Acid Bit

By Maxine Clarke

 As rumours persist that the Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin believes in the teaching of Creationism in American schools, it is pertinent to offer an opinion focusing on why religious opinions should not be imposed on children.

The sheer magnificence of scientific achievements should be held in reverance; a celebration of the ability for humanity to understand and influence the world for the greater good. Without some of the world’s greatest scientists we would not have vaccinations for diseases. That is not to say that followers of religion do not acknowledge the fundamental need for scientific endeavour, but when it comes to the greatest question of all, the reason of the religious is cast from the mind.

The major point of contention that separates atheists with the deeply religious is, of course, the origins of the universe. The very likelihood that a super-being (aka God) completed such a task just six days is preposterous for such an occurance can be countered with the simplest of questions: if God created heaven and earth, then who created God? A childlike question for which religious beliefs provide no answer.

Creationists, however, often refute such an issue with what is often called the ‘argument from design’: an argument stating that if something is complex it must be designed by a super-intelligent being, God being the very being in question. Ergo, God exists. However, should that be the case, God itself is an extremely complex entity that would have required an even greater being to be its designer, and so on and so on for infinity.

For this very reason alone, Creationism has no place in schools, particularly as a substitute for the widely-evidenced theory of evolution. Yes, Darwin’s theory is just that - a theory. Yet some of mankind’s greatest minds have studied his work to find the evidence irrefutable. Many of these same minds have also turned their attention to the views of the Creationists, only to fall at the first hurdle: there is no evidence to examine. Creationism is not a science, it is a faith. Forcing impressionable children to believe that one being was the architect of the universe, which itself is only 10,000 years old, is a nonsense.

What’s more, Creationists often appeal to the scientific to open their minds to the realms of faith and the possibility that God was the almighty creator. However, such a request is highly hypocritical since the majority of Creationists will dismiss any notion that science is correct. Accordingly, for those in-between, the presence of evidence should be the defining factor.

Perhaps it is a deeply-set part of the human psyche that makes many so insecure in their own existence and so scared that their time in life is all that there is that the need to believe in something more is all that keeps them going. If that is the case, then having a personal belief in a greater being is fine. It is the enforcing of this belief in others - namely children - that shouldn’t be allowed. After all, living life in fear is barely living at all. Let children make their own decisions on whether to follow reason or seek comfort in faith.

Max Clarke is a copywriter for holiday services company, Holiday Extras, currently writing about Gatwick airport parking, Manchester airport hotels, Heathrow airport parking and UK music.

Your Source For Sciene News And Information

Neuromorphic Chips to Replace Brain Cells
By Robert Webb

 Is society moving towards a future where people will be able to replace their biological neurons with computer chips or artificial neurons? Some researchers think that having implantable neural prostheses may be just around the corner. This currently science fiction scenario may actually not be that far off. There has been a continuing development of neural prostheses that are implantable in the brain. This type of implant will signal in a totally new era in bioengineering and also neuroscience research. Researchers have increasinglly made better intracranial implants of devices that are able to communicate with the brain. They can be used for a variety of brain disorders in order to restore either motor, sensory or cognitive functions.

In the future, neuromorphic chips may eventually serve as a replacement for biological neurons. There are quite a few researchers who are working on this. Neuromorphic basically refers to a computer chip that mimics biological neurons such as the firing patterns and connectivity. Neuromorphic chips may be able to function as brain implants for a variety of different people who have brain disorders such as brain damage or stroke. A neuromorphic chip could in theory replace the brain matter that is missing as a result of brain damage.

What about those people who only want to replace their brain matter with something that is more durable? In the future, scientists may eventually create neuron sized robots or maybe even smaller nanorobots that will enable the replacement of biological neurons. The futurist Ray Kurzweil has discussed this possiblity for some time. These nano sized robots may eventually be able to precisely position themselves inside a person’s brain. The nano sized robot could replace all of the relevant synaptic connections and then function as a total replacement for the biological neuron. This could be replicated for every single neuron in the brain until the whole brain had been replaced by non-biological neurons or a neuromorphic type chip.

Having a neuromorphic brain brings up quite a few interesting questions. One is how much of a neuron do we actually need to simulate in a chip to get a good representation? There may be a lot of the information inside a real neuron that may actually be quite superfluous. However scientists really don’t know enough why an aggregate amount of atoms inside a person’s brain can sustain a unitary conscious experience. It is really not that clear how much information inside the neuron is really needed to functionally replicate all of its processes.

Will a neuromorphic chip be able to replicate our current experience of consciousness? Consciousness is actually a really complex emergent function of several aspects of brain processes at multiple levels. It is currently at all not clear if consciousness can really be replicated merely by having a model of all of the computational capacity in the brain via a bunch of artificial neurons and also synaptic connections.

What would be the actual benefits of having a brain replaced by artificial neurons? Well, for one thing this would be a much more durable substrate that would likely be much less susceptible to damage. Currently our biological neurons are fairly fragile. They often die off over the course of our lifetimes. So having these artificial neurons might be beneficial for extreme life extension as your brain would be able to last quite a bit longer. Overall, though, there might be some enormous benefits to replacing your biological neurons with a functional artificial chip equivalent.

See my blog treatments for depression and

depression treatments and finally

treatment depression for more information about neuroscience and neurotechnology.

What Is The Mathematical Probability That Man Evolved From An Ape?
By Russ Miller

 The more we learn about human DNA the more apparent it becomes that Darwinists are blowing hot air with their claims that some apelike creature lurks in man’s ancestral closet.

Scientists who study such things say that human DNA molecules EACH contain enough hereditary data to fill a 500,000-page book. This data is translated by enzymes, all of which are encoded to protect against mutational defects. Both the genetic data and the enzymes that decode the information had to be there from the very start.

For this reason, gradual evolution makes no sense at all.

Still, Darwinists teach that mankind evolved over long periods of time from some sort of an unknown apelike ancestor, often claiming that Human DNA is 98% the same as the DNA found in a chimpanzee.

Let’s examine the truth and determine if this claim has any integrity or validity.

As far as the integrity of this claim, it was based on only about 1% of the total genome. The 1% that was compared was the part controlling body design. Since people and apes have two arms and two legs, the fact that this portion of their DNA strands is rather similar was to be expected. To promote the claim that this proves we are 98% the same in our overall DNA as a chimpanzee is plainly dishonest and highly misleading.

So what about the viability of the claim that people evolved from apes?

Nature magazine has reported that as real science gets into the genome the wider the gap in genetic similarities becomes between man and ape. In fact, scientific studies reveal that there is at least a 7.7% difference between ape DNA and human DNA.

How big of a difference is that?

Well, consider that you contain about three billion base pairs of genetic information in every single one of your DNA-carrying cells throughout your entire body (Do you really think that this kind of complex data formed without any intelligence behind it?).

Just a 7.7% difference between a human’s genetic data and the gene pool found in a chimpanzee would mathematically require 231,000,000 beneficial and new genetic-information-adding mutations to take place in order to change a chimp into a human.

But not even ONE is possible.

Keep these two facts in mind:

First, science knows of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to an existing gene pool.

Second, so many mutations are fatal that there is no mathematical possibility of stringing together 231 million in a row without exterminating the potential evolving individual.

So why don’t Darwinists stop promoting misleading information and just bring out the real evidence that we evolved from a single-celled creature?

Because there is not any real evidence to back up their claims.

Russ Miller is author of The GENESIS Report Series. Register at http://www.new-earth-thought.com to receive FREE his 50 Facts vs. Darwinism e-mail series.

kids science

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.