Eye of a Dancer

Writing Reflection 3

sarah428 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:59:59 +0000

When I write I would probably considered my writing to be most like a water-color painting. I prefer to get my work done the first time around and not have to keep going back to change it. I try to write my papers the first time where I don’t have to go back and do a lot of editing later. I normally have a few things to change things or maybe some inserts to put in but that’s about it. I guess you can say I write a little bit like an architect to. I normally try to plan everything out the best and can and gather all the information I might need before I start writing. I try to do most of my writing at night and in silence. I do my work at night because everything just more calmed down at night. I can’t write or concentrate when there’s music playing or noise from the TV going on around me. If there’s a lot of noise around me I tend to lose my thought. I also have a problem of waiting until the last day or two before it’s due to start my work. It seems like no matter how hard I try to start it early something comes up and I end up putting it off. I normally write most of me work on a computer even though I would prefer to write with pen and paper first. I choose computers because it’s just easier and more convenient to keep track of everything.

Weblog 4

sarah428 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:39:34 +0000

Time Magazine posted an article titled God vs. Science. In this God vs. Science article it’s asking whether Darwinian evolution can withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis. The article is about both the beliefs of Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, it also features a debate between both men and their views. Both of these men have their own views on the God vs. Science subject but both views are very different. Francis Collins is a forthright Christian who converted from atheism at the age of 27 and now finds time to advise young evangelical scientists on how to declare their faith in sciences largely agnostic upper reaches. Richard Dawkins on the other hand is an author of many books and he is also a professor at Oxford University. The debate starts by Time Magazine asking Collins whether he believes that science is compatible with Christian faith? Collins response to the questions was “Yes. God’s existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God’s existence is outside of science’s ability to really weigh in.” Following Collins question Time goes on to ask Dawkins whether he thinks Darwin’s theory of evolution does more than simply contradict the Genesis story. Dawkins replies “Yes. For centuries the most powerful argument for God’s existence from the physical world was the so-called argument from design: Living things are so beautiful and elegant and so apparently purposeful, they could only have been made by an intelligent designer. But Darwin provided a simpler explanation. His way is a gradual, incremental improvement starting from very simple beginnings and working up step by tiny incremental step to more complexity, more elegance, and more adaptive perfection. Each step is not too improbable for us to countenance, but when you add them up cumulatively over millions of years, you get these monsters of improbability, like the human brain and the rain forest. It should warn us against ever again assuming that because something is complicated, God must have done it.”

In the end Dawkins believes that god doesn’t exist in any way or form, and Collins believes that god basically had an idea when he created the universe and believes that God also activated evolution. In the end both men as you can see have very different views and disagreed on a lot of things, but both came to the conclusion that there are a lot of unanswered questions.

Weblog 3

sarah428 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:46:24 +0000

Both Singer and Schaefer write two very different essay. They are both trying to get people to want to donate money o charities to save children. Singer becomes less persuasive towards the end of his essay and basically pushes people away. Schaefer tries to be persuasive and point out the part where Singer went wrong.

In Singers essay he’s claiming that people today spend all their money on things that aren’t needed. People don’t use their money for the essentials they need. He believes that the money we use to go on vacations or buy new clothes and we could instead be used by donating it to a charity or organization. Singer believes by donating the money could make a difference between life and death for a child. Singer believes if someone has extra money they should donate it all to charity and not use any of it on themselves. One example Singer uses is about a man named Bob. He owned this car that he loved so much. There was a train coming down the railroad tracks in the path of a little boy. Bob had a choice he could let it hit the boy or change its course and let it hit his car. In the end bob chose to save his car and not the boy. To Singer this shows how people only care about themselves and not about the dying children.

Schaefer begins to talk about how he thought Singer was being to pushy in his essay. Schaefer thinks in the beginning of Singers essay he started off really well, he thought Singers ws very persuasive. Schaefer believed Singer could have persuaded people to possibly donate some money the charity and organizations. Toward the end of Singers essay Schaefer thought he was being way to pushy and discourages people to want to donate. Schaefer tries to point out in his essay the areas and way Singers loses people and where he become less persuasive in trying to get people to donate. Schaefer tries to be very calm and persuasive during his essay and point out the main ideas trying to get people to donate to charities.

