Posts by nick94

nick94

May 20, 2009

Writing Feedback / Essay on Rating TV Shows and Movies [6]

Here is an essay I wrote for the English Composition CLEP. If you guys could rip it apart and show me what I should do differently that would be great! This is a rough draft that I wrote in 30 minutes. The topic is:

The rating of TV Shows and Movies: is it ever appropriate?

Not-Rated

I believe that rating movies and TV shows is not only an appropriate thing to do but a responsible thing as well. When you look online to check out what movie is showing down at the theater what do you see? You probably see a list of movies with ratings next to them. Sometimes you might look at the ratings, sometimes not, but have you ever thought of movies not being rated? With today's topic I will show you first, the benefits of ratings; second, how arguments against ratings don't really stand; and third, what could happen without ratings. I will be showing this for both TV shows and movies

You're taking your kids down to the movie theater to be entertained. If you do your research beforehand you know what movie you are going to see, and what it is rated. You know what the worst parts are and you know that nothing in the movie is worse than what you let your kids watch. Most of the time ratings and reviews are put in the same category and they will in this essay. All the reviews of the move help rate it so that you know what movies are family friendly. To a lesser extent TV shows are also rated. Most of us don't look for TV show ratings, but we might look for some reviews. Again, rating the show for us. You now know what will be included in the show and can decide to not watch or vice-versa.

Opponents of movie ratings might try and further their point by saying it doesn't matter if a movie is rated. You could go watch it first and then decide if you want your kids to watch it. The problem with this is time, for a lot of adults they are busy with events and work. If you have kids you might not have time because of field trips, soccer games, practice, babies, and any other possible reason. What about TV shows? Opponents will ask. Why do we rate them? The answer to this is, People rate them, but we do so to a lesser extent. If anything we should be more aware of what TV shows contain. Without ratings someone might turn on the TV and flip on CSI for a room full of kids. It would probably happen once but it would still happen. I am not aware of any problems that exist from rating movies, but if there were some they would be miniscule in comparison to the benefits of rating movies.

What is the impact? What would happen if we didn't have ratings? You might take your kids down to the movie theater to watch a movie with an innocent title that no one you know has seen. The theater darkens, the movie starts playing, and the movie should have been rated "R", but, unfortunately, there are no ratings so you didn't know anything bad about the movie.

We need continue to rate movies and TV shows so that we can be forewarned. Problems would arise if we didn't rate them, I have shown you how movie ratings influence people's decisions, possible arguments against ratings and their refutation, and the impact of not rating movies and TV shows. You can easily find all the benefits of something by imagining what it would be like if it didn't exist.

nick94

May 20, 2009

Writing Feedback / Essay on Rating TV Shows and Movies [6]

Thanks for all the feedback! For the actual CLEP test I will have an additional 15 minutes to write and proofread the essay.

nick94

May 20, 2009

Writing Feedback / School bus trip - a story [4]

The bus by now is speeding off, and the people inside are in absolute silence, because we're probably sure that we're going to die if we say or do anything.

You might want to check on the tenses. You used the past tense eg. Kissed, etc... but then you swap into the present tense.

The bus soon came to a halt, and the police efficiently shoot smoke grenades into the bus and the rescue team charged in and tackled down the robbers in one swift movement.

In this sentence you use two tenses. Came-past, shoot-present, charged-past, and tackled-past.

Stan, the bus driver must have been paid to pick up the robbers from this spot, and what an ingenious plan, using a school bus as a getaway car, and having ready made hostages inof us students, almost like Hollywood ~~like~~ .

Here were just a few more corrections from one sentence. The words in red are words I added.

