Augustus de Morgan and George Boole s Contribution to Digital Electronics Essay Example for Free

Augustus de Morgan and George Boole s Contribution to Digital Electronics Essay Augustus De Morgan English mathematician and logician, was born in June 1806, at Madura, in the Madras presidency. His father, Colonel John De Morgan, was employed in the East India Companys service, and his grand father and great-grandfather had served under Warren Hastings. On the mothers side he was descended from JamesDodson,F. R. S. , author of the Anti-logarithmic Canon and other mathematical works of merit, and a friend of Abraham Demoivre. Seven months after the birth of Augustus, Colonel De Morgan brought his wife, daughter and infant son to England, where he left them during a subsequent period of service in India, dying in 1816 on his way home. Augustus De Morgan received his early education in several private schools, and before the age of fourteen years had learned Latin, Greek and some Hebrew, in addition to acquiring much general knowledge. At the age of sixteen years and a half he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, and studied mathematics, partly under the tuition of Sir G.  B. Airy. In 1825 he gained a Trinity scholarship. De Morgans love of wide reading somewhat interfered with his success in the mathematical tripos, in which he took the fourth place in 1827. He was prevented from taking his M. A. degree, or from obtaining a fellowship, by his conscientious objection to signing the theological tests then required from masters of arts and fellows at Cambridge. As a teacher of mathematics De Morgan was unrivalled. He gave instruction in the form of continuous lectures delivered extempore from brief notes. The most prolonged mathematical reasoning, and the most intricate formulae, were given with almost infallible accuracy from the resources of his extraordinary memory. De Morgans writings, however excellent, give little idea of the perspicuity and elegance of his viva voce expositions, which never failed to fix the attention of all who were worthy of hearing him. Many of his pupils have distinguished themselves, and, through Isaac Todhunter and E. J. Routh, he had an important influence on the later Cambridge school. I. n spite, however, of the excellence and extent of his mathematical writings, it is probably as a logical reformer that De Morgan will be best remembered. In this respect he stands alongside of his great contemporaries Sir W. R. Hamilton and George Boole, as one of several independent discoverers of the all-important principle of the quantification of the predicate. Unlike most mathematicians, De Morgan always laid much stress upon the importance of logical training. In his admirable papers upon the modes of teaching arithmetic and geometry, originally published in the Quarterly Journal of Education (reprinted in The Schoolmaster, vol ii. ), he remonstrated against the neglect of logical doctrine. In 1839 he produced a small work called First Notions of Logic, giving what he had found by experience to be much wanted by students commencing with [[Euclid]]. In October 1846 he completed the first of his investigations, in the form of a paper printed in the Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (vol. iii. No. 29). In this paper the principle of the quantified predicate was referred to, and there immediately ensued a memorable controversy with Sir W. R. Hamilton regarding the independence of De Morgans discovery, some communications having passed between them in the autumn of 1846. The details of this dispute will be found in the original pamphlets, in the [[Athenaeum]] and in the appendix to De Morgans Formal Logic. Suffice it to say that the independence of De Morgans discovery was subsequently recognized by Hamilton. The eight forms of proposition adopted by De Morgan as the basis of his system partially differ from those which Hamilton derived from the quantified predicate. The general character of De Morgans development of logical forms was wholly peculiar and original on his part. Late in 1847 De Morgan published his principal logical treatise, called Formal Logic, or the Calculus of Inference, Necessary and Probable. This contains a reprint of the First Notions, an elaborate development of his doctrine of the syllogism, and of the numerical definite syllogism, together with chapters of great interest on probability, induction, old logical terms and fallacies. The severity of the treatise is relieved by characteristic touches of humour, and by quaint anecdotes and allusions furnished from his wide reading and perfect memory. There followed at intervals, in the years 1850, 1858,1860 and 1863, a series of four elaborate memoirs on the Syllogism, printed in volumes ix. nd x. of the Cambridge Philosophical Transactions. These papers taken together constitute a great treatise on logic, in which he substituted improved systems of notation, and developed a new logic of relations, and a new onymatic system of logical expression. In 1860 De Morgan endeavoured to render their contents better known by publishing a [[Syllabus]] of a Proposed System of Logic, from which may be obtained a good idea of his symbolic system, but the more readable and interesting discussions contained in the memoirs are of necessity omitted. The article Logic in the English Cyclopaedia (1860) completes the list of his logical publications. Throughout his logical writings De