Sentences with phrase «good animals do»

It doesn't seem fair that so many good animals don't have a great home!

Not exact matches

«As we continue our review process to ensure that we are always doing what's right, we are committed to making significant improvements in our program and adhering to the best practices of animal comfort, well - being and travel on behalf of our customers and their pets,» said Jan Krems, United's vice president of cargo.

Why do the executives think it's a good idea to send out a sonar signal that attracts all the giant animals to a major city?

If Eggland's Best does commit to taking this stand against animal abuse, of course we would praise them.

He then ranked animals according to those characteristics, finding that zoos with «popular» animals really do fare better.

«As we continue our review process to ensure that we are always doing what's right, we are committed to making significant improvements in our program and adhering to the best practices of animal comfort, well - being and travel on behalf of our customers and their pets,» said United cargo head Jan Krems.

The animal studies that have been done don't always map well to people.

While we will be giving it away to a friend, I would have been much better off doing a test run with an animal with lower long term costs in the beginning.

Computer workstations abound, but so do toys and stuffed animals, and a cozy canteen offers a neatly arranged cornucopia of berries, nuts, and cereals, as well as an electric massage chair and a cappuccino machine.

His mom promised to sew the best stuffed animal ever there was for Ian's fourth birthday, and if today's retail price is any indication, she did: an individual piece from Kaylee Nilan's line of collectible bears, bunnies, and beavers can cost nearly $ 2,000.

Or as Paul Shapiro, vice president of policy at the Humane Society of the United States and author of the forthcoming book Clean Meat, sums up: «It's possible that folks in this field might end up doing more good for animals than what I've done with my life.»

The site usually posts adorable videos of animals and other kinds of feel - good, uplifting content: stories and videos of police officers doing good for citizens, underdog stories, and kitchen hacks.

When things don't go well with their farming methods and their public works projects, the pigs claim the animals need to work harder towards salvation.

«We think of it as meat made a better way... Meat today basically is made using pre-historic technology, using animals to turn plants into this very special category of food... But to your typical consumer... the value proposition of meat has nothing to do with its coming from an animal.»

GFI sees value in market research, and may conduct some themselves; they have already conducted a short survey to identify the most appealing name for cultured meat.51 They would also be interested in research done to identify other factors important in promoting plant - based and cultured meat, such as whether consumers are more likely to respond well to promotion related to health benefits or to animal welfare.

GFI sees value in market research, and may conduct some themselves; they have already conducted a short survey to identify the most appealing name for cultured meat.96 They would also be interested in research done to identify other factors important in promoting plant - based and cultured meat, such as whether consumers are more likely to respond well to promotion related to health benefits or to animal welfare.97 They plan to conduct such research and will encourage its use by companies.

Well, surely «camel» didn't mean camel, it meant another animal.

That doesn't change the fact that an animal born with an abnormality which makes it more complex but also better suited to survive would live to pass on that gene to it's children and slowly to the entire species.

I do n`t like calling Rush Pig, a Pig is much better Animal then him I think he is just Virus.

we are animals... some people are stupid and pray to imaginary beings... there is no natural code of conduct requiring us to think you are somehow better than just another moron... you want respect, EARN it... one way to do that is to keep your religious beliefs to yourself instead of inflicting that crap on everyone around you...

The universe is 13.7 billion years old (cosmology: best estimate based on available data)- nothing to do with Atheism The earth is 4.5 billion years old (cosmology: best estimate based on available data)- nothing to do with Atheism Life emerged from non-life (Biogenesis theory... cause and process unknown)- nothing to do with Atheism Life spread and diversified through evolution (best available explanation)- nothing to do with Atheism Man evolved from common ape ancestor (evolution science)- nothing to do with Atheism Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain (neuroscience)- nothing to do with Atheism Emotions, memories and intelligence are functions of the brain (neuroscience)- nothing to do with Atheism Morals are emergent qualities of social animals (natural science)- nothing to do with Atheism

That said: «But god did not foresee — that man would want a companion» = > «It is not good for the man to be alone» are the words used — so God did know and provided «that the snake would talk to the humans» = > «the serpent was more crafty than any other animal» - deception required capacity to deceive «that the humans would choose knowledge (and why else was that tree there)» = > It was not knowledge but knowledge of good and evil.

Without diving into wether or not animals have souls (which I don't believe) or are even self aware (which I'm also fairly certain they are not), why should I compare instint, non-ceribrial behavior (at best purely sexual) to human?

i do nt understand what religous people really believe is waiting for them in an afterlife when we know for a fact that the body doesn't go there and the fact that animals apparently cant go to heaven because they have no soul is well thats just good old conceited man made rubbish that is everywhere in the bible and before i get attacked i was raised religious and got very religious for a few years till i actually thought about it and applyed logic to it after that the whole concept of religion made me feel sick

Animals in the wild such as gorillas don't typically go on murdering sprees because it wouldn't be in its best interest to do so not because he thinks it's immoral and won't go to heaven but because of the realistic consequences.