Very interesting story!

nick94

May 21, 2009

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

Okay people! As a debater I know you cannot refute something by rephrasing/reiterating something that was said earlier! Just never works! (Not picking a side or anything like that)

nick94

May 21, 2009

Writing Feedback / Essay on advantages of computer games [16]

Does the Wii count as a COMPUTER game? That aside my only suggestion is that you could mention the life saving benefits of video games. This would only work if the topic was video games in general unless you could show how games like the Wii are computer games. It has been shown that doctors who play video games (I don't remember if it was a certain type of video game) make X% fewer mistakes in surgery. (I don't remember the exact percentage so I put "X")

nick94

May 21, 2009

Writing Feedback / CLEP English Comp. -- "That Government is Best Which Governs Least" [5]

Very Good essay! I like the point that you come from and there is very little to critique.

nick94

May 23, 2009

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

Um, I believe in the theory of evolution the same way as I believe in the theory of oxidization. It is valid science in a way pink unicorns are not. Anyone who doesn't understand that is . . . not someone worth debating, if only because the gulf between me and that person is too great ever to bridged by any possible argument.

Darwin was right about adaptation but wrong about evolution. What about the general rule in Science for extrapolation? Darwin violated that rule when he made his assumption on Evolution. For people who don't know what Extrapolation is, the definition is, "Following an established trend in the data even though there is no data available for that region." Darwin took small changes that he observed in animals and extrapolated them into huge changes. Darwin noticed that the finches on the Galapagos Islands had changed their beaks, feather color, and to a small extent their body sizes to adapt to the environment on each different island. These types of changes are very small compared to the kinds of changes necessary to turn a finch into a different species of bird! Darwin took a small amount of data and tried to make a huge extrapolation with it! This is the opposite of what a careful scientist would do!!!! Darwin was not careful and btw, evolution has never been proven!

nick94

May 23, 2009

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

To become another species they have to have the genetic information in their DNA. The only way DNA can be altered is by mutation which removes information from DNA, not building it up. So as time goes on you don't have new information, you have less!

You can actually evolve bacteria in a lab to create drug resistant strains.

How does evolution explain the swine flu? Just a question that I would like answered. You don't evolve bacteria in a lab what you do is get a large amount of it and then inject the mass with the drug, eventually the only bacteria alive will be the ones that mutated and are now not effected by the drug. Selective Breeding is not evolution. By breeding a wolf and a chihuahua the "puppy" has features of both but it is still a dog! Again "pretty much on their way" and "a new species" are completely different!

nick94

May 24, 2009

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

The fossil record provides an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of evolution.

The fossil record is one of the things that disproves evolution! In the fossil record we find bones of men buried sooner or in the same layer as animals that evolutionists claim weren't alive at that time.

Ok, so you don't understand what evolution is either. What you just detailed is called natural selection and it is the mechanism for evolution as Darwin detailed it. So without knowing it, you have just argued in favor of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Natural selection has been observed... Evolution has not! Natural selection is basically the survival of the fittest... Evolution is one species changing into another.

Mutation changes the information. This may involve removal, difference, or addition. And the changes are cumulative. It's the cumulative part that matters. Over time, the DNA of an isolated population can become so different from that of another isolated population of members of the same species that their descendants cease to be members of the same species.

What is evolution? The Theory of Evolution says that things started out simple and have become more and more complex. That is not what we see in real life! The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things start complex and, as time goes on, break down into simpler things. You have a Theory vs. Laws

... What wins? Especially when there is no proof of evolution.

Swine flu is a new type of disease. The reason that new diseases are created is because they evolve from existing ones. New diseases are not spontaneously created.

You are right. New diseases are not created. The swine flu was a real flu in swine. A mutated version of the swine flu somehow was transmitted to a Human and the virus was brought into society.

i.e. those that have evolved to have a resistance. That is, originally, only a handful of the original bacterial population had resistance, but the addition of the drug to the environment meant that only those survived, so the trait was selected for. This is evolution at its most basic.

This is mutation at its basic.
There are many other issues of evolution that have not yet been addressed. One is how everything began; another is the meaning of life, if you think we are random molecules that came about by random chance and we could evolve into something different at any time, what is your purpose in life? And the impossible point for evolutionists to prove... non living chemicals spontaneously breaking forth alive... Science fiction at its best!

nick94

May 24, 2009

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

There are at least two fully developed evolutionary theories that can provide an explanation. Eventually, one of them will be proved when the process is replicated in a lab.