Morgan was led by the idea that the followers of the two great branches of exact science, logic and mathematics, had made blunders, the logicians in neglecting mathematics, and the mathematicians in neglecting logic. He endeavoured to reconcile them, and in the attempt showed how many errors an acute mathematician could detect in logical writings, and how large a field there was for discovery. But it may be doubted whether De Morgans own system, horrent with mysterious spiculae, as Hamilton aptly described it, is fitted to exhibit the real analogy between quantitative and qualitative reasoning, which is rather to be sought in the logical works of Boole. Perhaps the largest part, in volume, of De Morgans writings remains still to be briefly mentioned; it consists of detached articles contributed to various periodical or composite works. During the years 1833-1843 he contributed very largely to the first edition of the [[Penny]] Cyclopaedia, writing chiefly on mathematics, astronomy, physics and biography. His articles of various length cannot be less in number than 850, and they have been estimated to constitute a sixth part of the whole Cyclopaedia, of which they formed perhaps the most valuable portion. He also wrote biographies of Sir Isaac Newton and Edmund Halley for Knights British Worthies, various notices of scientific men for the [[Gallery]] of Portraits, and for the uncompleted Biographical Dictionary of the Useful Knowledge Society, and at least seven articles in Smiths Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography. Some of De Morgans most interesting and useful minor writings are to be found in the Companions to the British Almanack, to which he contributed without fail one article each year from 1831 up to 1857 inclusive. In these carefully written papers he treats a great variety of topics relating to astronomy, chronology, decimal coinage, life assurance, bibliography and the history of science. Most of them are as valuable now as when written. Among De Morgans miscellaneous writings may be mentioned his Explanation of the Gnomonic Projection of the Sphere, 1836, including a description of the maps of the stars, published by the Useful Know ledge Society; his Treatise on the Globes, Celestial and Terrestrial,1845, and his remarkable [[Book]] of Almanacks (2nd edition, 1871), which contains a series of thirty-five almanacs, so arranged with indices of reference, that the almanac for any year, whether in old style or new, from any epoch, ancient or modern, up to A.  D. 2000, may be found without difficulty, means being added for verifying the almanac and also for discovering the days of new and full moon from 2000 B. c. up to A. D. 2000. De Morgan expressly draws attention to the fact that the plan of this book was that of L. B. Francoeur and J. Ferguson, but the plan was developed by one who was an unrivalled master of all the intricacies of chronology. The two best tables of logarithms, the small five-figure tables of the Useful Knowledge Society 1839 and 1857), and Shroens Seven Figure-Table (5th ed. , 1865), were printed under De Morgans superintendence. Several works edited by him will be found mentioned in the British Museum Catalogue. He made numerous anonymous contributions through a long series of years to the Athenaeum, and to Notes and Queries, and occasionally to The North British Review, Macmillans Magazine, c.  Considerable labour was spent by De Morgan upon the subject of decimal coinage. He was a great advocate of the pound and mil scheme. His evidence on this subject was sought by the Royal Commission, and, besides constantly supporting the Decimal Association in periodical publications, he published several separate pamphlets on the subject. In 1866 his life became clouded by the circumstances which led him to abandon the institution so long the scene of his labours. The refusal of the council to accept the recommendation of the senate, that they should appoint an eminent Unitarian minister to the professorship of logic and mental philosophy, revived all De Morgans sensitiveness on the subject of sectarian freedom; and, though his feelings were doubtless excessive, there is no doubt that gloom was thrown over his life, intensified in 1867 by the loss of his son George Campbell De Morgan, a young man of the highest scientific promise, whose name, as De Morgan expressly wished, will long be connected with the London Mathematical Society, of which he was one of the founders. From this time De Morgan rapidly fell into ill-health, previously almost unknown to him, dying on the 18th of March 1871. An interesting and truthful sketch of his life will be found in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for the 9th of February 1872, vol. xxii. p. 112, written by A. C. Ranyard, who says, He was the kindliest, as well as the most learned of men benignant to every one who approached him, never forgetting the claims which weakness has on strength. De Morgan left no published indications of his opinions on religious questions, in regard to which he was extremely reticent. He seldom or never entered a place of worship, and declared that he could not listen to a sermon, a circumstance perhaps due to the extremely strict religious discipline under which he was brought up. Nevertheless there is reason to believe that he VIII. 1 a was of a deeply religious disposition. Like M. Faraday and Sir I.  