Evolution, the theory that life was changed through slight changes over long periods of time, also known as natural selection. This theory is the major life theory that is accepted in the world of science today. If you were to go into any high school biology class, evolution is what you would hear. This is because no other theory has been proven scientifically equal. This is despite the fact that there are many errors in evolution. There is a theory that addresses many of the issues that evolution cannot. The theory I am talking about is Intelligent Design.
While there are many different examples of where intelligent design can explain something evolution cant I am going to mention only my favorite one. When we look at information today: newspapers, magazines, and books, we know that something intelligent was behind it. You can't just look at a book and say it happened by random chance. Then why is it we can say it was random chance when we look at DNA which is our bodies personal information and is millions of times more complicated then a newspaper. I think that it would take far more faith for me to believe that DNA was random, then for me to believe in a creator.
If you feel this way as well it is time that we did something about it. We need to make changes to the education systems of America to allow both evolution and intelligent design taught in schools. We need to contact our senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold to make this happen. Write to them and tell them about how you feel it is unfair for you to learn only one side of theory in school.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Cheeri
The blog post I chose to read was on product health claims by Josh Pep. The blog post talked about Honey Nut Cheerios and its claim to lower the risk of heart disease. These claims of lowering the risk of heart disease has made the FDA upset. According to the laws of the FDA, food companies are not allowed to make claims like this. The only product that can be advertised as having such claims needs to be a certified FDA drug, not food. The blog post also addresses the claim of Honey Nut Cheerios lowering cholesterol. The FDA also deputes this as false advertising as Cheerios alone will not help you lower your cholesterol.
I agree with Josh on his blog post. Honey Nut Cheerios really is in violation of FDA guidelines. The definition of what is deemed as a drug is any product used intended to be used for a use in prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. Cheerios is advertising its self as being able to prevent and reduce the risk of Heart Disease. FDA guidelines state that only FDA approved drugs can advertise them self with such benefits.
While I do have to agree that Cheerios is in violation of FDA's guidelines I disagree with the FDA. I disagree because, is this really that big of a deal? Cheerios really do help lower cholesterol with healthy diet and exercise. What Cheerios does is it becomes a very healthy part of your diet, and when you exercise and eat healthy you will lower your cholesterol. To me it seems like the FDA had nothing better to due then to go after cheerios. I mean Cheerios have been around since 1941 so we know that there safe, and have been advertising heart disease prevention since 1999. So why wait until now to do something about it? All in all I agree that Cheerios is violating the FDA, but in this case its really not that big of a deal.
Cheeri UH-O
The blog post I chose to read was on product health claims by Josh Pep. The blog post talked about Honey Nut Cheerios and its claim to lower the risk of heart disease. These claims of lowering the risk of heart disease has made the FDA upset. According to the laws of the FDA, food companies are not allowed to make claims like this. The only product that can be advertised as having such claims needs to be a certified FDA drug, not food. The blog post also addresses the claim of Honey Nut Cheerios lowering cholesterol. The FDA also deputes this as false advertising as Cheerios alone will not help you lower your cholesterol.
I agree with Josh on his blog post. Honey Nut Cheerios really is in violation of FDA guidelines. The definition of what is deemed as a drug is any product used intended to be used for a use in prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. Cheerios is advertising its self as being able to prevent and reduce the risk of Heart Disease. FDA guidelines state that only FDA approved drugs can advertise them self with such benefits.
While I do have to agree that Cheerios is in violation of FDA's guidelines I disagree with the FDA. I disagree because, is this really that big of a deal? Cheerios really do help lower cholesterol with healthy diet and exercise. What Cheerios does is it becomes a very healthy part of your diet, and when you exercise and eat healthy you will lower your cholesterol. To me it seems like the FDA had nothing better to due then to go after cheerios. I mean Cheerios have been around since 1941 so we know that there safe, and have been advertising heart disease prevention since 1999. So why wait until now to do something about it? All in all I agree that Cheerios is violating the FDA, but in this case its really not that big of a deal.
I agree with Josh on his blog post. Honey Nut Cheerios really is in violation of FDA guidelines. The definition of what is deemed as a drug is any product used intended to be used for a use in prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. Cheerios is advertising its self as being able to prevent and reduce the risk of Heart Disease. FDA guidelines state that only FDA approved drugs can advertise them self with such benefits.