Then what are these two theories and why hasn't this been done already? I have yet to hear of an experiment that has produced life, or come reasonably close to doing so.

nick94

May 24, 2009

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

And no, an experiment that has produced life has not yet been carried out. Hence my use of the future tense in my original post. However, various experiments have been carried out that indicate that such an experiment will eventually be successful. For instance, this one recently showed that the basic chemicals present on early Earth could have given rise to the basic building blocks of RNA fairly easily:

The article that you provided says that it is impossible for ribonucleotides to form. Also the origin of life article says it shouldn't be confused with evolutionary models. The problem with several of the hypothesis's are many. Some of them have already been proven wrong, eg. Spontaneous Generation, Some, like the black smoker and the radioactive beach model, provide sugars for the amino acids and proteins to form, but the problem is once these are formed sugars are actually destructive to them. The chemical atmosphere contains positive and negative amino acids to make proteins, but only negative amino acids can be used to make them (if there are positive ones they will not form) all of these problems in all of these hypothesis's convince me that evolution is not true science.

To back up my point on Theory vs. Law there is a law that no evolutionist can say doesn't apply, The Law of Biogenesis. This scientific Law says that "Life can only come from life!" Evolution teaches that a bunch of random chemicals some how all connected in the right order to make a protein and then somehow made tons and tons of these and finally made a cell. Somewhere along the way evolution says that those chemicals came to life. This theory is in conflict with a Scientific Law and the Law always wins!

To back up my point on Theory vs. Law there is a law that no evolutionist can say doesn't apply, The Law of Biogenesis. This scientific Law says that "Life can only come from life!" Evolution teaches that a bunch of random chemicals some how all connected in the right order to make a protein and then somehow made tons and tons of these and finally made a cell. Somewhere along the way evolution says that those chemicals came to life. This theory is in conflict with a Scientific Law and the Law always wins!

Ok, you don't understand how mutation works. Mutation does not remove information, it simply alters it. The DNA code does not become shorter and shorter as species evolve. But, even if this point were true it would be irrelevant because it says nothing about the validity of the theory of evolution.

Mutation can never add information. Scientists like Dr. Lee Spetner and Dr. Werner Gitt agree that mutation has never added information to the genetic code. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time.

This still does not say anything about the validity of the theory of evolution. Also over time, selective breeding can lead to a change in reproductive compatability. This would lead to the creation of a new species.

So, in time, selective breeding would turn a dog into a snake... That seems absurd!

Only in 2 cases: 1) Where the fossils were planted as fakes, and 2) where natural geological processes have clearly shifted the layers out of the order in which they were originally laid.

In addition to my statement made before I just want to give some hard facts about the fossil record. 95% of it is marine organisms, coral, shellfish, etc... 95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants... 95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects,,, The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. Also man wouldn't have necessarily been fossilized. Early man would probably have decomposed or been eaten. Forces of nature can also remove bodies. The 2004 tsunami in southeast Asia was a reminder of the speed water can erase all trace of bodies. According to the United Nation's Office of the Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, almost 43,000 victims were never found. Another reminder, fossilization is a rare event and fossils are hard to find.

There have been no mutations that provide new information but there have been, and these are very limited, beneficial mutations. But, again, mutations, even beneficial ones, go the wrong way for evolutionists. They are a loss of information.

P.S. What is the current popular model for the creation of the universe? (I know it changes often)

nick94

May 24, 2009

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

You don't evolve bacteria in a lab what you do is get a large amount of it and then inject the mass with the drug, eventually the only bacteria alive will be the ones that mutated and are now not effected by the drug.

