Quick academic help

Don't let the stress of school get you down! Have your essay written by a professional writer before the deadline arrives.

Calculate the price


275 Words


Quoting multiple lines of poetry in an essay - …

What we do know and have come to trust through our extensive detailed research, is that the line of descent of man from Adam can be verified as accurate through multiple historical sources. And how the rest came to be isn't arguable, since religious conclusions that counter much of modern scientific findings are usually based on assumptions about the meanings of a few words that are contained in just thirty-one short Bible verses. Realize that the First Chapter of Genesis is basically a '500-word essay' written in poetry to explain to people with no telescopes, satellites, or knowledge of advanced algebra how everything in the universe came into existence… yet it is done concisely and in the right order. This was the conclusion of such noted men of science as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

Quoting Multiple Lines Of Poetry In An Essay.

Different style sheets (MLA, Chicago, etc.) have different conventions for quoting in literary essays. Normally I am tolerant of variations, but many students do not seem aware of some features shared by all for quoting poetry. Please follow the guidelines below (and your other professors will appreciate it if you do this in other classes).

Quoting lines of poetry in an essay

Quoting lines of poetry in essays

When quoting lines of poetry up to three lines long (which are not indented, see ), separate one line of poetry from another with a slash mark (see examples in ).

Of course, in their skepticism, they neglected the fact that we all have a much closer common relative than Adam, Noah. So what they may have found was him… or at least his grandson Cush (or Kush), whose descendants in Ethiopia still call themselves 'Kushites.' They also overlooked the fact that the original Kushites (black people) settled in MesoPotamia (Nimrod was a Kushite); and later in Bible records, part of that family line lived in the area of Iran southwest of Mount Ararat. So this apparently didn't really live in northeastern Africa to begin with (though many of his descendants do live there today). For more information on this, see the Note '.' And what about the fifty-nine-thousand years of man's existence, as opposed to the Bible's seven thousand, five hundred? Well, their dating was based on the number of genetic mutations, which they extrapolated to come up with a starting date… but that is risky science at best. For they simply assume certain very-long periods between mutations. And as we pointed out earlier, the shortening of life spans between the time of Noah and Moses seems to indicate a period of rapid genetic decline, possibly due to prolonged inbreeding. As proof of this, consider what the same geneticists say about the 'Early estimates published during the 1990s [for how long ago lived] ranged between roughly 200 and 300 kya (Thousand Years Ago). Such estimates were later substantially corrected downward …which proposed an age of about 59,000. This date suggested that the Y-MRCA (the Prototypical Adam) lived about 84,000 years after his female counterpart mt-MRCA (the Prototypical Eve), who lived 150,000–200,000 years ago.' So, how is it possible for the first woman to have lived some 150,000–200,000 years before the first man? Well, as the Bible tells us: If the first man (the first common source of Y-DNA) was Noah, then the first source of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) came through the wives of his sons, whose DNA truly traces back to the first woman ('Eve').Also, see the interesting proof that these extended dates are likely wrong in the Wikipedia article, ',' which shows that miscalculations could come from a disaster that results in a sudden massive decline in human population… such as a global flood! Then, why do studies show that man originated in Northeastern Africa, not the Middle East? Those who do these studies, in their quest to prove the Bible wrong, fail to recognize the fact that throughout history, populations have migrated or have been forced to relocate. For example, both the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians relocated entire populations after conquering them. And the people of Northeastern Africa (ethnic Ethiopians) prove this when they clearly claim to be descendants of Noah's grandson . Bible history shows that these people once lived in and around the ancient Assyrian Empire (Middle East), and that they were conquered by the Assyrians in the late 700s BCE. For more information, see the Note ',' especially toward the end, where it speaks of the genetic proofs of their migration. Anyhow, as science continues to make advances, we are sure they will eventually get more of their details right. As we've already shown, DNA evidence proves that we are all descended from a single human couple that looked very much like us; but that doesn't stop anti-Bible 'scientists' from trying to prove something else. Was there really another race of humans that we now call 'Neanderthals?' Yes, but DNA evidence indicates that they were descended from the same 'Scientific Adam and Eve' as we are. For , which just ties back to that first modern-prototypical-human couple. And as anyone with a knowledge of genetics already knows; if we had different origins and DNA variations were too great, interbreeding would have been impossible! For more information, see the 20 December 2013 article, '.''Ah, but that isn't true,' say geneticists. 'DNA proves that chimpanzees are actually more closely related to humans than are Neanderthals.' Oh? We suspect that this is a clear case of where the the numbers have been 'fudged,' or something is wrong with the data; for if a Neanderthal/human relationship can produce hybrids that can in fact bring forth offspring, then human/chimpanzee mating should be able to provide some interesting new species that can talk like humans… Holy Planet of the Apes!!!So, have there in fact been several different human 'species' through the ages? This claim is now being argued among anthropologists who say there is proof that this is not the case. For more information, see the December 2013 BBC article, '' by their science reporter, Melissa Hogenboom.At this point, we could go off into long explanations of why each of the popular 'scientific' myths on the origins of man are poorly substantiated. However, we've already shown that known and provable evidence such as DNA verifies the Bible account of our origins. And for those who wish to argue the dates; we will show that the current dating methods are unreliable. So we won't carry this any farther, since those who wish to believe such things will continue to do so, regardless of the evidence.Of course, the most important and most accepted argument against the Bible's chronology leading back to the creation of the first man and woman (around 7,500 years ago by our calculations) is radiocarbon dating. For the figures that scientists provide carry the first human back at least 59,000 years. How does the radiocarbon 'clock' work?Radiocarbons are formed when cosmic radiation bombards nitrogen molecules, turning them into carbon 14 (14C), which are thereafter consumed by plants and animals. But when these living things die, they stop taking it in. And because 14C has a known rate of decay, all a scientist has to do is measure the amount of radiation in dead plants and animals to tell us how long ago they lived (with an accuracy of plus or minus 40 to 100 years). So this is a pretty accurate way of determining the age of things that were once alive.However, nothing is ever quite that simple. For as it turns out, the amount of 14C varies according to how much cosmic radiation is bombarding the earth, and according to scientists, this has changed over time. Notice how this is explained in the Wikipedia article, 'Radiocarbon dating,' under the subheading, '': 'Dates may be expressed as either uncalibrated or calibrated years (the latter abbreviated as cal or cal.). A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity, which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth's magnetosphere. In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth's climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere's 14C fraction.'In addition, notice this quotation that is found under the subheading, : 'This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).' In fact, limit the accuracy to less than 40,000 years.So any dates provided by 14C testing of 40,000 years or more can't be trusted, because there is simply too much background contamination to be sure of the accuracy.' And recognize that 14C testing is the only means for determining the ages of things that were once living.Notice that much of the 14C dating of things carries us back 5,000 years, and then we see huge jumps (to 60,000 years or more). Could this be due to the fact that there was much less cosmic radiation hitting the earth prior to the great Downpour (flood) spoken of in Genesis Chapter 6? For if our earth had once been protected from such radiation by huge quantities of stratospheric ice crystals (as many have suggested) which fell to the earth as a flood, then the radiocarbon and luminescence dating clocks are unreliable and are indicating much older dates for materials than may actually be true.Over the past several years, a new tool has been employed to determine the ages of ancient artifacts has emerged, . The premise is this: The age of something is calculated by determining the changes in the atomic structure of certain minerals since they were was last exposed to sunlight or intense heat. According to scientific sources, 'The sunlight bleaches away the luminescence signal and resets the time As time passes, the luminescence signal increases through exposure to the ionizing radiation and cosmic rays. Luminescence dating is based on quantifying both the radiation dose received by a sample since its zeroing event and the dose rate which it has experienced during the accumulation period (see ).' Thus, when ancient artifacts are uncovered, all that is required is to test the surrounding sand to determine its luminescence in order to set the date when the nearby items were buried. So notice: Luminescence Dating is based on the same assumptions as is Radiocarbon Dating… that the rate of ionizing radiation and cosmic rays hitting the earth has remained constant (scientists agree that it hasn't). And how do they determine the accuracy of this 'clock?' By comparing its findings against 'known dates' as determined by radiocarbon testing. In other words, one questionable test is used to verify another. And the interesting thing is that those who have developed this dating method say that it often shows up later dates for the ages of artifacts, so they assume that the earlier dates are correct.When it comes to dating rocks and bones that are found buried or in caves where there may have been no sun light, scientists have come up with another method of dating that depends on the decay of uranium. And while this method sounds very scientific and accurate, there is really no base data available to prove the accuracy of the method, and it is agreed that contamination can easily skew the results. Notice for example, that this was the method used to date a ring of stalactites that were recently found in a circle in a cave in France, which scientists have concluded had to be assembled by Neanderthals some 176,000 years ago (yes, it's just a circle of rocks in a cave). For more information about the flaws in this method, see the article '.' We know that most fundamentalist religions teach that few scientific findings can be trusted because they are simply 'anti-Bible'… and we recognize that this position follows a slippery slope, so we don't plan to go there. A good example to illustrate the fallacy of taking such an anti-science stand can be seen in the Catholic Church's inquisition of Galileo because he declared that the earth isn't the center of the universe. For the Church made an assumption (which has no Bible support) that has since proven untrue, and Galileo's findings have now been vindicated. Therefore, we don't wish to be numbered among such. What we do know and have come to trust through our extensive detailed research, is that the line of descent of man from Adam can be verified as accurate through multiple historical sources. And how the rest came to be isn't arguable, since religious conclusions that counter much of modern scientific findings are usually based on assumptions about the meanings of a few words that are contained in just thirty-one short Bible verses. Realize that the First Chapter of Genesis is basically a '500-word essay' written in poetry to explain to people with no telescopes, satellites, or knowledge of advanced algebra how everything in the universe came into existence… yet it is done concisely and in the right order. This was the conclusion of such noted men of science as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Unfortunately however, many people assume that when God (who lives beyond our universe and in a place where time is irrelevant) spoke of His 'days' of creation, He was talking about the 24-hour periods as seen from the earth… this is foolish and finds no basis in Scripture. Then, how old is our universe? Who knows? It could in fact be billions of years old, and the fact that light from distant galaxies millions of light-years away can be seen through powerful telescopes, bears this out. Recognize that the word 'Day' just refers to a measured period in the Bible. For example, God told Adam at Genesis 2:16, 17: 'You are free to eat from all the trees of Paradise, but you must not eat from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Because, on whatever day you eat from it, your life will end and you will die.' Yet notice how long Adam lived after eating the fruit from the tree (Genesis 5:5): 'So Adam was nine hundred and thirty years old when he died.'So, recognize that whenever we argue against something that proves to be true, we aren't arguing with men but with God! For He knows how and when He actually did it. On the other hand; many religions, in an attempt to look more educated and scientific, have gone far beyond the history of mankind that we learn of in the Bible and openly declare that the accounts in the book of Genesis are untrue. So while they teach belief in Jesus and 'the New Testament,' they deny the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles who spoke of and a man named. So they say that we should believe in Jesus even though he didn't know what he was talking about… and in so doing, they deny the very basis for their faith. This position is Godless, faithless, foolish, and unreasoning. We do find one of the latest scientific theories interesting, in line with the Bible, and sensible. It's the teaching that . So it could be that God created viruses to help all creatures to change and better adapt to their environments. This would explain the predominance of marsupials in Australia, the prehensile tails of the monkeys in the Americas, and the reasons why different species within the same family types (such as parrots, horses, etc.) can't crossbreed. Obviously, this is just another theory. However, the chest (ark) of Noah could only have held a limited number of animal types; so there are surely more animal types today than there were then. Yet, it is argued that DNA similarities are proof positive that mankind wasn't created by God as the Bible says. For (as an example) humans can be proven to be less than 1% away genetically from chimpanzees. So as the logic goes, we clearly have evolved from them. But don't overlook the fact that using this same logic proves that we are also direct descendants from bananas, since we share 50% of our DNA with them! No, you can't have it both ways!The flaw in this DNA logic is that it makes the assumption that creatures which look similar (and are therefore built using similar plans) are proof that the Bible is wrong. This is about as logical as saying that an airplane evolved from birds, because the two look very much the same. And when asked about how something as complicated as an eye or an ear could have come into being on its own; those who hate the Bible give credit to another God, 'Mother Nature.'