While I do have to agree that Cheerios is in violation of FDA's guidelines I disagree with the FDA. I disagree because, is this really that big of a deal? Cheerios really do help lower cholesterol with healthy diet and exercise. What Cheerios does is it becomes a very healthy part of your diet, and when you exercise and eat healthy you will lower your cholesterol. To me it seems like the FDA had nothing better to due then to go after cheerios. I mean Cheerios have been around since 1941 so we know that there safe, and have been advertising heart disease prevention since 1999. So why wait until now to do something about it? All in all I agree that Cheerios is violating the FDA, but in this case its really not that big of a deal.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Blog Post 6: Compairing Two Articles
The topic I choose to write about was lowering the drinking age. I myself do not think we should lower the drinking age, but this is not something I am over zealous about and am open to views on either side.
The first article is for lowering the drinking age to eighteen and starts out by stating that the current drinking age is counter productive. The United States has the strictest drinking laws and regulations compared to other countries but yet still has the most drinking related problems. This is because youth will always drink, even if it's illegal, they will just go to undesirable locations without parental supervision. In other countries do not even have drinking ages or if they do their drinking ages are considerably lower, around 16 years of age. In these societies, such as France where the drinking age is 16, they have considerable less drinking related problems. That is because by being introduced to alcohol at a younger age with parental supervision they learn how to drink in moderation and control themselves. In contrast to America where kids will binge drink every chance they get because of the difficulty involve with acquiring alcohol.
The second article is against lower the drinking age to eighteen. The biggest argument here is that it will greatly increase drunk driving, because at that age kids, in the governments eyes, become adults and are allowed to make there own decisions. For the most part 18-years-olds do not always make the best decisions including drunk driving.
I would have to say that after reading both articles my view on lowering the drinking age has changed. However, I don't think the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen, instead I think it should be lowered to 16. I agree with the article in not lowering the age to eighteen because 18-year-olds do not make the smartest decisions especially when introduced to something new. At the age of 16 however they would still be kids so parents would be able to give them supervision and make sure they do not do anything stupid, like drunk driving.
The first article is for lowering the drinking age to eighteen and starts out by stating that the current drinking age is counter productive. The United States has the strictest drinking laws and regulations compared to other countries but yet still has the most drinking related problems. This is because youth will always drink, even if it's illegal, they will just go to undesirable locations without parental supervision. In other countries do not even have drinking ages or if they do their drinking ages are considerably lower, around 16 years of age. In these societies, such as France where the drinking age is 16, they have considerable less drinking related problems. That is because by being introduced to alcohol at a younger age with parental supervision they learn how to drink in moderation and control themselves. In contrast to America where kids will binge drink every chance they get because of the difficulty involve with acquiring alcohol.
The second article is against lower the drinking age to eighteen. The biggest argument here is that it will greatly increase drunk driving, because at that age kids, in the governments eyes, become adults and are allowed to make there own decisions. For the most part 18-years-olds do not always make the best decisions including drunk driving.
I would have to say that after reading both articles my view on lowering the drinking age has changed. However, I don't think the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen, instead I think it should be lowered to 16. I agree with the article in not lowering the age to eighteen because 18-year-olds do not make the smartest decisions especially when introduced to something new. At the age of 16 however they would still be kids so parents would be able to give them supervision and make sure they do not do anything stupid, like drunk driving.
Blog Post 7: I'm a Night Elf MoHawk Fool!
My favorite endorsement involving a celebratory has Mr. T endorsing a video game called World of Warcraft. There are two commercials but they both incorporate each other. The first commercial has Mr. T doing his stereotypical tough guy routine and talking about how great World of Warcraft is. Mr. T talks about the character he plays as in World of Warcraft. Mr. T keeps saying he plays as a Night Elf Mohawk, and no such thing exists in the game, and when someone corrects them he goes all tough guy on that person so they shut up.
The second commercial starts out with Mr. T talking about how people claimed there is no Night Elf Mohawks and if so how do you explain this footage. It then goes on to show clips of the new Night Elf Mohawk that had been added to World of Warcraft.
Having Mr. T for the endorsement was an excellent idea of Blizzard, the company that made World of Warcraft. This is because it really helps get rid of the stereotype of people who play World of Warcraft, which is that they are small nerdy teens.This commercial appeals a lot to guys who are like me. I like video games and ever since the movie “Rocky 3” Mr. T has been mine idol when it comes to being a tough guy. I have never played World of Warcraft because I have always looked at it as the “nerds” game. I know this commercial was very effective and will have the desired outcome. I know first actually, because it worked on me and two my friends.We downloaded a free trial last week so that we too could be Night Elf Mohawks just like the tough-as-nails man-mountain that is Mr. T.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)