The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection is nondirectional-should the enviroment change or the selective pressure be removed, those organisms with previously selected for characteristics are typically less able to deal with the changes and may be selected against. The term "evolution" cannot be used in the context of describing what natural selection can accomplish. Antibiotics are natural products produced by fungi and bacteria and the antibiotics we use today are typically derivatives of those. Because of this relationship, it is not surprising that some bacteria would have resistance to certain antibiotics. They must do so to be competitive. Bacterium can gain resistance through two ways:

Losing Genetic Info
a design feature to swap DNA-gaining it from another bacterium

nick94

May 25, 2009

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

This has nothing to do, strictly speaking, with evolution, which is a theory, as I said, as to what happens with species after they get going. That life did arise is self-evident. Evolution explains what happens after that. As it not not meant to explain more than that, its inability to do so is not a flaw.

But if life did not evolve or did not come about by random chance the theory of evolution would be disproved.

No, it says that they have managed to form them. In fact, that's the whole point of the article.

Man I wish I could quote the article on this forum. Read the 4th or 5th paragraph and you will see what I mean. The point of the article is to show that scientists have shown how it could/might happen. But they have tried many possible ways and none of them have worked.

Scientists like Dr. Lee Spetner and Dr. Werner Gitt are wrong, as virtually all serious biologists agree. The validity of the theory doesn't hinge on who has the most PhDs on its side, of course (even though the evolutionists win hands down by that standard too) but by such things as predictive power, which is firmly in favor of the theory.

Has there been any documented mutation that adds information to the genetic code?

It seems absurd to think that the earth revolves around the sun when we can clearly see that it is the sun that moves through the sky. Nevertheless, the earth does in fact revolve around the sun, and selective breeding could turn a dog into a creature very like a snake (though the chances of reaching the exact genetic code of an actual snake would be very, very slim). It could probably be got to the point where it looked exactly like a snake, though. It would of course take millions of years. I suspect you are incapable of grasping time intervals of that length.

So you just disproved evolution as the earth is not millions of years old! To have to look like a snake the dog would have to have its genetic information. Otherwise it would be a dog that looked like a snake.

This isn't a problem for evolutionists at all. It is, however, a truthful statement about what they believe, so you should get some credit for that.

But if the very process by which evolutionists say it occurs can have the opposite effect doesn't that mean the process could just go in a circle and never form a new species?

The fossil record does not prove evolution because of all the missing links. As Darwin himself said, (Can I quote him? Its not from a website and it is from his book. Until I get an answer I'll paraphrase) Evolution says that there are many transitions and there should be many links from different species. This has not been shown in the fossil record and is the most grievous argument against the theory of evolution.

Just a question, Is a computer more basic than a cell?

P.S. What is the current popular theory for the formation of the Universe?

nick94

May 25, 2009

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

Actually, even if the first single-celled creatures were magically created however many billion of years ago, evolution would still work just fine at explaining how they evolved into us. As it is, there are several scientific theories as to how those first single-celled creatures got going, none of which involve magic.

But where did the first cell come from? Where did it get the genetic information to produce trillions and trillions of different types of cells? What about the Scientific Law I talked about that you haven't addressed? (The law of Biogenesis) If evolution where true we would not have this law that says through all of scientific history life has only come from life.

Again, you just don't understand the theory of evolution. Or how genetics works in general, for that matter. This is just wrong. Many phenotypical features have evolved independently several times (presumably because the environments of the creatures that evolved them favored them). According to your logic, wolves and chiuauas don't have the same genetic information, because they don't have the same phenotype. Yet they are genetically similar enough to be the same species, despite the apparent differences. In the same way, two creatures could be genetically different enough to be separate species, yet still have evolved to look alike.

Not what I am trying to say. The wolf has all of the genetic information in it that a Chihuahua has. The Chihuahua has just lost the major components that would override the other genetic information. (Might have used the wrong words)

Indeed it does. In fact, that's why some species have essentially stopped evolving, and are still the same as they were millions of years ago. That the process could and sometimes does go in a circle doesn't mean it always does.

Has there been any documented use of natural selection to make a new species?

Yes, several examples appear in the articles that I pointed you to. In fact, the very first one explains how you can do this is a lab with bacteria by getting them to evolve a resistance to a particular chemical.

