cell, billions of years ago. So that means that every animal supposedly transformed into another kind of animal, over time."
Comment: This is certainly a very simple lesson on evolution and, judging only the intent of Kirk's words, it's fairly accurate. Common ancestry is a foundational principle of the biological evolution of all life on Earth.
- Kirk, "Now, the big problem evolutionists have is that they're finding a huge gap in the fossil record. In other words, when archaeologists dig up the bones of these dead animals, they don't find these transitional forms that helped one animal transform into another animal. And if you don't have those bones, you can't prove evolution ever happened."
Comment: Kirk makes three claims here,
- Scientists find huge gaps in the fossil record
- Scientists don't find transitional forms
- Transitional fossils are required to prove evolution occurred
The first is true, though 'huge' may make the statement misleading. The second is false and Kirk runs with this false statement...to the extreme. The third is simply false, as even without any fossils at all there would still be enough evidence to "prove" evolution occurred.
- Kirk, "That's what they're calling, 'The Missing Link' and there's not just one, there would have to be thousands and thousands of those transitional forms. The truth is, they're not missing at all, they never existed in the first place."
Comment: Kirk's claim isn't supported by evidence and conveniently dismisses the bulk of scientific evidence which contradicts it.
- Kirk, "Now, maybe you're asking 'what about the proof?' I mean, what about those science teachers that showed us those drawings of apes, all hunched over and then eventually straightening themselves up and becoming very 'man-like'? Well, remember, those are just drawings, that's not proof."
Comment: Kirk is correct, drawings aren't proof. In fact, many of the drawings of extinct species are simply artistic interpretations based on the available evidence, especially in the areas of soft-tissue and coloration.
- Kirk, "The real proof is in what we can find in the fossil record. The bones that we dig up. And that's what's missing, the actual proof."
Comment: Kirk is correct that the 'real proof' is in the fossil record, though he completely denies the existence of this evidence. The skeletal structures (the basis for the drawings he objects to) exist for a variety of species, including transitional forms. In denying the available evidence and relying on bad information, Kirk takes a real issue, an incomplete fossil record, and exaggerates it to claim that there's no fossil record.
- Kirk, "In reality, this is what scientists actually have: [cut to Kirk and a chimp standing against a wall] me..and the monkey. Apes and humans. The supposed transitional forms are what are known as the 'missing links'. But the truth is, there is no missing link. There's nothing to link apes to humans. The 'supposed' transitional forms simply don't exist...except in the imagination of evolutionists who want to justify their theory."
Comment: Essentially, he's claiming that the bulk of the scientific community is delusional and portraying fictional evidence in order to support their theory. This accusation takes all of the fossil evidence, all of the DNA evidence, all observations of genetic change, all observations of speciation, all of the reliable, consistent predictions of the theory which serve as the cornerstone for all of modern biology...and tosses them aside in favor of the idea that scientists are imagining that the evidence fits the theory.
Kirk's pseudo-conspiracy theory is supported only by accusations, not evidence. Intelligent Design creationists often attempt to exploit "gaps" in evolutionary theory (the Discovery Institute's infamous Wedge Document is clear evidence of this) and most of their objections center around assertions that 'evolution isn't a sufficient explanation' or direct denial of the validity of evidence supporting evolution. The complete lack of evidenciary support for their own ideas prevents them from offering viable alternate explanations to challenge evolutionary theory and the easiest tactic is to simply misrepresent or deny the evidence which supports the theory of evolution.
Ancient hominids and hoaxes[edit]
(8:56 - 9:45)
Kirk provides four examples for us to consider...
- Lucy - (Australopithecus afarensis)
- Kirk's claim: "...nearly all experts agree that Lucy was just the skeleton of a 3-foot-tall chimpanzee"
Comment: This is simply not true. This claim has been made by a variety of creationists and makes an appearance in the Big Daddy? tract by Jack Chick. Australopithecines were the subject of much study and debate (as any scientific discovery should be). While many, like Sir Arthur Keith, initially proclaimed that Lucy was possibly a chimpanzee and, at a minimum, more ape-like than man-like, the consensus view by 1950 was that australopithecines were far more similar to humans than chimpanzees. Sir Keith retracted his initial position:
- "I was one of those who took the point of view that when the adult form was discovered it would prove to be near akin to the living African anthropoids—the gorilla and chimpanzee. Like Prof. Le Gros Clark, I am now convinced, on the evidence submitted by Dr. Robert Broom, that Prof. Dart was right and that I was wrong; the Australopithecinae are in or near the line which culminated in the human form." - Arthur Keith, (Nature March 15, 1947)
The consensus opinion among experts remains and Kirk's claims that "nearly all experts" agree that Lucy was a chimp is without basis.
- Nebraska man
- Kirk's claim: "...they created an entire skeleton with arms, legs, feet, hands, even facial features when all they really had was one tooth which, later, was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig."
Comment: The TalkOrigins Archive has a discussion about Nebraska man. In short, Nebraska man was an error, which was quickly corrected. The image to which Kirk is referring appeared in Illustrated London News (Smith 1922) and was drawn by Amedee Forestier. The image was accompanied by the following text, which was repeated in the article:
- "Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted." - (Smith 1922)
Most scientists were skeptical of the discovery and few, if any, reputable scientists made any bold assertions that this was a confirmed human ancestor. Since the discovery of the error, Nebraska man's only significant mention is in creationist literature that hopes to discredit evolution by exploiting a mistake - a mistake which was discovered and exposed by scientists.
- Piltdown man
- Kirk's claim: "...the jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape."
Comment: Piltdown man was a hoax, which was exposed by science. This is significant not only because it demonstrates the self-correcting methods of science but because the evidence which exposed the hoax supports evolutionary theory. The bulk of evidence regarding ancient hominids formed a clear evolutionary pattern and Piltdown man remained an anomaly - it didn't fit the pattern.
A single hoax does not disprove a theory and, in this case, exposing the hoax actually demonstrates the veracity of the theory. Piltdown man, once exposed as a hoax, was no longer used as evidence for evolutionary theory, yet continues to be referenced by creationists as evidence against evolution.
Interestingly, there are a number of Creationist hoaxes which continue to be used to support creationist arguments.
- Neanderthal man - (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)
- Kirk's claim: " ...whose famous skeleton, found in France over 50 years ago, was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis."
Comment: Kirk begins by reducing Neanderthal man to a single skeleton when, in fact, many specimens have been discovered. While some of them have exhibited symptoms of arthritis or other diseases, neither arthritis nor rickets (the other common claim) explain the the distinct features of Neanderthals. Additionally, these diseases do not result in similar features in modern humans.
Misrepresenting Gould[edit]
(9:46 - 10:04)
Ray invites us to "listen to what the famous Harvard evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould said about the fossil record..."
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palientology..."
- — Stephen Jay Gould (as it appears in episode 21 of Way of the Master)
Comment: Despite the misspelling of 'paleontology' (and the amusement that their spelling includes the word 'lie' - pa-lie-ntology), the quote is technically accurate. The context in which they frame this quote, however, completely misrepresents Gould's position...and still doesn't support their claim. Kirk's claim is that "transitional forms don't exist" yet Gould's quote refers to them as 'rare' not 'non-existent'.
- More quotes from Gould on this subject:
- "Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution ... but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim." - Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" (1983)
- "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
Common Blueprints[edit]
(10:05 - 12:04)
- Kirk, "Have you ever been mystified as to why human beings and apes have so many similar features? After all, compare our hands to the hands of apes - they're very similar - and our feet are a lot the same. In fact, we can make many of the same facial expressions and other things that apes can do. To prove this point we hired an orangutan for the day and had some fun. Check this out..." [cut to a vignette of Kirk and the orangutan making similar facial expressions]
Comment: Kirk makes a number of expressions which are "aped" by the orangutan (which, incidentally, is derived from the Malay for man of the forest). He begins each one by describing an emotional condition and displaying the corresponding expression; happiness, embarrassment, disagreement, agreement and others.
- Kirk, "Does this prove that men evolved from apes? No, not at all."
Comment: Agreed, this sort of similarity alone does not prove common ancestry and evolutionary theory isn't based on facile observations like this one. One possible description of the scientific method is; observation leads to an hypothesis which leads to evidence gathering, testing and falsification which leads to the development of a theory. The theory, if it holds, should be useful, and continually subject to revision (based on evidence) while making predictions which should be verified by evidence. Kirk is declaring that the observation of similarity doesn't prove anything - and he's right. The observed similarities he noted, and others, are the starting point, not the proof.
Kirk, and those who share his views, reject or ignore the evidence and consistently reliable predictions which support the theory.
- Kirk, "Think of it like this; think of the bi-plane and the 747 jumbo jet. They're both very similar. After all, they both have wings, they both have landing gear, cockpits...does that mean that the jet evolved from the little bi-plane? Not at all...it just means they have a common designer. The designer used a similar blueprint for each one."
Comment: Actually, it may be fair to say that the 747 did evolve from the bi-plane. While we're obviously not talking about biological evolution, the designs did evolve - with the guidance of the human mind. It's doubtful that a 747 could have been invented without relying on the early invention of the bi-plane. Creationists, like Kirk, will immediately point out that this claim of evolution necessarily requires a guiding intelligence - and they're correct. However, they've failed to consider why this process requires intelligence and the answer is remarkably simple: external intelligent guidance is required because planes are not biological organisms - they have no method of self-replication, no mechanism for changes in this replication and no selection filter to determine the results. A guiding intelligence is required to fill those roles.
Life, human and otherwise, includes the ability to self-replicate and this imperfect replication is filtered by natural selection. There's no evidence to support the idea of an intelligent designer and no reason to posit one in the first place.
- Kirk, "It's the same with us. God, the creator of the world and the universe, is our common designer. He simply used a similar blueprint when creating the hands and feet and facial expressions of men and apes."
Comment: This ad hoc explanation for the similarity between man and ape is without justification or evidence. Evolution doesn't deny that life was designed, it just recognizes that natural selection is the designer. Similarities between species is explainable by purely natural means and Kirk is completely correct - there is a blueprint for life... it's called DNA. Speciation is an observed fact.
Lunch with an orangutan[edit]
(12:05 - 17:00)
- Ray, "Despite the fact that there is no evidence when it comes to the theory of evolution, we're continually told that primates are our relatives. So we decided, we'd have a little fun and call a number of airlines and ask if we could have a 'relative' fly on the plane with us."
Comment: This adventure in absurdity is a cheap theatric to ridicule evolutionary theory. A thinly veiled equivocation fallacy, they rely on the common understanding of 'relative' while arguing against a very different meaning of the word.
- Ray, talking to various airlines, "I'm flying with a friend, um, and I'd like to take a relative with us. He works in the movie industry so he'll have two managers with him and the reason for the managers is he's a little slow intellectually and he's also got physical problems with underdeveloped feet. He can't stand upright. Uh, his name is Bam Bam, he's actually an orangutan and what we want to do is take him on the flight, with two managers, is it possible to do that?"
- Airline representative, '"No sir, we can't transport animals..."
Comment: Ray goes on to question the airline representatives about whether or not they believe that we "came from apes", though none were willing to address the question.
- Ray, "Despite the fact that airlines won't allow primates on planes, for obvious reasons, there are some scientists who'd have us believe that primates are just about as intelligent as human beings."
Comment: Intelligence is irrelevant to whether or not airlines will allow primates on planes just as whether or not airlines allow them on planes is irrelevant to whether or not we're related.
- Ray, "So Kirk and I took an orangutan to lunch to see if it [claims of ape intelligence] was true."