Newton he entertained a confident belief in Providence, founded not on any tenuous inference, but on personal feeling. His hope of a future life also was vivid to the last. George Boole George Booles father, John Boole (1779–1848), was a tradesman of limited means, but of studious character and active mind. Being especially interested in mathematical science and logic, the father gave his son his first lessons; but the extraordinary mathematical talents of George Boole did not manifest themselves in early life. At first, his favorite subject was classics. It was not until his successful establishment of a school at Lincoln, its removal to Waddington, and later his appointment in 1849 as the first professor of mathematics of then Queens College, Cork in Ireland (now University College Cork, where the library, underground lecture theatre complex and the Boole Centre for Research in Informatics are named in his honour) that his mathematical skills were fully realized. In 1855 he married Mary Everest (niece of George Everest), who later, as Mrs. Boole, wrote several useful educational works on her husbands principles. To the broader public Boole was known only as the author of numerous abstruse papers on mathematical topics, and of three or four distinct publications that have become standard works. His earliest published paper was the Researches in the theory of analytical transformations, with a special application to the reduction of the general equation of the second order. printed in the Cambridge Mathematical Journal in February 1840 , and it led to a friendship between Boole and D. F. Gregory, the editor of the journal, which lasted until the premature death of the latter in 1844. A long list of Booles memoirs and detached papers, both on logical and mathematical topics, are found in the Catalogue of Scientific Memoirs published by the Royal Society, and in the supplementary volume on Differential Equations, edited by Isaac Todhunter. To the Cambridge Mathematical Journal and its successor, the Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal, Boole contributed twenty-two articles in all. In the third and fourth series of the Philosophical Magazine are found sixteen papers. The Royal Society printed six important memoirs in the Philosophical Transactions, and a few other memoirs are to be found in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and of the Royal Irish Academy, in the Bulletin de lAcademie de St-Petersbourg for 1862 (under the name G Boldt, vol. iv. pp. 198–215), and in Crelles Journal. Also included is a paper on the mathematical basis of logic, published in the Mechanics Magazine in 1848. The works of Boole are thus contained in about fifty scattered articles and a few separate publications. Only two systematic treatises on mathematical subjects were completed by Boole during his lifetime. The well-known Treatise on Differential Equations appeared in 1859, and was followed, the next year, by a Treatise on the Calculus of Finite Differences, designed to serve as a sequel to the former work. These treatises are valuable contributions to the important branches of mathematics in question. To a certain extent these works embody the more important discoveries of their author. In the sixteenth and seventeenth chapters of the Differential Equations we find, for instance, an account of the general symbolic method, the bold and skilful employment of which led to Booles chief discoveries, and of a general method in analysis, originally described in his famous memoir printed in the Philosophical Transactions for 1844. Boole was one of the most eminent of those who perceived that the symbols of operation could be separated from those of quantity and treated as distinct objects of calculation. His principal characteristic was perfect confidence in any result obtained by the treatment of symbols in accordance with their primary laws and conditions, and an almost unrivalled skill and power in tracing out these results. During the last few years of his life Boole was constantly engaged in extending his researches with the object of producing a second edition of his Differential Equations much more complete than the first edition, and part of his last vacation was spent in the libraries of the Royal Society and the British Museum; but this new edition was never completed. Even the manuscripts left at his death were so incomplete that Todhunter, into whose hands they were put, found it impossible to use them in the publication of a second edition of the original treatise, and printed them, in 1865, in a supplementary volume. With the exception of Augustus de Morgan, Boole was probably the first English mathematician since the time of John Wallis who had also written upon logic. His novel views of logical method were due to the same profound confidence in symbolic reasoning to which he had successfully trusted in mathematical investigation. Speculations concerning a calculus of reasoning had at different times occupied Booles thoughts, but it was not till the spring of 1847 that he put his ideas into the pamphlet called Mathematical Analysis of Logic. Boole afterwards regarded this as a hasty and imperfect exposition of his logical system, and he desired that his much larger work, An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities (1854), should alone be considered as containing a mature statement of his views. Nevertheless, there is a charm of originality about his earlier logical work that is easy to appreciate.

