Fourtrax350,There was no law preventing intelligence sharing between the CIA and the FBI. The only information that was not allowed to be shared was info about criminal investigations, a law that has no bearing on terroism. But in any case, this supposed "wall" is not the subject. The real debate is on whether or not the Patriot Act violates our Constitutionally given freedoms.
- 12/05/2004
- 17:08:38
- Score: 2 out of 2 people found this comment useful.
What did any of this have to do with evolution? A topic about the compatibility of science and faith maybe, but certainly not evolution.Also, I just wanted to comment on your last paragraph. You state that scientists can not explain how life got here. While there are currently some good hypotheses regading abiogenesis, they are far from being universally accepted. Even though, we may not currently know how life arose, that doesn't mean we never will. People once thought we would never know what stars were made of, we now do, people thought we could never know where humans came from, we do now. Using the god-of-the-gaps argument is dangerous because science will (eventually) be most likely to uncover the truth about it.
- 21/04/2004
- 18:23:56
- Score: 5 out of 7 people found this comment useful.
Good essay overall, if a bit short. Why did you keep referring to the Genesis flood story as the Christian one. Noah and the flood myth originated with Judaism about 700 years before Christianity even existed.
- 21/04/2004
- 09:17:36
- Score: 0 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
Very good essay but I think you've got Bush's ulterior motives wrong. I find it doubtful that Bush could believe that oil revenues could pay for the war costs and reconstruction, let alone use it to pay off the national deficit. And even if we took complete control of Iraqi oil there is no way we would ever have a monopoly. (Ever heard of OPEC?) Bush may not be the brightest person around, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that he ordered the invasion of Iraq just for the oil and personal reasons.Also I would like to mention that just because Bush was so blatantly wrong about WMD's, terrorist connections, etc. doesn't mean he lied about it. You jumped to conclusions a little too soon. You went from showing how he was simply wrong to accusing him of lying. And I am not saying that he didn't lie, I'm just saying that you failed to show evidence of why he lied.BTW, Bush wasn't elected; he was selected- he lost the popular vote in Florida. But I am sure already knew that.
- 14/04/2004
- 11:12:22
- Score: 7 out of 8 people found this comment useful.
You did describe things well, but you failed to make it into a flowing essay. IMHO, it would have been better if you had some transitions that tied your paragraphs together.
- 07/04/2004
- 10:11:51
- Score: 0 out of 0 people found this comment useful.
Good essay overall even though there were some grammaticl mistakes and awkwardly worded sentences. ALso, it would have been a better essay if you had placed the part about the new capital after the religion part, since both related to the other.I did have one question though. From what little I know about Egyptian history, I always thought Akhenton was a henotheist (one who believes there are many gods but only worships one) not a monotheist.
- 07/04/2004
- 10:05:56
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
Good essay. You might want to take a look at my (very similar) essay on why Evolution is a fact and a theory-http://www.cheathouse.com/essay/essay_view.php?p_essay_id=30712Overall good job, but I think you skipped around kinda randomly.
- 01/04/2004
- 15:27:14
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
The essay was ok, but heavily biased towards Islam. (You don't happen to be a Muslim do you?) I do have one question though. In the section entitled "Tolerance and Orderliness" there is a paragraph that talks about how the "Holy prophet" ordered a woman's hand to be cut off for theft. How in the world does this demonstrate his tolerance, or did you not mean it to? It seems like a completely barbaric practice to me.
- 30/03/2004
- 12:53:58
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
Evolutionists have never found an organism with an altered genetic code? You have got to be kidding me. Surely, anyone who has made it through elmentary school should know that each organism is unique.(with the exception of twins and asexually reproducing organisms- but even these occasionally have differing genetic codes.) Please tell me you have heard of recombination and mutations. Every time an organism is reproduced sexually it has a differing genetic code. And every organism that has a mutation has a different genetic code than its parents.Oh yes, populations with different gene pools (I'm assuming that's what you mean?) HAVE been discovered by biologists.I'll give you a theoretical example. A population of rabbits is living within the Arctic circle. Although they already have thick fur to protect them from the cold, the winter this year is particularly cold. Only the rabbits with the thickest fur can survive. Thus at the end of winter, when the rabbits begin to reproduce, only the thick-furred rabbits are left to reproduce. Of course, they pass on their genes to their offspring and-assuming there are no mutations- all of the next generation has thicker fur.Then you go on to contradict yourself by implying that organisms can have different genetic codes, it just has to be within certain parameters. Ignoring this obvious contradiction for a second, where prey tell, are these imaginary parameters?For the next paragraph. You have heard of Stanley Miller's experiment right? Well anyways, they were able to make nucleic acids under natural conditions.Third paragraph- wrong again. It is not assumed that small mutations are the only mutations that can occur. And here is why. It does not matter how good or bad a mutation is because generally, the organisms with favorable mutations are the ones that have the most offspring. Organisms with bad mutations are not able to have as many offspring, therefore the bad mutation eventually dies out while the good one survives.And yes, many of the so-called "missing links" have been found. You may want to have a look at talkorigins.org.Your last paragraph contains by far the biggest error because it assumes that just because evolution is proven false, that (your) version of the creation myth is true. Has anyone else noticed how the title says that this paper would be about the "theory of scientific creationism"? From the title one could safely assume that the paper would be about Creationism, but no- it has nothing to do with Creationism. The author has created a dichotomy between Creationism and Evolution where there is none.