Comment: Ray spends the next few minutes pointing out all of the stupid things that the ape does, like sucking on their tracts, demonstrating a lack of etiquette, stuffing his mouth like an untrained beast. He also notes that the ape also broke the 10th Commandment (coveting Ray and Kirk's lunches - though one might think this is an argument for intelligence and desires similar to humans, Ray apparently doesn't notice) and used a fork (though Ray was fearful that he would be stabbed).
This entire exercise is a red herring and while Ray may shrug it off as a bit of fun, the fact remains that rather than addressing evolutionary theory they're attacking straw man after straw man. While they're both quick to claim that there's no evidence for evolution, they have yet to demonstrate an understanding of the theory or seriously address any of its claims.
- Ray, "The incident reinforced the fact that the primate is limited when it comes to the unique ability, the human ability, to reason, to invent, to appreciate the sound of music."
Comment: Ray's real objection is one of "sophistication". His examples are also flawed in that he's comparing two modern species without regard to the divergent variation which has occurred since the time of our last common ancestor. The current mental state of either species is completely irrelevant to their evolutionary ties. Ray's understanding of evolution seems to be more similar to the ladder-view, complete with goals and value judgments. Evolutionary theory is better represented by a tree-view.
By way of analogy, Ray's objections about the ape could be made of a human with severe mental retardation. Would Ray be willing to claim that this was reasonable evidence to claim that such an individual is not related to humans?
- Ray, "You see you don't get orangutans forming themselves into an orchestra. You don't get them forming themselves into a court system to mete out justice to its fellow creatures. This isn't because he's a prehistoric man who's less evolved than us, but it's because he's another species."
Comment: Ray is absolutely correct and clearly, if he thinks this is a valid argument against evolution, he has no concept of evolution. Evolutionary theory doesn't claim that modern apes are less evolved than humans (the ladder-view), it doesn't claim that they're prehistoric men...evolution claims that modern apes and modern humans (which are scientifically classified as apes) are descendants of a common ancestor.
Ray's spent so much time arguing against his straw man version of evolution that he's failed to notice that his final sentence completely negates every single objection he's just raised.
Discrediting Darwin[edit]
(17:00 - 18:17)
- Kirk, "The revered father of evolution, the man who really made the theory popular is Charles Darwin. He wrote Origin of Species and the Descent of Man. Ladies, listen to what he had to say about women.."
- "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up than woman can attain; whether requiring deep thought, reason or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands."
- Kirk, "Did you hear that?! He's saying that man has evolved to a higher eminence over women in, basically, anything he decides to do. Whether it requires reason, imagination or deep thought. Darwinian evolution, at its core is not only male chauvinistic but it's also very racist. Charles Darwin wants us to believe that black people are less evolved than whites."
Comment: Darwin's personal views on race, the sexes and even evolution are completely irrelevant to the assessment of whether or not evolutionary theory is true. This is an ad hominem attack, and a particularly weak one. This is just as irrelevant as the false claims that Darwin recanted on his death bed. As Ray and Kirk are unable to provide any reasonable criticism of evolutionary theory they are forced to resort to flawed arguments and irrelevant commentary in an attempt to make evolution distasteful. Unfortunately the truth, however distasteful, isn't threatened by such tricks. Evolutionary theory isn't sexist or racist, science deals with facts not opinions.
It's a bit ironic, however, that they chose to attack Darwin's views on women. One wonders if they've read their own Bible which not only denigrates women but supports slavery.
Expert testimony[edit]
(18:18 - 19:10) Ray, "If we can't convince you of how unscientific the theory of evolution is, perhaps these following experts can.."
- Ernst Chain (1906-1979), Nobel prize winner in medicine said, in reference to the theory of evolution, "I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation."
Comment: Chain was not alone. Other knowledgeable scientists have objected to evolutionary theory, for a variety of reason. However, the truth of the theory is not dependent on the opinions or preferences of any individual. Chain's primary objection (that the probability of the origin of DNA molecules by sheer chance is too small to be seriously considered) is an outdated objection to abiogenesis, not evolution. Additionally, his objection is an argument from ignorance - even if we were to discover that the true probability was enormously small, that has no bearing on whether or not it actually occurred because 'unlikely' does not equate to 'impossible'.
Modern theories refute Chain's objection by noting that it's based on fundamentally flawed assumptions. The first 'life' forms need not resemble modern proteins, they could have been single, self-replicating molecules or any number of other simple living things. The formation of these simple polymers is a natural function of chemistry and the element of 'sheer chance' is limited.
- Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955) Physical anthropologist who "wrote the forward to Darwin's Origin of the Species, 100th anniversary edition" said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
Comment: This quote, cited by a number of creationists, appears to be completely fraudulent. Firstly, Sir Keith died in 1955 and couldn't have written the forward to the 100th edition of Origin of Species in 1959. He did write an introduction to an edition of Origin of Species but in 1928, over 30 years prior to the centennial. The quote attributed to him does not appear in that edition or in any other known work.
The quote is designed to make it appear as though Keith's acceptance of evolution was a reaction to his rejection of special creation. Sir Keith's writings make it clear that the opposite is true...he accepted evolution as the best explanation based on evidence and rejected special creation based on a lack of evidence and its inability to explain observations. Writing about Darwin's observations of different species on the Galapagos Islands...
- "And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things."
- "The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true."
- Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-2003) British journalist and philosopher said, "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books in the future."
Comment: An obviously flawed argument from authority, this quote from Muggeridge does nothing to further Ray's stated goal of demonstrating that the theory of evolution is 'unscientific'. What is unscientific is Ray's attempt to discredit evolution.
The opinion of any individual, philosopher or scientist, has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false.
Rejection of the Bible[edit]
(19:11 - 19:20)
- Kirk, "A wise man once said, man will believe anything as long as it's not in the Bible."
Comment: This quote is commonly attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, though we've been unable to identify the source. While this is meant as an amusing indictment of man's visceral rejection of God, it's actually an interesting point to ponder. In truth, whether consciously or subconsciously, rejections of Biblical claims are justified. We have no autographs and no reliable evidence to support the claim that it is divine in origin.
One might propose an alternate version, directed at fundamentalists, "Some people will believe anything as long as it's in the Bible."
Every claim, whether from an ancient book or a close friend, must be critically examined before belief or rejection can be justified. If a single source makes numerous claims, its reliability can be evaluated by looking for clarity, consistency and correlation to known facts. If it is found to be self-contradictory, confusing, or in contradiction to known facts, it is reasonable to doubt or reject its validity. If it promotes values commonly considered immoral while proclaiming that these are moral absolutes, it is worthy of ridicule and opposition.
Street Interviews 2[edit]
(19:22 - 21:29)
Ray and his crew head back out into the streets to ask lay people (and one PhD biologist) questions about evolution..
Transitional Fossils[edit]
- Question (apparently asked of a lay person): "Can you give me any example of a transitional form, going from one kind of animal to another kind?"
- Response: "I can't think of anything right off the moment."
Comment: We've already addressed the absurdity of asking random people to answer scientific questions. If they don't know the answer or get it wrong, you've proved nothing. The fact that this individual couldn't think of a transitional form is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not they exist. The following list is a small sample of transitional forms which connect birds and reptiles, reptiles and mammals as well as apes and humans...feel free to investigate:
Eoraptor, Herrerasauras, Allosauraus, Archaeopteryx, Cryptovolans pauli, Sinornithosaurus, Pelycosauria, Therapsida, Australopithecus africanus, Homo hablis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
Creator vs. Nature[edit]
- Ray, "The parrot that's on your arm, God created. How could any, how could science make a parrot?"
- Man with parrot, "Science? Nature made it."
- Ray, "Nature made itself?"
Comment: Ray deliberately redirects the man's response by lodging yet another objection to abiogenesis. He's perfectly happy to accept that his God always existed, yet the idea that matter might have always existed is rejected and replaced with this concept of 'making itself'. It's a way to hide the special pleading behind his own beliefs. The gentleman seems to miss this idea about nature making itself and continues referring to the parrot in his answers.
- Man with parrot, "Yes, absolutely..."
- Ray, "So it made the parrot..."
- Man with parrot, "...evolution."
- Ray, "So, evolution made it?"
- Man with parrot, "Mm hmm"
- Ray, "So you don't believe God created things?"
- Man with parrot, "Well, I don't know what you're referring to as God."
Comment: This is a very valid point. Ray presumes, as so many do, that his concept of God is clearly understood by everyone else. God is an esoteric and ill-defined term, even among people who share common beliefs. Well over 1000 denominations of Christians in addition to the multitude of other religions attest to this fact. Asking Ray to define what he means by 'God' is essential to answering this question correctly. In casual conversation, it may be reasonable to presume a generic concept of God and, in many cases, it may be reasonable to assume a generalized 'Christian' definition - but when confronted in this fashion, asking for specific definitions is critical.
- Ray, "The Creator."
- Man with parrot, "To me, evolution, nature, is God."
Comment: Ray gives an incredibly narrow definition of his concept of God, designed to assume the very thing he's arguing for - creation. The interview ends here, in a not-so-subtle attempt to abuse the equivocation fallacy - relying on his intended audience's concept of God to make it appear as though evolutionists 'worship' evolution. The truth is that this man's answer is reasonable. If your definition of 'god' is, essentially, 'that which is responsible for the current state of every living thing' - evolution and nature fit the bill.
What convinced you evolution was right?[edit]
- Ray, "When it comes to evolution, what was the scientific fact that convinced you that it was right?"
- Young woman, "Um, I would say, how it all got started, like...explaining how we have elements that were brought to Earth by, you know, like, let's say, meteorites, or whatever. That it all got started in the ocean and um, organisms grew and, you know, people evolved from there.."
- Ray, "Do you believe in the Bible?"
- Young woman, "Uh, yes I do."
- Ray, "Do you believe in Adam and Eve?"
- Young woman, laughing, "Yes I do."
Comment: Some may suspect that her laughter indicates that she doesn't 'really' believe the Adam and Eve story. An alternate view is that she's aware of the contradictions that Ray is about to present and hasn't found a satisfactory way to reconcile her Biblical beliefs with the scientific answers she accepts and that this is nervous laughter. While there are plenty of Christians who accept evolution, it requires a rejection of the literal acceptance of Biblical claims in favor of a more allegorical view.
- Ray, '"Did Adam used to be an ape?"
Comment: Ray's misunderstanding and misrepresentation of evolutionary theory rears its ugly head again. By presenting an absurd straw man of evolution, he hopes to exploit the confused nature of this individual to convince her, and others, that evolution is unsupported.
- Young woman, "No."
- Ray, "Did he crawl up out of slime?"
- Young woman, laughing, "No."
- Ray, "So which are you gonna go? Did God create man in his own image and tell him to bring forth after his own kind, or did he begin as some slime from a meteorite from outer space?"
- Young woman laughs, uncomfortably. Her response isn't shown.
A real expert[edit]
Ray begins to question a young man as text on the bottom of the screen informs us that he is an evolutionary biologist with a PhD in Biology..
- Biologist, "Non-random changes come about as a result of selection. Ok?"
- Ray, "Who's doing the selecting?"
- Biologist, "Selecting is being done by the ecosystem..."
- Ray, interrupting, "And where did this come from?"
- Biologist, "...it's being done by predators..."
- Ray, interrupting, "Where did it come from?"
- Biologist, "...it's being done by geological processes. Well here..." [acknowledges Ray's interruption] "This is the big question, this is where atheists and theists both have a problem, ok? And I'm going to admit to it, ok? The problem we have is at the beginning."
The camera freezes and zooms in on the biologist's face as his final sentence is echoed. "In the beginning... God created the heavens and the earth" is dramatically displayed.