Then, because God had already shown them the «right» way, He pulled Cain up on his «non-blood» vegetable offering as not doing what is «right», as it wasn't shedding the blood of an animal (which was essentially a type and shadow of Christ's sacrifice, as well as being the pattern already set by God in front of Adam and Eve in the Garden).

All the best we could do is cover them with the blood of animals.

The significance of the sacrifices was to see our sinfulness and turn our hearts back to God and that is made clear with the death of Christ.The animals though could not remove our sin that was only possible through Christ as God he could remove sin in the past present and future as he is outside of time and space not like us.So there sins in effect were covered by Jesus as well in the old testament as in the new by Gods we just did nt see it.The example of abraham able enoch they all were righteous they were justified before God.Enoch walked with God and was no more that sounds like the rapture to me so the holy spirit was present in that age just like us.We see that God has always been at work to bring life and to bring mankind to salvation.

You'd do well to look into the old ways of the «two» priests it required for the atonement of sin of the people — one for the inner court and one for the outer court, and the two animals — the spotless sacrificial lamb, and the scapegoat of whom the blood of that sacrificial lamb was placed and sent into the wilderness.

Who's to say that God didn't create the world in 6 days (and they very well could be 6 days in a longer stretch of time that what we call a day) and that He didn't create all these animals and then let them evolve to fit the life they are leading?

If someone believes in the creation story to the extent that they reject scientific inquiry, they're not well - equipped to conduct the research and do the work needed in the future to benefit and improve the condition of and ensure the survival of the earth and its human and animal populations.

Yeah, and all those animal burnings for god that the bible of mainstream Christians says you should do, better not miss out on those or god will burn you in hell forever.

For all are ordered together to one end, but it is as in a house, where the freemen are least at liberty to act at random, but all things or most things are already ordained for them, while the slaves and the animals do little for the common good, and for the most part live at random... (1075a16 - 23)

Well did Kant, in one of his best utterances, declare his awe for the starry» skies, together with the ethical principles by which we, and any other comparably thoughtful animals, should live.

However, he does hold that the goal towards which physical processes are directing the behavior of an animal finds conscious expression at the level of spirit by its intuition of the goal's essence under the form of the good.

It's not just life / human nature / NATURE??? There are a lot of beautiful things in this world, but there is the uglier side as well... and to blaim it all on God — good or bad... well you might as well be living in the old testament... I am surprised there aren't still animal sacrifices to the angry, wrathful god that so many believe in... Oh, another question to the thumpers who believe that «God can be cruel» (And I really don't think Stephen King would say any of his work supports that)... So is God actually «perfect»?

This is extremely logical because if someone sins intentionally, knowing full well that they would need to slaughter an animal, they really don't care that another living creature must die and therefore the sacrifice itself will not expiate the sin.

Education also serves to transform and refine desires, so that one does not simply seek immediate gratification of animal hungers, but gains the ability to postpone present satisfactions for the sake of more lasting benefits and to enjoy the «higher» pleasures as well as ordinary bodily delights.

Readers interested in a theoretical critique of animal rights as antiliberal would do well to consult Luc Ferry's 1992 work Le nouvel ordre ecologique (The New Ecological Order, scheduled to be published in translation by the University of Chicago Press in 1995).

Whitehead did not speculate on the precise location of memory within the animal organism, but the most plausible extension of his theory suggests rather that memories are maintained for the soul by other occasions, thereby freeing the soul for its adventure into novelty.2 The way in which the conscious ego draws upon the ocean of unconscious feeling which sustains it may well reflect the way the soul draws upon other living occasions.

His good creation was not intended to function this way, but since He gave humans, angels, and even animals (to a degree) the freedom to make genuine choices, we sometimes use this freedom in ways that are contrary to the will and desire of God, and when we do this, the forces of nature suffer the consequences, and chaos rages over the face of earth, wreaking havoc, destroying lives, and bringing destruction in its wake.

But however influential Schumacher's work may have been a decade ago, Rubin would have done better to offer a detailed analysis of the current strains influencing environmentalism, including «environmental justice» or the animal rights movement.

And this is what he does here, very well, proceeding by discrete steps: the observable plasticity of plant and animal species, the verifiability of macro-evolution, the geological record of the earth's age, the fossil evidence (including the wealth of fossil remains of intermediate special forms), observable and experimental mutation, morphology, genetics, and so forth.

Now there is pretty good evidence gathering that complex forms including animals did exist in the Precambrian era too.

At best Braine shows thathuman beings have an existence that transcends the body because they have language, but he does not show how or why only human beings and not other higher animals possess transcendence when they are all alike psycho - physical beings, because animals are not to be explained mechanistically either.

I didn't expect you to tell me that all animals have a soul as well.

It is a matter of record that animals of all species do demonstrate better manners, affections and even compasion toward other animals even those of different species.

I've been better able lately, for whatever reason, to put myself in the shoes of someone who does believe this is it, that humans are evolved animals who will die and that's it.

Humanity Made for Christ When speaking to modern audiences, especially young adults, about what distinguishes us from the animals, it is not always a good idea to start with negative distinctions - pointing out, for example, that animals can not do such and such, but we can.

So God taught them that if they were intent on offering dead animals and blood, they might as well do it to Him, but with certain restrictions and guidelines.