Computer Science: Difference between revisions
From ChrisWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
Nightforge (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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 | 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]] | |||
Latest revision as of 13:18, 5 May 2007
Computer Science is the scientific explanation of how computers came to exist, and is the one true fact. Its archrival, "e-volution", which is only 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, which would have been half Commodore 64 and half Xbox 360, ever existed.
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.
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.