Comment: It's unfortunate, though predictable, that the one potential expert they interviewed was cut off in order to misrepresent his case as an admission of the failure of evolution. As noted previously, this program is supposed to be about evolution, yet many of the objections address abiogenesis. This biologist points out that neither atheists nor theists can know, for certain, what happened at the beginning. What he's not allowed to point out is that the various scientific explanations, despite the fact that they aren't conclusively proved, have a distinct advantage over the theists proposition that God created everything in that they don't rely on unproven supernatural causes or rely on blind faith in ancient texts.
Ray, when presented with an explanation (natural selection) that he cannot argue against, falls back on the common practice of pointing to a gap, or unanswered question, and implying that the absence of absolute knowledge about the process somehow negates the knowledge we do possess. As if that wasn't bad enough, he further implies that it's acceptable to plug God into those gaps. This god of the gaps tactic is popular among Intelligent Design creationists as it sounds very good to those who already believe and may convince the uninformed. However, even if evolutionary theory proved to be incorrect, this still doesn't stand as sufficient evidence to justify their claim of an intelligent designer.
Turn off your brain[edit]
(21:30 - 23:04)
- Kirk, "Here's a very interesting fact; in the last couple of dozen times that I've witnessed to someone, I can honestly say that the subject of evolution has not come up, even once. Why? Because I didn't bring it up. I didn't have to. And it doesn't come up on its own because it's often a non-issue."
Comment: Kirk is essentially correct, though his reasons may not be. Evolution is a non-issue, to many, because it's a scientific fact. Debating evolutionary theory is as absurd, to some, as debating theories about gravity, sexual reproduction or relativity. Evolution is a non-issue, to others, because they realize they're not experts. It's unfair to imply that the subject doesn't come up because people subconsciously reject it, secretly know that God really created everything or are afraid to evaluate the merits of the theory.
- Kirk, "When you learn how to speak to a person's conscience, and circumnavigate the intellect, the subject of evolution seems to disappear."
Comment: When you circumnavigate the intellect, a lot of subjects seem to disappear. Appealing to someone's emotion or conscience may be an effective way to get them to accept supernatural claims, but it has no effect on whether or not those claims are actually true. If one's goal is to discover truth, and not simply accept propositions that feel good, circumnavigating the intellect is counterproductive.
- Ray, "Now this is real good news for people like me. It means I don't have to become an expert in the 'fossil record'. And it also means I don't have to learn words like 'Rhinorhondothackasaurus'."
Comment: This idea that voluntary ignorance is preferable to critical thought is a common theme in their ministry. They begin with the flawed assumption that their beliefs are true until proven false, they proceed to misrepresent the subject they wish to criticize and then after making a very weak attempt at attacking the intellectual issues by way of attacks on straw men, they conclude with an appeal which amounts to; Those pesky scientists with all of their 'facts' are just confused and attempting to confuse you, ignore that stuff and go with what you 'feel'.
- Kirk, "Now, are we trying to be anti-intellectual or avoid talking about the subject of evolution? Of course not."
Comment: Most definitely. As we've demonstrated throughout this response, they've completely avoided talking about evolution by misrepresenting it, objecting to abiogenesis (which isn't part of evolutionary theory), seeking the opinions of lay people, dangling red herrings, attacking straw men and misrepresenting experts.
You cannot, say, speak to a person's conscience and circumnavigate the intellect and expect an immediate claim that you're not being anti-intellectual to carry any weight. It's as if, at the end of this response, we were to add, Now, are we trying to say that Ray and Kirk are wrong? Of course not.
Buy the book[edit]
- Kirk, "That's why we have The Evidence Bible. And this is packed full of teaching on the subject and includes quotes from teachings from Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould and William Huxley."
Comment: The Bible isn't a demonstrably reliable authority on anything and filling it with quotes from scientists and philosophers doesn't change that - especially as we've already witnessed how dishonest and unreliable their selected quotes are. If the quotes and 'evidence' presented in the various episodes of this program are an example of the quality of their 'evidence Bible' they may have actually made the Bible less reliable. An impressive feat, to be sure.
- Kirk, "And it will show you that the theory of evolution is unscientific, that it's based on blind faith; so that you don't need to panic and upset yourself every time you read in the newspaper or see something on the news that talks about man evolving from apes."
Comment: Concepts and facts which contradict your personal beliefs can be very uncomfortable and abandoning deeply held beliefs, like religion, when presented with evidence and rational argument, isn't always a pleasant process. Realizing this, Ray and Kirk are hoping to spare their viewers the anxiety and agony of discovering that their views might be incorrect. It's clear that they are true proponents of the 'ignorance is bliss' camp.
Rather than encourage everyone to investigate claims on their own, Ray and Kirk are essentially saying, We've done the work for you, so you don't have to think about this stuff. With their new 'evidence Bible', creationists are presented with a very comforting over-abundance of arguments from authority.
- Kirk, "You can have confidence in God's word that we are made in God's image. And true science, even our common sense, supports the Bible and not the theory of evolution."
Comment: The assertion that science supports the Bible and not the theory of evolution is completely without support, which might be why they immediately move on to another subject. It may be a comforting assertion for believers, but that doesn't make it true.
The Purpose of the Church[edit]
(23:05 - 25:19)
- Ray, "Let's look at the church and ask, 'what is the purpose of the church on Earth?' Well, we're here primarily to glorify God and to lead lost sinners to the savior. We know, there's gonna be a day of judgment and we have to present every man and every woman perfect before a perfect God and a perfect law they must face on Judgment Day. We want them to 'put on' the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved from the wrath that's to come."
Comment: This perfect God and his perfect law, according to Christian dogma, created imperfect beings who are incapable of living up to his law and has decided to punish them for this failing. In order to rectify this conundrum, this perfect God decided to create a loophole by which his imperfect creations can be granted salvation. By taking human form, he sacrificed himself, to himself, to circumvent a law he created.
Why would a perfect God create imperfection? How can a law be considered perfect if it punishes people for things beyond their control - the imperfections of their very essence? How can a law be considered perfect if it includes infinite torture for finite crimes? Why would a perfect God need to create a loophole in a perfect law and how could a truly perfect law need to be circumvented by such a loophole? How is the punishment of one person for the crimes of another, perfect? How can 'sins' be inherited and why is that considered just?
Put on Your Parachute[edit]
- Kirk, "Let's look at an analogy that's going to make a very important point. Let's say, you're on an airplane and you're trying to convince another passenger to put on a parachute because you know at any moment he's gonna have to jump 25,000 feet out of the plane. You have two lines of reasoning. The first is; you try to convince him that the plane was made by Boeing. Now, this is important because it will give credibility to the emergency card which will tell him about the parachute. So, you point out the fact that the maker's name is written all over the plane. He doesn't buy it, he thinks the plane happened by accident. Then, you tell him that it's a relatively new plane. He thinks it's an old plane. You say you have proof, so does he...and as long as you disagree, he ignores the emergency card and you find yourself in a frustrating and perilous situation."
- Ray, "The second line of reasoning is much easier. All you do is you tell him about the law of gravity and you say what it will do to him if he jumps. 25,000 feet on his frail body. His eyes widen with fear and he says, 'Hey, would you pass me that emergency card, thing...I want to check it out?'"
Comment: All analogies fail, on some level, but this analogy barely gets out of the gate. The initial premise is that you're trying to convince someone to put on a parachute because you know that he's going to have to jump at any moment. The second line of 'reasoning' is simply a fear tactic, a threat...and it's just a veiled version of Pascal's wager. They establish this as a reasonable option because their first line of reasoning failed.
Looking at the first example, why did their first line of reasoning fail? Because they never gave a single reason to justify putting on the parachute. The maker of the plane, the emergency card and the age of the plane are all completely irrelevant when trying to explain why someone should put on a parachute. One could be on a new, Boeing plane, complete with emergency cards and still not have any good reason for putting on a parachute.
Their analogy is just as much a straw man as the 'arguments' they've made against evolution in this episode and it's filled with even more flaws. In their analogy, Boeing is God, the emergency card is the Bible and the parachute is Jesus. A more accurate analogy might go something like...
- You're on an airplane and you're trying to convince someone to put on a parachute because you know they're going to have to jump out of the plane and fall 25,000 feet. First, you try to convince him that the plane was made by Boeing. Now, this is relevant because you're convinced that Boeing is going to force everyone to jump out of the plane, parachute or not. So you point to the carefully woven fabric on the seat in front of you and claim that it has Boeing's name written all over it. He points out that it doesn't say Boeing anywhere on the seat. You reply that it doesn't 'literally' say Boeing, but only Boeing orders fabric like that. He's unconvinced, as he's seen similar fabric before. You then explain that this plane wasn't manufactured like other planes, it was secretly modified to cause seatbelts to malfunction and the side of the plane is rigged to explode at 25,000 feet. He's convinced this is, most likely, an airplane like any other. You say you have evidence, he asks to see it. You pull out the emergency card, and show him Boeing's name, a description of the imminent calamity and instructions for putting on the parachute. He points out that there are mistakes on the card and that other people have different emergency cards with names other than Boeing, some of which don't mention parachutes or calamities. You claim that those are fakes and you have the 'real' emergency card. He's skeptical and asks how you know yours is true. You point out that the emergency card says it's true. He looks under the seat for a parachute and doesn't find one. You explain that he has go up to the cockpit and ask for a parachute by saying the secret phrase, 'I've been a bad boy and need a spanking.' He tries this and is met with blank stares and confusion. You tell him that he didn't try hard enough...He asks the flight attendant if he can move to another seat
- Ray, "Now, you and I want to convince sinners to put on the Lord Jesus Christ. We can talk to them about God and his existence, we can talk to them about the age of the Earth and how old it is our how young it is and this leads to all sorts of discussions which often end in arguments. Or, we can tell them about the jump - that he has to pass through the door of death, and face a holy God and a holy law, whether he believes in God or not, on the day of judgment. We show him the Ten Commandments, stir the conscience and bring the knowledge of sin. He realizes his danger and sees his need to put on the Lord Jesus Christ."
Comment: Reason bad, guilt-trips good. Got it. Ray is wise to recommend that his viewers avoid arguing about troublesome facts and focus on emotions like guilt and fear by threatening them with hell. He certainly hasn't equipped them to do anything else, though it's unclear whether anything more is possible.
The Atheist Test[edit]
(25:20 - 27:08)
A short interview is shown, featuring a teenager from a previous episode and demonstrates the 'atheist test', in action.
Closing Comments[edit]
(27:09 - ) Kirk encourages those who are looking for more information on evolution and evangelism to visit their website, purchase their 'Evidence Bible', their 'Way of the Master' book, their 'Foundation course' which many churches are using to "train up" their people.
Comment: For those who are seriously looking for more information on evolution, visit a library, search the web, or visit one of the sites listed below.
External Links[edit]
- Google Video
- Transitional Fossils FAQ
- Common Descent Evidence
- The Evolution Wiki
- University of California, Berkeley - Understanding Evolution
- Youtube Video Explaining Evolution
- Youtube Video Explaining the Fossil Record and Transitional Species
|The Way of the Master
|Season One Episodes:
1. The Firefighter 2. The Mirror of the Ten Commandments 3. The Motive of the Sinner 4. The Summary of Salvation 5. Practice What You Preach 6. Idolatry—The Darling Sin of Humanity 7. The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism 8. WDJD? 9. Blasphemy, Sabbath, Parents 10. Murder 11. Adultery 12. Theft 13. Lie and Covet
|Season Two Episodes:
1. God's Wonderful Plan 2. Conscience 3. Alcatraz, Al Capone, Alcohol 4. True and False Conversion 5. When Things Go Wrong 6. The Satanic Influence 7. How to Witness to Someone Who's Homosexual/Gay 8. Evolution 9. How to Witness to a Loved One 10. The Fear of God 11. Ice Breakers—Gospel Tracts 12. The Greatest Gamble 13. How to Get on Fire for God
|Season Three Episodes:
1. Islam 2. Mormonism 3. Witchcraft 4. Buddhism 5. Roman Catholicism 6. What Hollywood Believes 7. New Age 8. Humanism 9. What America Believes 10. Jehovah's Witness 11. Judaism 12. Spiritual Battle 13. Hinduism
|Ray Comfort — Kirk Cameron