Advertising Uses Essay Example for Free

Advertising Uses Essay Advertising: Information tool, manipulation tool, or Beyond? The impact of advertising in our society is a fiercely debated topic, and has been ever since its conception in its most basic form. Advertisers make their ads stand out by using humor, ongoing story lines, unexpected dialogue, unusual techniques, attention-getting spokespersons, or simply by repeating the ads so often that people can’t help but remember them. According to the majority advertising is a form of communication that typically attempts to inform or persuade potential customers to purchase or to consume more of a particular brand of product or service. This is not a surprise, advertisements are everywhere. Society is so used to it that they just see it as a tool for letting others know about a product. The majority sees advertisement as an information tool. Unfortunately advertising doesn’t have that purpose anymore. According to Chuck Blore said: â€Å"Advertising is the art of arresting the human intelligence just long enough to get money from it†. Just until the 1800’s advertising was an information tool, then it became a manipulation tool because of mass production during the industrial revolution. Everything stayed the same until the 21st century. This century had changed the whole concept of advertising, now advertising is something beyond information or manipulation. Advertising is a tool to create costumers (yes, create!). Now publicists create needs, preferences, beliefs, points of views, and everything they need to get money without measuring their acts. Advertisers are changing customers’ true desires instead of selling their products to the ones who needs them. Advertisers create needs. Its not true that every time someone sees a Burger King ad he/she is hungry, its just part of the advertiser’s job. They make every ad incredibly appealing so that everyone who sees it believes that he needs a burger right away, or at least something to eat. Haven’t you noticed that those kinds of ads are always close enough to the respective restaurant, and it’s not just in the food business that advertisers create needs? They do it in every opportunity they have, such as apparels, technology, etc. Advertisers create preferences. They build desires and preferences every time they have to present a product that isn’t for everyone. Advertisers show products as unique and incredible. The costumers believe they need them right away. What advertisers do is create an image of a product that will make costumers buy it without thinking it twice; it will create such a huge desire for that product that costumers will feel the need for buying it even though it can be a product that they wouldn’t be interested before the ad. Advertisers create beliefs and points of view. They do everything for achieve their selling goals; they don’t care about the costumer real desires. Advertising is in such a position that it can make costumers change the way they see themselves, the way they see others, and they way they feel about their lives. In this case there are examples such as all the commercials with models that make costumers feel insecure with their bodies (no matter the gender). Also ads that insist with the idea of getting thinner with machines or pills â€Å"without doing exercise† making costumers believe that everything works. Advertisers create perceived difference and make them feel that a particular product is different. Most of the time the difference is simply the audience the company wants to target. Unfortunately one of the biggest consequences of abusive advertisement is that most of the advertisers are targeting kids affecting their way of thinking and all their interests. Kids fourteen and under spend an estimated $20 billion a year and influence purchases by parents, grandparents, and others to the tune of $200 billion a year. As a result, advertisers spend big bucks to reach kids: an estimated $800 million for programs alone. Experts say that children are particularly vulnerable to the persuasive effects of advertising, especially television commercials. â€Å"Kids are the most pure consumers you could have,† says Debra McMahon, a vice-president at Mercer Management Consulting. â€Å"They tend to interpret your ad literally. They are infinitely open.† The child as in-house salesperson is a powerful friend to advertisers. Because of this, some advertisers are very concerned with the society, because a lot of advertisers are just trying to sell the product witho ut limits. They don’t think about the audience that can see their ads. Advertising has become really intense during the past years. They are trying to sell their products or services without a limit, without respecting the costumers. It should be controlled, definitely. Advertising, too, should be held to the truth, as many people take it at face value and ingenuously believe all or most of what is said. That’s why there are associations promoting responsible advertising like the International Advertising Association (IAA) and Advertising Educational Foundation. Also there are advertising ethics that are being discussed, ethics that should be present when an ad comes out for the rest of the world. Advertising should be more socially responsible, because advertising is just one of the most important social influences in a capitalistic economy, like ours. And using media as its vehicle is a pervasive, powerful force shaping attitudes and behavior in todays world. As the media grows, the number of advertisements increases everyday and it plays a substantial role in people’s life because we are bombarded with thousands of advertising messages daily. The industry should concentrate more on the advertising ethics, and how to satisfy the consumers, instead of manipulating the consumer into buying their product, misinforming, tricking people for their own financial gain and creating negative social impacts. Advertising must be truthful, not misleading, ambiguous, or make wrong factual claims that can get consumers to buy inferior products thinking these products can deliver more. Advertising should be creative, and who says you can’t direct your creative abilities towards projects that aim to do good? Advertising should be responsible, so that it helps to contribute a positive effect on our society and the environment. I do not wish to see advertising eliminated from the contemporary world, because it is an important element in todays society, especially in the functioning of a market economy, which is becoming more and more widespread. I do wish that the world of advertising change and can be limited to be used as an information tool, not manipulation or â€Å"beyond that†, and hopefully in the future we’ll have the chance to see on magazines, billboards and TVs ethical and responsible ads, because as Chris Moore said once â€Å"Advertisers are in the business of communicating with thousands, even millions, of others all the time. That gives us thousands or millions of chances to practice what we believe every day. And try to get it right†. References Day, Nancy. Advertising: Information or manipulation? Enslow Publisher, 1999. Scivicque, Christine. December de 2007. February de 2011.