- 29/03/2004
- 17:51:10
- Score: 3 out of 3 people found this comment useful.
Good poem- especially for an eighth grader. Though I liked your other poem too, I thought this one was even better. Keep up the good work.
- 29/03/2004
- 11:31:44
- Score: 4 out of 4 people found this comment useful.
Do you agree with those two quotes? If so you may want to read Part 1 of my essay here: http://www.cheathouse.com/essay/essay_view.php?p_essay_id=35100.Coming from Pat Robertson, I have no doubts about the authenticity of the first quote. I can expect him to be delusional. The authenticity of the second quote is more dubious. Do you have an original source to prove the quote is real?
- 29/03/2004
- 10:30:52
- Score: 0 out of 0 people found this comment useful.
Your essay is just average, not very good but no very bad. The main problem is your run on sentences and other gramatical mistake.Also, why is it that the seecond paragraph suddenly stops in mid-sentence?
- 29/03/2004
- 05:27:04
- Score: 0 out of 0 people found this comment useful.
Good essay and I completely agree with you. I find it ironic that Bush says he fights terrorism to defend our freedoms, yet at the same time he is busy taking them away.
- 28/03/2004
- 18:28:46
- Score: 0 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
Your argument essentially boils down to this. The Old Testament is true. We know this because Jesus said it was true. How do we know that Jesus really said this? Because it is in the Bible. How do we know the Bible is true? Because the Bible says the Bible is true. Sounds like pretty shodddy reasoning, now doesn't it?If you want people to come to believe as you do, then you're going to have to provide some outside evidence.
- 27/03/2004
- 20:30:25
- Score: 3 out of 3 people found this comment useful.
Wow! (and not in a good way) You made quite a few fantastic claims in there: virgin birth, walking on water, magical healing, etc. Do you have any historical references for all these fantastic claims? After all, extrodinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And no, the Bible doesn't really count because all of the New Testament was written from 60 AD onwards, heavily influenced by Paul.
- 27/03/2004
- 20:06:32
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
Did Luther expect his view on marriage to be enforced on others by the state or is this just his moral/religious personal opinion?You really surprised me by saying that women would apppreciate Luther's view on marraige. I thought he was really big on Paul's view that women should be subordinate to men. Also, just because Luther's views on marraige were better than the Roman Catholic church's, doesn't mean that women should like Luther's. It seems like it would be an option of the lesser of two evils in my opinion.
- 26/03/2004
- 20:15:02
- Score: 3 out of 4 people found this comment useful.
It would have been a better essay if you had included just excerpts of your interview into your essay. It looked kinda dumb having it by itself. You should have formatted your first interview like you did the second.P.S. Why did you comment on your own essay just to say it was good?
- 24/03/2004
- 20:39:14
- Score: 5 out of 5 people found this comment useful.
First, how will the UN (or another "unbiased" organization) force these nations to accept these laws. Obviously, they can't impose sanctions or other economic things that would hurt these already poor countries even more. And invasion isn't an option either.Secondly, who is to pay for this free food and education? I hate to sound cruel, but we have so many problems of our own over here that we just can't afford to spend hundreds of billions if not trillions to feed and educate children in the third world.These aren't necessarily unanswerable problems, but since you wrote a problem-solution essay it would have been nice if you could have it least addressed these obstacles. Please note that I do agree that child labor is a severe problem in parts of the undeveloped world; I just don't believe that your solutions would work.
- 11/03/2004
- 19:37:03
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
Good job on the introductory paragraph and the closing sentence. But you might want to try to make some of your wording more formal and less conversation like.Other than that, your essay was interesting.