text:
Viña Doña Paula Los Cardos Malbec 2013
Dona Paula:
In 1997, the Claro Group from Chile decided to expand its wine business into Argentina to continue the group's tradition of producing world-class wines. The conditions in Argentina's Mendoza region contained the ideal and unique terroir which allow winemakers to fulfil their dreams of creating sophisticated and immaculately structured wines. The Claro Group's first investme... Read more
In 1997, the Claro Group from Chile decided to expand its wine business into Argentina to continue the group's tradition of producing world-class wines. The conditions in Argentina's Mendoza region contained the ideal and unique terroir which allow winemakers to fulfil their dreams of creating sophisticated and immaculately structured wines. The Claro Group's first investment in the Argentine was to acquire the Ugarteche Estate. The estate encompassed approximately 140 hectares (346 acres) of old Malbec and Chardonnay vines, a requisite for producing a deep and balanced wine in the short term. The following year, the expansion continued and Tupungato Estate was obtained. The newly bought estate aided in giving the winemakers of Doña Paula a multi-faceted platform to work off. The underlying conditions showed a remarkable potential for delivering fresh, aromatic wines with high acidity, which were perfectly suited for short-cycle varieties. It took two years for the planting process to be completed, while concurrently the construction of a state-of-art winery commenced. In 1999, Doña Paula had its maiden harvest. It produced phenomenal and hugely promising results. However, due to the occasionally capricious nature of agriculture, disaster struck in the form of hail storms in 2000 and 2001, which inhibited wine production for those two years. Thus, the commercial release of Doña Paula wines onto the export market had to be delayed until the following year. After the unfortunate incidents in 2000 and 2001, Doña Paula has invested heavily in hail-proof nets Since Doña Paula's launch onto the international market in 2002, with its early exports going to: the United Kingdom; the United States of America and Continental Europe, the company has seen a constant and stratospheric rise in the annual sales of its wines. The successive growth records posted by Doña Paula in 2003 and 2004 caught major international and local attention, showing the firm to be a serious, emerging player in the Argentinean wine industry. Doña Paula soon developed a trademark style that consisted of a powerful complexity which was characterised by a unique fresh fruit concentration. Connoisseurs, importers and the press throughout Europe and the Americas were astounded by the distinctive savour of this wine, which ultimately led to Doña Paula receiving its first prestigious international accolade of "Value Brand of the Year" by Wine and Spirits magazine in 2004. Struggling to keep up with the demand that was placed upon Doña Paula, due to its success among customers, 2005 and 2006 saw a titanic influx of investment into the winery. The capacity of the winery was increased by another million litres in the form of stainless steel vats and a new winery was constructed on the main estate. This resulted in Doña Paula having a vat capacity of over 7 million litres. Throughout 2006 and 2007, Doña Paula acquired and fully planted two high altitude estates: Altamira (80ha.- 198 ac. Planting finish in 2006) and Gualtallary (120 ha.- 297 ac. Planting finished in 2007).The acquisition of these estates insured that Doña Paula wines consisted purely of estate-grown grapes and the end of 2006 saw Doña Paula ranked 12th out of more than 300 Argentinean wine exporters. Due to previous successes, the following years have allowed for Doña Paula to experiment with its wines and expand by diversifying the countries to which it exports. Korea, Honduras, El Salvador and Paraguay have been added to the list of nations to which Doña Paula is exported (currently, there are over 54 countries offering Doña Paula wines in restaurants and on the their shelves), and a new range was created in order to satisfy clients who wanted a unique, charming and extraordinary wine. An uncommon series of unique blends and rare varieties has culminated in the dawn of the Doña Paula premium range which incorporates: Alluvia; Salix Vineyard; Read less
Do you love Dona Paula? Follow them to show your support. Why?
Food Pairings for Viña Doña Paula Los Cardos Malbec
Sicilian Vegetable Lasagna Recipe
Alsatian Onion Tart Recipe
Spoonbread Recipe
- Show more recipes
Potato Salad with Green Beans, Artichokes, Red Peppers & Olives Recipe
Luxurious Four-Cheese Macaroni & Cheese Recipe
Artichoke Risotto with Lemon & Parsley Recipe
Basic Pie Pastry Recipe
Roasted Garlic Grainy Mustard Recipe
Fennel Layered with Potatoes & Breadcrumbs (Tortiera di Finocchi e Patate) Recipe
Photos+ Add Image
Best Wine Deals
$23.1917% offBell Wine Cellars Syrah Yountville Massa Ranch 2004
$22.9926% offChateau Ste. Michelle & Dr. Loosen Riesling Eroica 2013