The Creation of God and the Universe

The Creation of God and the Universe Does God really exist? How can we know? If God made everything, who made God? In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, like the sun and other stars, are running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second. Since, therefore, it cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe. So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created the entire universe, some will ask what seems a logical question, namely â€Å"Where did God come from?† The Bible makes it clear in many places that God is outside of time. He is eternal, with no beginning or end—He is infinite! He also knows all things, being infinitely intelligent. Is this logical? Can modern science allow for such a notion? And how could you recognize the evidence for an intelligent Creator? The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding . The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of Gods existence are: The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason. The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are: The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause. The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature. The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that â€Å"verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth.† Matthew G. Easton How to recognize intelligence Scientists get excited about finding stone tools in a cave because these speak of intelligence—a tool maker. They could not have designed themselves. Neither would anyone believe that the carved Presidents heads on Mt. Rushmore were the product of millions of years of chance erosion. We can recognize design—the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence—in the man-made objects all around us. Similarly, in William Paleys famous argument, a watch implies a watchmaker.Today, however, a large proportion of people, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent God but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process. But is this a defensible position? Design in living things Molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton, writing as an agnostic, concluded: Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced [twentieth century technology appears] clumsy. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate. The world-renowned crusader for Darwinism and atheism, Prof. Richard Dawkins, states: We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully â€Å"designed† to have come into existence by chance. Thus, even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is all around us. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is totally consistent with the Bibles explanation that God created all. However, evolutionists like Dawkins reject the idea of a Designer. He comments (emphasis added): All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his minds eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind†¦ It has no mind†¦ It does not plan for the future†¦ it is the blind watchmaker. Selection and design Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA. Dawkins believes that natural selectionand mutations (blind, purposeless copying mistakes in this DNA) together provide the mechanism for producing the vast amounts of information responsible for the design in living things. Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information.distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind. One can observe great variation in a kind,and see the results of natural selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves and coyotes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the wolf/dog kind. But no new information was produced—these varieties have resulted from rearrangement, and sorting out, of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with new information that previously did not exist! Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. Can mutations produce new information? Actually, it is now clear that the answer is no! Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent book: In this chapter Ill bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased But in all the reading Ive done in the life-sciences literature, Ive never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cant make money by losing it a little at a time. Evolutionary scientists have no way around the conclusions that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process. [For further information, see: Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures? Answer] More problems! Scientists have found that within the cell, there are thousands of what can be called biochemical machines. All of their parts have to be in place simultaneously or the cell cant function. Things which were thought to be simple mechanisms, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, are in fact highly complicated. Since life is built on these machines, the idea that natural processes could have made a living system is untenable. Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe uses the term irreducible complexity in describing such biochemical machines. †¦systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them. Richard Dawkins recognizes this problem of needing machinery to start with when he states: The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem. A problem indeed! The more we look into the workings of life, the more complicated it gets, and the more we see that life could not arise by itself. Not only is a source of information needed, but the complex machines of the chemistry of life need to be in existence right from the start! A greater problem still! Some still try to insist that the machinery of the first cell could have arisen by pure chance. For instance, they say, by randomly drawing alphabet letters in sequence from a hat, sometimes you will get a simple word like BAT.So given long time periods, why couldnt even more complex information arise by chance? However, what would the word BAT mean to a German or Chinese speaker? The point is that an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language convention and a translation system in place which makes it meaningful! In a cell, there is such a system (other molecules) that makes the order on the DNA meaningful. DNA without the language/translation system is meaningless, and these systems without the DNA wouldnt work either. The other complication is that the translation machinery which reads the order of the letters in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA! This is another one of those machines that needs to be fully-formed or life wont work. Can information arise from non-information? Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence: A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. What is the source of the information? We can therefore deduce that the huge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours, as scientists are revealing every day. But then, some will say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence. However, if they reason like this, one could ask where this greater information/intelligence came from? And then where did that one come from . one could extrapolate to infinity, for ever, unless . Unless there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isnt this what the Bible indicates when we read, In the beginning God .? The God of the Bible is an infinite being not bound by limitations of time, space, knowledge, or anything else. So which is the logically defensible position?