I showed how each of the examples have either been proved to be impossible or would kill life with the chemicals necessary to make it!

How was the universe made? I say God created it!

Dogs are still dogs, cats are still cats, and people are still people, just the way He made them!

nick94

May 25, 2009

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

Wow! Great words of wisdom! I guess I keep trying to refute evolution because it grieves me to see people led astray and believing in a lie, thinking there is a scientific explanation for everything!

nick94

May 27, 2009

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

No one believes that the first cell had that much genetic information. The first single-celled organisms were very simple, and gradually became more complex over time. How the first single-celled organisms arose is a matter of scientific debate, but eventually we will succeed at replicating the process in a lab, and then we'll know.

What happens when you NEVER succeed?

Anyone who has access to a basic lab (or who wants to set one up in his basement, for that matter) can carry out the experiments described in the first article on the website I pointed you to,

Was that the Wikipedia Article? If you believe that an intelligent person can do this isn't this almost like you believing in intelligent design? I have a hard time believing that mutations, that happen by random chance, would have enough added information to make a new species.

Evolution is sound science

Lets list some of the holes in it shall we? There has been no proof of evolution. It violates scientific laws like the law I have brought up an you haven't addressed, the law of Biogenesis. Even in the articles you provided links to it didn't give an example of mutations increasing the amount of information. All that they did was show how since vertebrates have a higher gene count than a yeast evolution must be able to add information. Faulty Logic.

Excellent, and where did God come from? You could say He always existed, of course, but then why not just say the universe always existed? That would be simpler.

How do evolutionists think the universe universe existed? There was nothing NOTHING! and then somehow a small chunk of matter appeared and exploded! From that small chunk of matter all the planets, stars, moons, and asteroids were made. Likely Story!

You couldn't prove it, because it isn't true.

Wow! Great logic! If I say something and you believe it isn't true that doesn't mean that I couldn't prove it!

There are some things that you haven't answered.
The Missing Missing Links...
The Law of Biogenesis...
Question: Is a computer more basic than a Cell?...
Probably more I just can't remember them right now!

nick94

May 28, 2009

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

So, I guess we can add biogenesis to the long list of scientific theories you don't understand.

It is actually a law...

Another one listed various mechanisms that permit the addition of information, including duplication and polyploidy.

This is not new information... This is Duplication (making more of the same genes).

There has been all sorts of proof -- that's why all serious biologists accept the theory, why, in fact, acceptance of the theory is pretty much a necessary part of what it means to be a serious biologist.

What proof? Has there been a documented change of a dog into a new species? That is what evolution is!!!!

gradual changes between species over time, with no clear line demarcating them.

So you would have to have some half fish half bird (or some other thing like that) in the fossil record. Eventually, according to you, gradual changes have turned something into a new species. We should find the midpoint of the two animals in the fossil record.

This is what I mean about creationism relying on dishonesty and lies.

Hey I'm not running a smear campaign on evolution and I'm not relying on lies. (Although from your point of view everything I say is a lie.)

Again, you are making false statements. Evolution doesn't violate the law of biogenesis. It is not a theory that deals with the origins of the first single-celled organisms, but a theory that deals with how complex multicellular species come about after that

So the LAW of Biogenesis says there was an exception at the beginning of time and life sprang from non-life, but after that life can only come from life?

I was saying that you clearly couldn't prove something that is false.

Yes you were only saying that people like you with the same worldview who have been taught evolution all through school and go into an evolutionary lab would agree that what I said is false. Wow they (and you) have great logic and are clearly unbiased...

nick94

May 28, 2009

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

Nicholas, I would ask the same of you.

Sure, yah got it!

though Nicholas's appearance on the thread drew the digression out much longer than anyone could have foreseen.

Good or bad? :D

nick94

May 28, 2009

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

Why don't you write up an essay defending your point of view? Then, you could post it in its own thread, and I could point out all of the flaws in your arguments without disturbing Mustafa. :-)

I would like that but now I need to study for some online courses and CLEPs... Maybe I'll do that in the near future.