subset: commoncrawl


text: WELCOME TO SNEAD STATE. Snead State Community College considers our students to be the College's greatest asset. Our students demonstrate the potential to be motivators, leaders, and world-changers. They come to Snead State searching for knowledge and support to pursue the career and life choices they have made. We are ready and willing to equip them to be successful and productive members of the workforce. Snead State is the place for you, but don't solely take our word for it. We invite you to visit our campus and see firsthand the opportunities we have available for you.


text:
Developer Reading List, December 21, 2012 New books on C, C#, Node, Win8 Apps, Perl and Groovy.
Also Received
Programming Groovy, 2nd Edition (pre-release)
Venkat Subramanian
Users of Groovy 2.0 have been aware for quite some time that the latest release of their language is desperately short of documentation. Revisions to the canonical book (Groovy in Action) have been in the works for years with effectively no progress. The particularly frustrating aspect of these delays is that the 2.0 release delivers numerous improvements to the language. Finally, though, this book is breaking the long wait. Subramanian's first book on Groovy was a short, direct affair (as are most of his works) that targeted Java programmers and presented "what you need to know," quickly and directly. The current beta of this book (release is expected in the first half of 2013) gives you the running start you need to dive into Groovy 2.0 today. (Note: If you buy this pre-release beta version now, you will be entitled to the final version when it comes out.)
Intermediate Perl, 2nd Edition
Randal Schwartz, et al.
Schwartz is a well-known figure in the Perl community since its early days. This book takes the material he provides in an intermediate course on the language and converts it into a readable presentation on more advanced aspects of the language. As it assumes that the reader already has knowledge of Perl, (Schwartz's Learning Perl is a common introductory text), it skips over the basics and tackles topics such as OO in Perl (using the Moose object system), testing Perl code, and so on. If you've got your basic training done in the language, this is likely to be the book that will take you to the deeper knowledge you'll need for professional-level work.