—that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into information systems against everything observed in real science? Or that a being with infinite intelligence,created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science? The answer seems obvious, so why dont all intelligent scientists accept this? Michael Behe answers: Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just dont want there to be anything beyond nature. They dont want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words . they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior. The crux of the matter is this: If one accepts there is a God who created us, then that God also owns us. He thus has a right to set the rules by which we must live. In the Bible, He has revealed to us that we are in rebellion against our Creator. Because of this rebellion called sin, our physical bodies are sentenced to death—but we will live on, either with God, or without Him in a place of judgment. But the good news is that our Creator provided, through the cross of Jesus Christ, a means of deliverance for our sin of rebellion, so that those who come to Him in faith, in repentance for their sin, can receive the forgiveness of a Holy God and spend forever with their Lord. [Watch The HOPE on-line (streaming video)] So who created God? By definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed—no one created God. He is the self-existing one—the great I am of the Bible.19 He is outside of time; in fact, He created time. You might say, â€Å"But that means I have to accept this by faith, as I cant understand it.† We read in the book of Hebrews, But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6). But this is not blind faith, as some think. In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a blind faith—they have to believe something that is against real science—namely, that information can arise from disorder by chance. Can you believe in the existence of something that you cannot see? Have you ever seen your own brain? We all believe in many things that we have never seen. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you seen history? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by faith we believe that certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible, but an antenna and a receiver can detect their presence. Do you know that you have a receiver? Prior to becoming a child of God, your receiver (your spirit) is dead because of sin (see Ephesians 2:1). You need to be plugged into the life of God, and then you will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm. Learn more about God and his plan for your life Adapted from author Ray Comfort See these information sources for evidence of God and the accuracy of His Word†¦ The Christian faith is not a blind faith; it is a logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it clear that anyone who does not believe in God is without excuse: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20). For a more in-depth article, read: Who created God? Who created God? A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question Who created God? is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married? So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: If the universe needs a cause, then why doesnt God need a cause? And if God doesnt need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning: Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1 The universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause. Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesnt need a cause. In addition, Einsteins general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesnt have a cause. In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences. 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum. If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down. Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didnt think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity. IN SUMMARY The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning. It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause. The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Romans 1:20 teach. God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesnt need a cause. OBJECTIONS There are only two ways to refute an argument: Show that it is logically invalid Show that at least one of the premises is false. Is the argument valid? A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this article is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the skeptic is to dispute one or both of the premises. Are the premises true? 1. Does the universe have a beginning? Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2 Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is open. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3 Some recent evidence for an open universe comes from the number of light-bending gravitational lenses in the sky.6 It seems there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a big crunch. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable inflationary version of the big bang theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse a flat universe. Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical big crunch.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch. Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and thats the end. 2. Denial of cause and effect Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes: spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9 But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario should not be taken too seriously. Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate their quantum vacuum is a lot of matter-antimatter potential not nothing. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research. Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe cant have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldnt have any properties until it actually came into existence. Is creation by God rational? A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened before the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened before the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universes beginning. But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (17241804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says: The first moment of time is the moment of Gods creative act and of creations simultaneous coming to be. Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this cant be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics cant have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway. A final thought The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called â€Å"eternity.† God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book. Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of Gods eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum. Paul S. Taylor, adapted from author Ray Comfort Further Reading More information can be found in the following works. Unfortunately they are too friendly towards the unscriptural big bang theory with its billions of years of death, suffering and disease before Adams sin. But the above arguments are perfectly consistent with a recent creation in six consecutive normal days, as taught by Scripture. Craig, W.L., Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1984). Craig, W.L. online article â€Å"The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe† http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html Geisler, N.L., Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1976). How does archaeology conclusively demonstrate the Bible to be reliable and unique among all the holy books of world religions? Archaeological discoveries verify the historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments. When compared to other religious books, the titles, and events mentioned in the Bible; and the language and literary formats used to compose the Bible. Many scholars today question the validity of Biblical accounts, supposedly based on the findings of archaeology (i.e. misinterpretation of evidence, lack of evidence, or poor scholarship) and not with the Bible. How can archaeology prove helpful to someone seeking for truth to the basic questions about life? The discoveries of archaeology can be helpful in removing doubts that a person might have about the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. The places, and events of the Bible are real. What Gods Word? Any one discovery can be explained away as coincidence, or an alternative interpretation can be given to disassociate it from the Bible. It is the weight of a myriad of discoveries that demonstrates the Bible to be the Word of God. These discoveries fall into three categories: Archaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural accuracy of the Bible. The Bibles message of a salvation stands in sharp contrast to the pagan fertility religions of the ancient world as, revealed by archaeology. Archaeological findings demonstrate that the Biblical prophets accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurred—something that lies beyond the capability of mere men. Where did Cain get his wife? We dont even know her name, yet she was discussed at the wife in history? Scripture and, thus, the Christian faith. For instance, at the historic Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925, William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor who stood for the Christian faith, failed to answer the question about [3] lawyer Clarence Darrow. The worlds press was focused on this trial, and what they heard has affected Christianity to this day—Christians are seen as unable to defend the biblical record. And skeptics then make the logically fallacious jump of concluding that the biblical record is indefensible! The agnostic Carl Sagan used this same question in his book ContactContact,† which was based on Sagans book, also used it. In the book, the fictional character Ellie could not get answers about [6] Sagan cleverly used common questions—such as â€Å"Who was Cains wife?†Ã¢â‚¬â€questions that are often directed at Christians in an attempt to prove the Bible cannot be defended. Sadly, most Christians probably could not answer these questions! And yet, there are answers. But, since most churches are lacking in the teaching of 1 Peter 3:15). Why is it important? Many skeptics have claimed that, for New Testament doctrines depend. Defenders of the Genesis 4:1-5:5.) Before we answer this question, we will first show how important it is to the meaning of the gospel. The first man Therefore, even as through one man Romans 5:12). We read in God did not start by making a whole group of men. The sin of rebellion, also passed on to all his descendants. Since return to God! Because a man brought Romans 3:23). What is the solution? The Last Adam pay the penalty for sin: â€Å"For since by a man came [8] God. Since the Bible describes all human beings as gospel could not be explained or defended. The Hebrews 2:11-18). Thus, only descendants of the first man saved. All related Thus, there was only one man at the beginning—made from the Genesis 2:7). This also means that Adams descendants. The first woman In Eve—she was the first woman. marriage of one man to one woman. Also, in animals, he could not find a mate—there was no one of his kind. All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Eves descendants. If Christians cannot defend that all humans (including gospel and all that it teaches. Cains brothers and sisters Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth. Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born. During their lives, Adams children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.† The Genesis 1:28). The wife If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra-biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations! We are not told when marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history. But what about Gods Laws? Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Gods law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other. Remember that Moses laws that forbade such marriages. Biological deformities Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be d

Bacillus Anthracis :: Medical Biology Bacteria Essays

Bacillus Anthracis Background: Bacillus anthracis is a gram-positive spore-forming rod. It was the first bacterium to be used to prove that bacteria caused diseases, when Robert Koch (1877) produced anthrax spores and injected them into animals. Bacillus anthracis is a commonly found in soil of grazing areas. Bacillus anthracis is not a major threat to humans and natural cases are rare even where spores are present. Encounter: Bacillus anthracis is commonly found in soil in low amounts. It affects livestock and can be transmitted to humans through improper handing of an infected animal or by eating undercooked meat from the animal. It is rare for human-to-human infection. Types of Infections and Symptoms: There are 3 main ways that anthrax can infect you. Cutaneous infections are the most common and the least deadly. The normal infection produces a small painless ulcer. If left untreated the Bacillus anthracis may make its way into the bloodstream and death will occur in about 20% of cases. Intestinal infection which comes from eating undercooked meat, and is more deadly then a cutaneous infection but less deadly then a inhalation infection. The symptoms are severe stomach pains along with diarrhea. The death rate if left untreated is between 25% and 60%. Inhalation infection is the most deadly of the infections and happens when you inhale Bacillus anthracis spores. The disease initialy resembles the common cold. This is not the uncommon type of infection, however it is important because of the possible bio-terrorism that could be associated with it. It is fatal if left untreated How it avoids the immune system and damages the host: Bacillus anthracis is a unique because it’s the only one that has a capsule of poly-D-glutamate polypeptide. The capsule helps the bacteria avoid being phagocitzed. This lets the bacteria gain a foothold inside the host. Bacillus anthracis toxin is an A-B toxin comprised of 3 protiens. The protective antigen the edema factor, and lethal factor. Individually all 3 proteins are harmless, but when together they are able to attack the lungs. The first protein is the protective antigen which helps neutralize antitoxin antibodies. The edema factor protein helps bolster the Virulence and is responable for seeking out the target cells. The last protein is the lethal factor, which is protein that is causes cell death. The toxin seeks out our cells, and is able to injects the toxin directly into them, the toxin is deadly inside the cell and quickly produces cell death.