How to Quote and Cite a Poem in an Essay Using MLA Format

When you quote consecutive lines of poetry Quoting Poetry in English Papers;Quoting poetry in an essay owl ..

Atheist view on morality essay. for a college essay my ambition life essay become quoting multiple lines of poetry in an essay research paper
Order now

    As soon as we have completed your work, it will be proofread and given a thorough scan for plagiarism.


    Our clients' personal information is kept confidential, so rest assured that no one will find out about our cooperation.


    We write everything from scratch. You'll be sure to receive a plagiarism-free paper every time you place an order.


    We will complete your paper on time, giving you total peace of mind with every assignment you entrust us with.


    Want something changed in your paper? Request as many revisions as you want until you're completely satisfied with the outcome.

  • 24/7 SUPPORT

    We're always here to help you solve any possible issue. Feel free to give us a call or write a message in chat.

Order now
  • You submit your order instructions

  • We assign an appropriate expert

  • The expert takes care of your task

  • We send it to you upon completion

Order now
  • 37 684

    Delivered orders

  • 763

    Professional writers

  • 311

    Writers online

  • 4.8/5

    Average quality score

Order now
  • Kim

    "I have always been impressed by the quick turnaround and your thoroughness. Easily the most professional essay writing service on the web."

  • Paul

    "Your assistance and the first class service is much appreciated. My essay reads so well and without your help I'm sure I would have been marked down again on grammar and syntax."

  • Ellen

    "Thanks again for your excellent work with my assignments. No doubts you're true experts at what you do and very approachable."

  • Joyce

    "Very professional, cheap and friendly service. Thanks for writing two important essays for me, I wouldn't have written it myself because of the tight deadline."

  • Albert

    "Thanks for your cautious eye, attention to detail and overall superb service. Thanks to you, now I am confident that I can submit my term paper on time."

  • Mary

    "Thank you for the GREAT work you have done. Just wanted to tell that I'm very happy with my essay and will get back with more assignments soon."

Ready to tackle your homework?

Place an order