text:
- Prayer and Worship
- Beliefs and Teachings
- Issues and Action
- Media
- Bible
- Catholic Giving
- About USCCB
1Awake, awake!
Put on your strength, Zion;
Put on your glorious garments,
Jerusalem, holy city.
Never again shall the uncircumcised
or the unclean enter you.
2Arise, shake off the dust,
sit enthroned, Jerusalem;
Loose the bonds from your neck,
captive daughter Zion!
3For thus says the LORD:
For nothing you were sold,
without money you shall be redeemed.
4For thus says the Lord GOD:
To Egypt long ago my people went down,
to sojourn there;
Assyria, too, oppressed them for nought.
5But now, what am I to do here?
—oracle of the LORD.
My people have been taken away for nothing;
their rulers mock, oracle of the LORD;
constantly, every day, my name is reviled.
6Therefore my people shall know my name
on that day, that it is I who speaks: Here I am!
7How beautiful upon the mountains*
are the feet of the one bringing good news,
Announcing peace, bearing good news,
announcing salvation, saying to Zion,
"Your God is King!"a
8Listen! Your sentinels raise a cry,
together they shout for joy,
For they see directly, before their eyes,
the LORD's return to Zion.b
9Break out together in song,
O ruins of Jerusalem!
For the LORD has comforted his people,
has redeemed Jerusalem.
10The LORD has bared his holy arm
in the sight of all the nations;
All the ends of the earth can see
the salvation of our God.
11Depart, depart, go out from there,
touch nothing unclean!
Out from there!* Purify yourselves,
you who carry the vessels of the LORD.
12But not in hurried flight will you go out,
nor leave in headlong haste,
For the LORD goes before you,
and your rear guard is the God of Israel.c
13See, my servant shall prosper,
he shall be raised high and greatly exalted.
14Even as many were amazed at him—
so marred were his features,
beyond that of mortals
his appearance, beyond that of human beings—d
15So shall he startle many nations,
kings shall stand speechless;
For those who have not been told shall see,
those who have not heard shall ponder it.e
* [52:7–10] God leads the people back from Babylon to Zion, from whose ruined walls sentinels greet the returning exiles.
* [52:11] From there: from Babylon. Vessels of the LORD: taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, now carried back by the exiles returning in procession to Zion; cf. Ezr 1:7.
* [52:13–53:12] The last of the "servant of the Lord" oracles (see note on 42:1–4). Taken together, these oracles depict a figure of one called by God for a vocation to Israel and the nations (42:4; 49:5–6); the servant's exaltation both opens and closes the passage (52:13; 53:12). The servant responded in fidelity but has suffered opposition (50:4–6). In this fourth oracle the servant is characterized as "a man of suffering" (53:3) and appears to be unjustly put to death (53:8–9). Those who have witnessed his career somehow recognize that he is innocent, has undergone suffering for their sins (53:4–6), and his death is referred to as a reparation offering (see note on 53:10–11). The servant is described in ways that identify him with Israel (which is frequently referred to as "servant" in the context of Second Isaiah—e.g., 41:8, 9; 44:2, 21; 43:4) and is designated as "Israel" in 49:3; yet Israel outside the "servant of the Lord" oracles is not presented as sinless, but rather in exile because of sin (40:2; 42:21–25) and even as servant as deaf and blind (42:18–19). The servant is thus both identified with Israel and distinguished from it. As with the previous servant poems, this chapter helped the followers of Jesus to interpret his suffering, death, and resurrection; see especially the passion narratives.
By accepting this message, you will be leaving the website of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This link is provided
solely for the user's convenience. By providing this link, the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops assumes no responsibility for,
nor does it necessarily endorse, the website, its content, or
sponsoring organizations.


text:
13 's
Check out now. Fast, Easy, Secure Checkout.
Color: White
Was wondering when item will be shipped..waiting for information regarding shipping and tracking..please email me with information..thank you
Thank you for choosing Custom Sticker Shop.
CopyrightÃ,© Custom Sticker Shop Flint Hills Specialty LLC
After 2 weeks your items will automatically renewed for another 60 days and $0.23 per item will be added to your billing ledger.
While you were away our TOU was updated,
read the terms of use here.
*No action is required on your part.


text:
2018, 2019
Test scores at this school are above the state average. Because test scores in some states are so low, some students at this school may still not be performing at grade level
Parent tips
Even high-performing schools can have disparities between student groups. To understand how well this school... More serves all its students, review the information below in the Equity section. Understand what on-track learning looks like for your child and how you can help at home.
Disadvantaged students at this school may be falling far behind other students in the state, and this school may have large achievement gaps.
Parent tip:
Look at the Race/ethnicity and Low-income sections below to see how different student groups are doing at this school. Are there big gaps?... More These 5 things will help you start a conversation at your school about helping all students succeed.


text:
16/17 La Liga Club #3 Youth Replica Away Short Shirt : Gerard Pique Barcelona FC Nike Purple Soccer Jersey
Availability: In stock.
Retail Price:$99.99
Sale Price:$45.99
Save: 54% offProduct Rating:
Soccer Shorts:
This Item Qualifies For...
In stock, leaves warehouse in 1 full bus. days.
Standard Ground Service Available.
Remember, no sales tax.
Products Details:
Made of brand NIke advanced recycled Dri-FIT®fabric
Keeps you drier,cooler and lighter by drawing sweat from the body to the fabric surface
Its three-dimensional construction gives more air space around the skin to reduce clinging
Keep you cheering on your favorite team comfortably in the field
All of latest arrivals Nike Gerard Pique are made of recycled plastic bottles-100% recycled polyester
Evolved construction and materials also significantly reduce weight
May We Aslo Suggest
Authentic Marc-Andre Ter Stegen FC Barcelona Youth Jersey - #1 Blue Third 19/20 La Liga Club Soccer Short Shirt
Youth Nike Barcelona #10 Lionel Messi Authentic Pink & Peach Third Short Shirt 18/19 La Liga Club Soccer Jersey
Youth Nike Barcelona #10 Lionel Messi Replica Pink & Peach Third Short Shirt 18/19 La Liga Club Soccer Jersey


text:
Search Directory: Vancouver, America: North, British Colombia
- Norton Lilly International Inc.
Contact Details Street Address: 1130 West Pender Street, Suite 828 Cit ...
Ocean Directory Listing - admin - 02/04/2009 - 23:11 - 0 comments
To support all educators and parents teaching from home in the weeks ahead, the World Ocean Observatory is pulling together a compendium of home-study tools and resources for teaching and learning about the ocean. These resources can be used by parents, schools, educators and others to address the educational gaps being created by local and national 'shelter in place' initiatives to help flatten the curve on the Covid-19 outbreak. This list of resources is a work in progress: please reach out if you have other key elements that we should be sharing with our global community.
With a game capable of reaching a global audience, WORLD OCEAN EXPLORER can expand interest in ocean issues and habitats, and excite students about the infinite possibilities associated with ocean exploration. LEARN MORE.


text:
- This help page references the classic editor. Note that the VisualEditor may behave differently.
Adding photos is a simple and great way to improve any article, and provide further detail and color.
- To start, you must log in to your account, and then click the Edit button on the page you would like to add a photo to.
- Once in edit mode, click on the photo upload button 40px on the right rail of the editor toolbar.
- A pop-up will appear, which will allow you to upload a photo from your computer. You can also search for photos already added to the community by others or on Flickr.com.
- Once you choose a photo to add, click upload.
- Next you will be able to adjust the size and placement of the photo. You can also provide a caption, which will display below the photo.
- If you would like to provide more details about the photo, including giving it a new name and providing license information, click on the more options link.
- After you have picked your options, click the Add photo button, and your photo will be added to the edit area.
- Photos can be modified at any time in edit mode. Simply hover over the image and choose "modify", and the same pop-up window will appear.
- Once you are done, click publish and your photo will be live on the page.
Next steps Edit
- Learn how to format a page
- Learn how to add a video
- Learn how to add links
- Learn how to create a new page
- More information is on Help:Uploading files
Further help and feedbackEdit
- Browse and search other help pages at Help:Contents
- Check Help:Wikia Community Central for sources of further help and support
- Check Help:Contacting Wikia for how to report any errors or unclear steps in this article
- Learn how to use Wikia in {{#NewWindowLink:http://community.wikia.com/index.php?title=Wikia_University%7CWikia University}}: short how-to videos for all levels of experiencear:مساعدة:صور
ca:Ajuda:Imatges de:Hilfe:Bilder/RTE es:Ayuda:Imágenes fi:Ohje:Kuvat fr:Aide:Images it:Aiuto:Immagini ja:ヘルプ:画像 ko:도움말:그림 nl:Help:Afbeeldingen pl:Pomoc:Obrazy pt:Ajuda:Fotos ru:Справка:Изображения vi:Trợ giúp:Hình ảnh zh:Help:圖像
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.


text:
Are you looking for Speedy Glass Quotes images then you are at the right place. Here we have some of the all-time Speedy Glass Quotes pictures you would love to read, Post & Share. Speedy Glass Quotes are great because they're easy to remember, and they usually have a simple, powerful message. You might use some of them for a social media post or add to a photo to make a meme.
Enjoy Speedy Glass Quotes pictures, and don't forget to share them with your friends on Pinterest, Instagram, Facebook & Twitter. www.twerkcity.club collected these best quotes images from all over the world. keep reading of Glass Windows Quotes, Shattered Glass Movie Quotes or Glass Castle Resilience Quotes