- 09/03/2004
- 19:33:54
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
But you could made the essay itself a little longer. And it would have helped if you had made the title something like "Google.com: A histoy" or "History of Google." I thought this essay would be about search engines in general or how they work, not a history of a company.
- 09/03/2004
- 19:27:38
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
Like dross said, you need to fix up your introductory paragraph. Your first sentence is incredibly boring. It would make for a much better essay if you could come up with an interesting statistic that could grab the readers attention.Then the next three sentences all start with "I". This is a big no-no in writing, epecially when you do it repeatedly. Always try to avoid that if possible.
- 09/03/2004
- 19:19:52
- Score: 2 out of 2 people found this comment useful.
Ok essay overall, but there were quite a few grammar mistakes. Some commas would have been nice too.To reply to kuhlcb3, the purpose of the essay was not to show the effects on Korea but on America.
- 08/03/2004
- 19:23:12
- Score: 5 out of 5 people found this comment useful.
Your understanding of evolution is hopelessly misguided. First of all, evolution is not a guided process that gradually works its way up to humans. Also, abiogenesis (the origin of life), is not a part of evolution, it is a separate field. You may want to check out talorigins.org before you start making false statements about a theory of which you know little.Secondly, I feel insulted that you would assume that just because people don't pray that they go around killing. I myself am not a Christian (I'm assuming you mean praying to the Christian god?), but I don't go around killing, lying, stealing, raping, etc. I'm perfectly capable of forming my own morals without threat of eternal retribution from God.
- 05/03/2004
- 11:23:45
- Score: 2 out of 2 people found this comment useful.
The real origin of Christmas lies with the "pagans". Throughout Europe, the non-Christians celebrated the time when the days would begin to get longer. The Christians later stole this holiday in AD 354 and made it Christmas.Also you have no sources for your claims, which you especially need given that most of them are completely unbelievable.
- 29/02/2004
- 07:10:12
- Score: 10 out of 11 people found this comment useful.
You said that with the proper funding,a cure for the AIDS virus could be found. I'm not so sure this is the case. Unlike other viruses HIV has the ability to rapidly evolve to anything. Thus any medicine we come out with, the virus can simply evolve an immunity. Right now all we can do is contain the virus. I don't think there are any ways we can completely eliminate it.Also, you really didn't effectively show how those three things could benefit NASA. Yes, each of those are great things that should be done, but I don't think they would really help out NASA.
- 26/02/2004
- 21:07:10
- Score: 8 out of 9 people found this comment useful.
The essay itslf wasn't bad, though it certainly wasn't great, but it could have given more attention to the most important part of Alexander's life- his conquests.
- 26/02/2004
- 16:31:55
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
Good essay overall, but it would have helped to know what MEDC and LEDC mean.
- 26/02/2004
- 15:34:13
- Score: 10 out of 11 people found this comment useful.
In my opinion, the most dangerous thing about homeschooling is that the parents tend to be Right wing religious fundamentalists. These people will willingly teach their children psuedo-science like Creationism. Instead of getting a good science education, homeschooled children go into society thinking a central part of biology is all wrong.Another problem with homeschooling is sex education. With homeschooled parents, sex-ed usually means to teach your child abstinence and tell them that if they ever have sex, God will smite them. If those children were in public school they would have a chance at learning how to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies.Good essay overall, but I think you overexagerated the social aspects. I've been homeschooled for the past six years and I never had a problem with social skills.
- 24/02/2004
- 13:55:32
- Score: 3 out of 4 people found this comment useful.
As an atheist I can tell you that the phrases "under God", "IGWT", and "God bless you" have certainly not lost their real meaning. If the word God in those phrases was replaced with the word Zues would it ever lose its meaning with you? I doubt it.You also mentioned that God is mentioned in the founding documents. This is irrelevent for two reasons. Firstly, we are a much more religiously diverse country then we were then. We don't have to follow everything the founders said. Seconly the phrase "in the year of our Lord" was simply conventional dating practice. It is still used today as AD. The AD in front of a date means "anno Domini" which is Latin for "in the year of our lord". There is nothing special about it, it's just the normal dating method. The founders also used the days and months in the Constitution. Do you think that they meant to promote the pagan gods?January= the god JanusThursday= the god ThorYour other example (so help me God) is not required to be said either in Court or in the Presidential oath.Finally, Jeffersons references to God in the Constitution represent the deistic God and not the Christian one. Besides, we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence.
- 23/02/2004
- 14:40:10
- Score: 2 out of 2 people found this comment useful.