Writing Reflection 1

sarah428 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:36:51 +0000

Ever since I was little I was never really a strong writer and it was never something that I really enjoyed. My writing has evolved a lot throughout the years but it’s still not my strong point. I never really went to a school where writing was something they focused on. Writing isn’t something that came natural to me so it used to take me a while before I could start writing on a topic. I could never think of what to write or how to write it. Now when I sit down to write I don’t have to think about it so much. I never used to understand how to put a paper together, but after a while I learned the process pretty well. I used to struggle when I had to write my ideas and thoughts on paper. I was never able to write them down where they would make sense. Im still not the best at it but I can now write them down without struggling so much and it make sense. I would never elaborate on my writings before they would always be just straight to the point. I can now elaborate more on my writings and they now make more sense. I used to have a problem rewording things or citing things I used which is considered plagiarism. Plagiarism was never really something that was pushed upon in my high school, then when I got into college I had to learn to cite or rephrase things or I would get a zero on my papers. Writing is still not my strong point and still not something I enjoy but I still have a lot more growing to do when I do write, but every class I take helps grow a little at a time.

Weblog 2

sarah428 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:45:53 +0000

Part I

How much I cost to go to college
The economy and cost of living
The amount of people losing their jobs
The problems with our countries healthcare
People texting while driving
Amount of homeless people there are
Rise in veterinary cost
Benefits for the elderly
The future availability of social security
Drug trafficking

Part II

The amount of homeless people there are…

There are many people that are losing their homes to foreclosures. The government gives all this money to bail out lending agencies, but with less money they could have helped the public directly. There are people that have worked or my dad that made good money and had a place to live, due to the economy and lack of work some of them actually live in tents in the woods. This issue is a big problem because people are living in the woods with no where else to go. It affects everybody around them, because you have large groups of people that don’t have the means to survive on there own. Therefore some of them tend to rely on others. The government and society should take a more active and direct approach to solve this problem. Some of the reasons I support this position are the less people homeless and hungry, the less crime there would be. It would also create a happier and healthier community. Evidence of this problem can be found in small tent communities in wooded areas in and around our city.

Part III

Some people believe if they helped the agencies it would be passed on to the public. They believe a healthier agency would in turn make a better public. Some past experience would be people don’t have to struggle to pay their bills or have to worry about losing the roof over there head, or where there next meal will come from. These experiences led them to take there position because they’ve never been on the other side. The difference between the way they se it and the way I see it is i’m a 20 year old student just trying to start a life in the world they created.

Weblog 1

sarah428 — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:44:01 +0000

Part I

I believe that people are generally nice and caring people. People are hard working and are just trying to make a living. I think people care too much of what others think of them instead of just being themselves.
I believe that society isn’t as good as it used to be. People don’t have very good values these days. They take too much for granted these days.
I believe that government should be run by people who know what is going on in the world. Without government our country would be a complete wreck.
I believe that justice needs to be served. Without justice we would have criminals running around.
I believe that knowledge is learned from school. Without knowledge we wouldn’t have the things we do today.
I believe that science is an excellent subject that helps us in life. Without science we wouldn’t have cures for illnesses and diseases.
I believe that reality is something that you just have to deal with. You can’t just wish for something to happen, you have to live for the moment.
I believe that life is a big mystery. All you can do is live life each day at a time. You never know what to expect in life which is why it’s a mystery.
I believe that happiness comes from within. There are too many people in the world that are unhappy. Life is to short for people to always be mad or angry about something.
I believe that goodness is doing good things that can help others, and yourself.
I believe that death is going to happen whether you like it or not. Death can be a scary thing but it can’t be prevented. Everybody has a time and you’re never going to know when that is.
I believe that God is a good thing to believe in. If you have problems or need to ask for forgiveness you can pray and have your prayers heard.

Part II

I believe that Justice is needed in this world. Without it everybody would live there life committing crimes and running the streets. I think that some people don’t get the punishment they deserve and others get too much punishment. I think that the death penalty can be a good thing depending on the crime. One thing I don’t agree with is someone getting off just because there someone’s friend, famous or have a lot of money. I think everyone should serve the same amount of time for the crime they committed.

Part III

Some people may disagree with whether justice is a good or bad thing. Some people think that it’s cruel and unusual punishment. They may not find a problem with getting off because someone’s rich or famous, but I don’t think that’s right at all. They may think that depending on the person depends on what their sentence is. Theirs people who don’t believe in the death sentence and say that it’s not right no matter what the crime was. I believe that if the crime is bad enough then they might deserve the death sentence.