text:
A common recommendation in our profession is to learn a new language each year. This advice can truly be sold only to people starting out in software development, rather than practiced hands. Unless you're a language junkie, this is advice that cannot be followed because languages take more than a year to learn well (that is, far beyond simple exposure and noodling with small projects).
More Insights
White PapersMore >>
ReportsMore >>
- Enterprise Database Strategies for 2020
- Now That Ransomware Has Gone Nuclear, How Can You Avoid Becoming the Next Victim?
A language doesn't really begin to expose its strengths and weaknesses until you write programs of several thousand lines. That's the point where you recognize that a feature that looked appealing is now an encumbrance and another feature that seemed pointless is truly valuable. This insight is equally true of the principal tools in the language's ecosystem, most especially the debugger and the build tools. The former is particularly important, because errors are expressed in radically disjoint ways in different languages.
There is another stage beyond this level, which is writing idiomatically in the language, rather than taking our native coding style into the new world. This last step is particularly difficult. I'm speaking here conceptually, rather than syntactically. Each language uniquely expresses fundamental concepts that it favors. For example, Go, which we've discussed extensively during the last 12 months, does not use object orientation in the usual way, rather it favors composability. Composability requires a whole different approach to building programs from objects. It forces newbies to rethink how OO works and how to represent programs as objects. If you stop short of learning composability in Go, and simply learn the syntactic equivalents of operations you already know, then you've lost most of the benefit of the "learn a new language" dictum. This is where the real value accrues. Build some multi-KLOC programs using composability and there is no doubt you will write different code when you return to C++ or Java.
This underscores a key point: To maximize the value of learning a new language, it's important to choose one that is significantly different from the ones you know: for example, learning a functional language if your natural home is OO; learning OO if your natural home is imperative; and so on.
After choosing a language that sparks your interest, it's important to avoid the path of least resistance, which goes something like this: Buying a tutorial. Going through the first 150 pages and learning the syntax plus a few handy concepts. Putting the book down and starting to work on a small sample project. And then looking up items on an ad hoc basis when you need them later. The slip is in not finishing the tutorial. As a result, you pick up only the simple things that you need immediately and lose all the advanced topics.
Have you really learned Java if you've not explored reflection, serialization, or, say, class loaders? I submit you probably haven't. And unfortunately for many of us (me included), we learn the subset that is predominantly needed by daily work. Why learn reflection if I don't need reflection in my work? The answer is clear: If you don't know reflection, you will never spot the opportunities where it will best solve a problem. (I don't want to stray too far off topic, but this is the benefit of reading other people's code. Good developers use the entire palette of features of a language, so reading their code illuminates instances where an elegant solution is possible via a little advanced feature you might not have known about.)
The bottom line is that learning a new language is both a long effort and a deeply rewarding one. I don't believe that a language can be mastered at the rate of one a year, so I view the recommendation to do this as pie-in-the-sky silliness, rather than a worthy goal. A much better path, in my view, is to learn several rather different languages well. And then cultivate and maintain the central ones you need by making sure you stay up with advances in the language and reading the code of other, better developers.
— Andrew Binstock
Editor in Chief
[email protected]
Twitter: platypusguy


text:
Louise Joséphine Bourgeois (25 December 1911 – 31 May 2010), was a renowned French-American artist and sculptor, best known for her contributions to both modern and contemporary art, and for her spider structures, titled Maman, which resulted in her being nicknamed the Spiderwoman. In 2011 one of her Spider works sold for $10.7 million, a new record price for the artist at auction, and the highest price paid for a work by a woman artist.
She is recognized today as the founder of confessional art.
In the late 1940s, after moving to New York City with her American husband, Robert Goldwater, she turned to sculpture. Though her works are abstract, they are suggestive of the human figure and express themes of betrayal, anxiety, and loneliness. Her work was wholly autobiographical, inspired by her childhood trauma of discovering that her English governess was also her father's mistress.


text: Share: October 15, 2012 Freshwater, Land-use & Human Impacts The Cary Institute's ecological expertise extends beyond the Northeast, with our scientists tackling environmental problems far afield. As part of her ongoing work to assess how human activity affects freshwater resources, aquatic ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall spent this past summer studying nutrient cycling in large western rivers.Tributaries deliver nitrogen and other nutrients into large rivers, which were long assumed to transport nutrients down to saltwater gulfs, like large pipes. But Rosi-Marshall and colleagues are finding that large rivers retain nutrients, and their field work focuses on measuring how large rivers use these nutrients.With a team of 16 scientists, technicians, and students, Rosi-Marshall performed experiments by day and camped by night at one site in Wyoming (the North Platte River) and four sites in Utah (the Bear River, the Colorado River at Moab, the Green River at the Ouray Northern Wildlife Refuge, and the Green River at Desolation & Gray Canyons).Last summer, the team focused on Midwestern rivers, which generally carry higher nutrient levels due to agricultural and wastewater runoff. Gathering data from rivers in different regions that are affected by different human impacts will allow the team to provide a better understanding of how the continent's major waterways process nutrients. Share:


text:
While strokes are more common in older adults, children can also have them. Teens, children, babies and even unborn babies can all suffer a stroke.
Whereas adults are more likely to have ischemic strokes, the National Stroke Association says children have hemorrhagic strokes as often as they have ischemic strokes.
The National Stroke Association says the cause of strokes in children also differs from adults. Children are at higher risk of a stroke if they have a disease in their arteries, have any cardiac disorders, have an infection, have an acute or chronic head or neck disorder, have abnormal blood clotting or have sickle-cell disease.
To determine if a child is suffering from a stroke, the National Stroke Association advices parents to look for the following symptoms: seizures, sudden or worsening headaches, difficulty speaking or slurred speech, a weakness on one side of the body, sudden loss of vision, sudden loss of balance or trouble walking.
The effects of a stroke are similar for children as in adults. The can suffer from paralysis, loss of speech, have trouble swallowing, have behavioral changes, suffer changes to their vision and have cognitive changes, according to the National Stroke Association.


text:
No products were found matching your selection.
Terms and Conditions | © 2019 4WheelBuy. All rights reserved.
4WheelBuy would love to earn your business. If you do not like the price you see, make us an offer and we will see what we can do!
Name* Phone Number* Email Address* Product(s)* Your Offer* Additional Comments/Details*


text:
Limoz local owned and provides 24/7 airport taxi & limo services from Adelaide International Airport and downtown Adelaide South Australia at affordable rates.We have biggest network of well-experienced & courteous drivers to take care of your transportation needs whenever you need a ride.
We at Gawler River Taxi Limo provides late night & early morning airport ride to Adelaide International Airport at very affordable rates from Gawler River, South Australia
Gawler River limo provides car limos service to downtown Adelaide and all its suburbs round-the-clock. Call us on 1300 972 066 or book our taxi limo online.
We at Adelaide Chauffeur Limo offers executive class sedan & SUVs to all corporte houses & Business house for executive transfer, business meeting, corporate conventions and airport to hotel transfers at very special rates. Call us for more information on
Our fleet of latest model taxi and limos offers you reliable & affordable mode of transportation to


text:
Product Description Rotating Oval 2 Board Rack - Black:
If you're tired of leaning out and stretching over the side of your boat just to retrieve boards from your tower's rack, then you'll appreciate the new Rotating Rack from Aerial.
Simply pull the locking pin and rotate the rack inwards. Now it's fast and easy to access your boards while keeping your feet firmly planted in the boat.
The rotating rack also mounts in any position on the tower. Four adjustable screws on the mounting-plate let you further align the rack to the perfect position.
Holds 2 wakeboards.


text:
- Prayer and Worship
- Beliefs and Teachings
- Issues and Action
- Media
- Bible
- Catholic Giving
- About USCCB
1A maskil of Asaph.
Why, God, have you cast us off forever?*a
Why does your anger burn against the sheep of your pasture?b
2Remember your people, whom you acquired of old,
the tribe you redeemed as your own heritage,
Mount Zion where you dwell.c
3Direct your steps toward the utter destruction,
everything the enemy laid waste in the sanctuary.
4Your foes roared triumphantly in the place of your assembly;
they set up their own tokens of victory.
5They hacked away like a forester gathering boughs,
swinging his ax in a thicket of trees.
6They smashed all its engraved work,
struck it with ax and pick.
7They set your sanctuary on fire,
profaned your name's abode by razing it to the ground.d
8They said in their hearts, "We will destroy them all!
Burn all the assembly-places of God in the land!"
9*Even so we have seen no signs for us,
there is no prophet any more,e
no one among us who knows for how long.
10How long, O God, will the enemy jeer?f
Will the enemy revile your name forever?
11Why draw back your hand,
why hold back your right hand within your bosom?*
12*Yet you, God, are my king from of old,
winning victories throughout the earth.
13You stirred up the sea by your might;g
you smashed the heads of the dragons on the waters.h
14You crushed the heads of Leviathan,i
gave him as food to the sharks.
15You opened up springs and torrents,
brought dry land out of the primeval waters.*
16Yours the day and yours the night too;
you set the moon and sun in place.
17You fixed all the limits of the earth;
summer and winter you made.j
18Remember how the enemy has jeered, LORD,
how a foolish people has reviled your name.
19Do not surrender to wild animals those who praise you;
do not forget forever the life of your afflicted.
20Look to your covenant,
for the recesses of the land
are full of the haunts of violence.
21Let not the oppressed turn back in shame;
may the poor and needy praise your name.
22Arise, God, defend your cause;
remember the constant jeering of the fools.
23Do not forget the clamor of your foes,
the unceasing uproar of your enemies.
* [Psalm 74] A communal lament sung when the enemy invaded the Temple; it would be especially appropriate at the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. Israel's God is urged to look upon the ruined sanctuary and remember the congregation who worshiped there (Ps 74:1–11). People and sanctuary are bound together; an attack on Zion is an attack on Israel. In the second half of the poem, the community brings before God the story of their origins—their creation (Ps 74:12–17)—in order to move God to reenact that deed of creation now. Will God allow a lesser power to destroy the divine project (Ps 74:18–23)?
* [74:1] Forever: the word implies that the disaster is already of long duration, cf. Ps 74:9 and note.
* [74:9] Even so we have seen no signs…: ancients often asked prophets to say for how long a divine punishment was to last, cf. 2 Sm 24:13. Here no prophet has arisen to indicate the duration.
* [74:11] Why hold back…within your bosom: i.e., idle beneath your cloak.
* [74:12–17] Comparable Canaanite literature describes the storm-god's victory over all-encompassing Sea and its allies (dragons and Leviathan) and the subsequent peaceful arrangement of the universe, sometimes through the placement of paired cosmic elements (day and night, sun and moon), cf. Ps 89:12–13. The Psalm apparently equates the enemies attacking the Temple with the destructive cosmic forces already tamed by God. Why then are those forces now raging untamed against your own people?
* [74:15] Waters: lit., "rivers" (cf. Ps 24:7; Is 50:2) upon which, or from which, in primordial times the earth is created.
a. [74:1] Ps 10:1; 44:24; 77:8.
c. [74:2] Ps 68:17; 132:13; Ex 15:17; Jer 10:16; 51:19.
i. [74:14] Jb 3:8; 40:25; Is 27:1.
By accepting this message, you will be leaving the website of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This link is provided
solely for the user's convenience. By providing this link, the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops assumes no responsibility for,
nor does it necessarily endorse, the website, its content, or
sponsoring organizations.


