Computer Science - Revision history

Nightforge at 08:18, 5 May 2007

2007-05-05T08:18:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:18, 5 May 2007
Line 13:		Line 13:
	== Criticisms of Computer Science: ==		== Criticisms of Computer Science: ==
	# There is no evidence of any intelligence ever involved in computer engineering. A random trial-and-error model can completely account for the diversity and functionality in computer design today.		# There is no evidence of any intelligence ever involved in computer engineering. A random trial-and-error model can completely account for the diversity and functionality in computer design today.
	# The "Proof of Computer Science" assumes that any and all intermediary steps in computer "''[[e-volution]]''" still exist, that all of these intermediary steps can be perceived in the world around us, and that space in the world around us is, itself, finite.		# The "''Proof of Computer Science''" assumes that any and all intermediary steps in computer "''[[e-volution]]''" still exist, that all of these intermediary steps can be perceived in the world around us, and that space in the world around us is, itself, finite.

	[[Category:controversial article]]		[[Category:controversial article]]
	[[Category:Computers]]		[[Category:Computers]]

Nightforge: Grammatical corrections, added a Criticisms section in an attempt to keep article non-partial

2007-05-05T08:12:55Z

Grammatical corrections, added a Criticisms section in an attempt to keep article non-partial

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:12, 5 May 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Computer Science''' is the scientific explanation of how computers came to exist, and is the one true fact. Its archrival, "''[[e-volution]]''", '''which is <u>only</u> a theory''', claims that computers gradually and slowly "''e-volved''" from simple, useless forms, to more advanced and powerful forms.		'''Computer Science''' is the scientific explanation of how computers came to exist, and is the one true fact. Its archrival, "''[[e-volution]]''", '''which is <u>only</u> a theory''', claims that computers gradually and slowly "''e-volved''" from simple, useless forms, to more advanced and powerful forms.

	Computer Science explains that there was an intelligent engineer who created computers, and specially manipulated them so that they would advance in power to what we have today, and is completely correct as the following '''proof''' plainly shows. The problem with e-volution, is that there is no paper trail to show that the [[missing]] [[links]] ~~ever existed~~ which would have been half [[Commodore 64]], and half [[Xbox 360]].		Computer Science explains that there was an ''[[intelligent engineer]]'' who created computers and specially manipulated them so that they would advance in power to what we have today and is completely correct as the following '''proof''' plainly shows. The problem with e-volution is that there is no paper trail to show that the [[missing]] [[links]], which would have been half [[Commodore 64]] and half [[Xbox 360]], ever existed.

	==Proof of Computer Science:==		==Proof of Computer Science:==
Line 9:		Line 9:
	# I can see space around me not currently occupied by freak computers.		# I can see space around me not currently occupied by freak computers.
	# Therefore, computers never "''e-volved''", proof by contradiction; Q.E.D.		# Therefore, computers never "''e-volved''", proof by contradiction; Q.E.D.


			== Criticisms of Computer Science: ==
			# There is no evidence of any intelligence ever involved in computer engineering. A random trial-and-error model can completely account for the diversity and functionality in computer design today.
			# The "Proof of Computer Science" assumes that any and all intermediary steps in computer "''[[e-volution]]''" still exist, that all of these intermediary steps can be perceived in the world around us, and that space in the world around us is, itself, finite.

	[[Category:controversial article]]		[[Category:controversial article]]
	[[Category:Computers]]		[[Category:Computers]]

Chris: computers category

2007-03-31T02:36:44Z

computers category

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 30 March 2007
Line 11:		Line 11:

	[[Category:controversial article]]		[[Category:controversial article]]
			[[Category:Computers]]

Chris: only a theory

2007-03-29T18:32:32Z

only a theory

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:32, 29 March 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Computer Science''' is the scientific explanation of how computers came to exist, and is the one true fact. Its archrival, "''[[e-volution]]''", claims that computers gradually and slowly "''e-volved''" from simple, useless forms, to more advanced and powerful forms.		'''Computer Science''' is the scientific explanation of how computers came to exist, and is the one true fact. Its archrival, "''[[e-volution]]''", '''which is <u>only</u> a theory''', claims that computers gradually and slowly "''e-volved''" from simple, useless forms, to more advanced and powerful forms.

	Computer Science explains that there was an intelligent engineer who created computers, and specially manipulated them so that they would advance in power to what we have today, and is completely correct as the following '''proof''' plainly shows. The problem with e-volution, is that there is no paper trail to show that the [[missing]] [[links]] ever existed which would have been half [[Commodore 64]], and half [[Xbox 360]].		Computer Science explains that there was an intelligent engineer who created computers, and specially manipulated them so that they would advance in power to what we have today, and is completely correct as the following '''proof''' plainly shows. The problem with e-volution, is that there is no paper trail to show that the [[missing]] [[links]] ever existed which would have been half [[Commodore 64]], and half [[Xbox 360]].

Chris at 04:31, 29 March 2007

2007-03-29T04:31:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:31, 29 March 2007
Line 9:		Line 9:
	# I can see space around me not currently occupied by freak computers.		# I can see space around me not currently occupied by freak computers.
	# Therefore, computers never "''e-volved''", proof by contradiction; Q.E.D.		# Therefore, computers never "''e-volved''", proof by contradiction; Q.E.D.

			[[Category:controversial article]]

Chris: new - (computer science:creation science::e-volution:evolution)

2007-03-29T04:12:30Z

new - (computer science:creation science::e-volution:evolution)

New page

'''Computer Science''' is the scientific explanation of how computers came to exist, and is the one true fact. Its archrival, "''[[e-volution]]''", claims that computers gradually and slowly "''e-volved''" from simple, useless forms, to more advanced and powerful forms.

Computer Science explains that there was an intelligent engineer who created computers, and specially manipulated them so that they would advance in power to what we have today, and is completely correct as the following '''proof''' plainly shows. The problem with e-volution, is that there is no paper trail to show that the [[missing]] [[links]] ever existed which would have been half [[Commodore 64]], and half [[Xbox 360]].

==Proof of Computer Science:==
# Assume that computers "''e-volved''".
# Therefore there must be an infinite number of intermediary computers and freakoids that half resemble one type of computer and half resemble another type of computer.
# If there are an infinite number of computers, then they should occupy all space.
# I can see space around me not currently occupied by freak computers.
# Therefore, computers never "''e-volved''", proof by contradiction; Q.E.D.