text:
I had ORIGINALLY planned to have a much funnier thing planned as a response to Gnukko's reply, but I needed to rush it and changed it at the last second to do this.
Yep, my birthday is the 31st and I wanted give something back to the BCB community and doing some big drawings felt right. Also, pin-ups probably wasn't the best choice of words, but I'm way too bored to change it. I was thinking of making the third option action-themed, but I'd rather save it for something else I have planned.


text:
View artworks listed within the last 30 days
View our favorite new listings
View artworks listed by motivated sellers
Best prices, no negotiating, fast and easy purchase
View well priced listings. Some fabulous buys!
View artworks recently reduced in price
View art wanted listings from buyers looking for specific works
Learn more about safely buying art online
How to create FREE listings
Make the most of your listings
Create wanted ads and watchlists & follow artists
Read about how we handle shipping
Read more about claims & returns
Art Brokerage has been online since 1994
What our clients are saying
Contact sales & tech support
Art Brokerage.com - The easiest way to buy and sell art online safely! We offer FREE listings & no seller fees. Just post your best net price. We currently have 4500+ artists & more than $5 billion listed. Art Brokerage is the first online fine art brokerage. Founded in 1983 and online since 1994. Join our 167k + members and register for our daily email, to save your favorite listings, and take advantage of our buying/selling systems. Watch for bargains & see our more than 10,000 Must Sell and Steal This listings.
All information contained in these web pages is copyrighted by Art Brokerage Inc. 1995-2020. All visual copyrights belong to the artists. All rights reserved.1000 N. Green Valley Pkwy, Suite 440-235, Henderson, NV 89074 by appointment only.


text:
Sorry, no results!
Please contribute to the Dictionary! Suggest a Translation: йский-венгерский-словарь
Like most websites, DictZone.com also uses cookies. Change settings later / more info: Data Protection
Cookies help us to improve our service (with statistics), to maintain (with advertising), and to improve our user experience.
Cookies help us to:


text:
Our Inspection Packages
We offer three exclusive Home Inspection Packages that allow you to select the range of services you prefer, so you can have peace of mind about buying the home you love. Your report is printed and delivered at the time of the inspection, so there's no waiting for results. You'll also have online access to your report anytime.
A professional home evaluation of all major items inside and outside the home is the core of the Pillar To Post inspection. Our inspectors conduct a visual inspection of accessible systems and components of the home including:
- Structure and Foundation
- Electrical Systems
- Plumbing Systems
- Roofs and Attics
- Basements and Crawl Spaces
- Gutters and Drainage
- Walls, Floors and Ceilings
- Porches and Decks
- Property and Site
We also inspect and operate:
- Furnaces in Heating Season
- Air Conditioning in Cooling Season
- Plumbing Fixtures in Kitchens and Baths
- Water Heaters
- A Representative Sampling of Lights and Receptacles
- A Representative Sampling of Windows and Doors
- Built-in Appliances
Added Services:
- Pool Inspection
- Termite Inspection
- Environmental Report
- Slab Elevation Survey
All Pillar To Post inspectors are members of regional, state, national and provincial associations across the United States and Canada, and all inspections are conducted within the Standards of Practice of these associations.


text:
Friday Music Group
Date(s) - 25/10/2019
1:30 pm - 3:00 pm
Dunara Homes for Recovery
All groups start at 1:30pm unless otherwise noted.
Date(s) - 25/10/2019
1:30 pm - 3:00 pm
Dunara Homes for Recovery
All groups start at 1:30pm unless otherwise noted.
Dunara Homes for Recovery offers a variety of programs and groups including:
Residential Program
Supportive Housing
Dunara Support Group
Friday Music Group
As part of a recovery oriented mental health system we value holistic wellness. As such we work to define recovery values and principles in context on an ongoing basis.
We value autonomy, individual responsibility, engagement in the community, empowerment, hope, self determination, the elimination of stigma, and the opportunity for meaningful choice.
Dunara is a registered charity.
Our charity number is
We accept payments through Pay Pal (click the image above), CanadaHelps.org, or by personal cheque. Cheques can be made payable to Dunara Homes For Recovery Inc. Income tax receipts will be provided.
For more information about Dunara's programs and referrals please contact Yoland Webster, Program Manager at [email protected] or 519-836-2332 ext. 101.
And for general inquiries please contact our Executive Director, Yvonne Bowes at [email protected] or 519-836-2332 ext. 107.
Parking (limited) is available in the back.
Please follow the walkway to the south entrance.
Additional parking is available on Dean Street.
Phone: (519) 836-2332
Fax: (519) 836-2352
329 Gordon St.
Guelph, ON
View map


text:
Eating out with a peanut allergy
Eating out should be an enjoyable experience but if you have a peanut allergy you need to take extra precautions.
Most people enjoy eating out with their family and friends. Michigan State University Extension encourages families and friends to eat together because of the many benefits of eating together. People eat better and are emotionally healthier when they eat with others. But those who have a food allergy often are fearful that they may be served food that can give them an allergic reaction. An allergic reaction may be a minor or a major reaction that can range from an unpleasant experience to a life threatening experience.
Depending on the person, an allergic reaction can happen just after the food is eaten or several hours later. Food allergic reactions, including peanuts, include: Nausea, sneezing or shortness of breath, hives, swelling of various parts of the body, including the face, eyes, hands or feet, dizziness, lightheadedness, vomiting and/or diarrhea and abdominal pain. At first, symptoms may be mild, but they can become serious quickly. In severe cases, anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction that can lead to death, may occur.
MSU Extension offers tips to help those who eat out and have a peanut allergy:
- Always ask about the ingredients and the way food is prepared before you order. Even if the restaurant is part of a chain, there can be differences between restaurants. When you eat out notify the eating establishment of your food allergy each time you go, even if you have previously eaten there and are ordering the same safe item again. Subtle changes may be made to the menu or item that could be relevant.
- Call a restaurant between meal hours and discuss the allergy with the chef.
- Order simply prepared foods. Foods such as baked potatoes, steamed vegetables and broiled meat are less likely to create problems. Avoid added sauces and flavorings.
- Avoid buffets and salad bars.
- Know that peanut butter is sometimes used as a thickener, or even to hide a burnt taste in spaghetti sauce, chili or gravy. Peanuts may also be used in pie crusts.
- Ask what oil is used. Most good Italian restaurants use olive oil, but it's best to check. Fondues and stir-fries often use peanut oil because of its high smoking point.
Always be prepared. Don't let your guard down. At all times, make sure to have your food allergy medications with you such as injectable epinephrine and an antihistamine. A severe allergic reaction can be life-threatening, so it is most important to have your emergency medication with you. Most importantly is to be as careful as possible when eating out by using the above information.


text:
City of Keller, TXHome Menu
City Calendar
The City Calendar offers information on upcoming meetings, regular programs and special events organized by the City of Keller. To see additional events going on in Keller hosted by nonprofit and other community organizations, please visit the
Yoga Storytime
for all ages
- Date: 07/25/2019 11:00 AM
- Location: Keller Public Library
640 Johnson Road
Keller, Texas 76248
Tell a story with your body in our Yoga Storytime for all ages. Bring a mat or towel if you'd like and be ready to move!Return to full list >>