Scandals :: essays research papers fc

Imagine a boardroom of these corporate executives, along with their lawyers, accountants, and investment bankers, plotting and planning to take over a public company. The date is set; an announcement is only weeks away. Once the meeting is over, several phone their brokers and instruct them to purchase tons of stock of the Target Company. When the buyout is announced, the share price zooms up and the investors drop these stock shares for millions of dollars in profits. Insider trading is perfectly legal. The officers and directors who owe a duty to stockholders have the same right to trade and purchase the security as the next person does. The primary difference between legal and illegal insider trading lies in the motive. What I plan to explain in this paper is investigating the illegal aspects of insider trading and the scandal of it. What is insider trading? According to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, it is "any manipulative or deceptive device in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." This ruling served as a deterrent for the early part of this century before the stock market became such a vital part of our lives. But as the 1960"s arrived and illegal insider activity to be a lot, courts were chained by the vague definition. So members of the judicial system were now forced to interpret "on the fly" since Congress failed to resource them with a concrete definition. This resulted in two theories of insider trading liability that have evolved over the past three decades through judicial and administrative interpretation. The classic and the misappropriation theory, is the classic concept is the type of illegal activity one usually thinks of when the words "insider trading" are said. This theory started from the 1961 SEC administrative case o f Cady Roberts. This was the Sec’s first time to regulate these security trading’s by corporate insiders. The ruling basiacally brought about the way that we define insider trading - "trading of a firms stock or derivatives assets by its officers, directors and other key employees on the basis of information not available to the public." The Supreme Court officially recognized the classical theory in the 1980 case U.S. v. Chiarella. U.S. v. Chiarella was the first criminal case of insider trading. Vincent Chiarella was a printer who put together the coded packets used by companies preparing to launch a tender offer for other firms.

Essay --

In a patriarchal society that enforces the construction of heterosexual citizenship we are policed to follow normative discourses and structures that regulate social policies encouraging heteronormative behavior. Dominant ideologies of sexuality thus regulate and normalize social policies that create this second-class status for LGBT people. Those who fail to comply with conventional male and female behaviors are forced to live on the margins of society, excluding them from social, legal and economic rewards forcing homosexual individuals to live a life where they are required to constantly defend their sexual loyalties. The following essay will be used to discuss the challenges to normative constructions of sexuality by dismantling the naturalization of heterosexuality in analyzing the binary of heteronormativity with the use of the song ‘Same Love’ by hip-hop artist Macklemore. Heterosexuality is a political institution, which disempowers women and men by taking away their right to citizenship. Rapper Macklemore’s track provides a social commentary for the discussion of homosexual love in todays mainstream music. By expressing his support towards the sanction of gay marriage he is challenging normative sexuality, and spreading awareness towards a now-present social issue. By analyzing the song, music video and live Grammy performance it is clear LGBT communities break down taboos by rejecting this idea of a compulsory lifestyle. Using the work and writing of Lord, Ingraham and Concannon this paper will explore the relationship between citizenship, sexual identity and social exclusion. â€Å"The Silencing of Sexuality† by author Cassandra Lord focuses on the negative response society places on homosexuality. The concept of living a... ...owards heteronormativity. What people refer to, as normal human behavior doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone. However, due to conservative traditional and religious beliefs, the integration of homosexuals in society is often met with resistance. It can therefore be said that societal conservative tendencies have led to the intolerance of homosexuality therefore causing the inequality of LGBT men and women. In order to challenge normative constructions on sexuality one must first acknowledge that discrimination is still evident and continues to be a reason behind socio-political exclusion. The operations behind social policies cause oppression and isolation, and only re-thinking our approach in delivering new policies can hopefully one day meet the needs for a diverse lifestyle or in the words of Macklemore â€Å"It's human rights for everybody, there is no difference!†

Pestle analysis by pepsico. Essay

PepsiCo is the largest selling beverage the world over, of course after its arch rival Coca Cola. It accounts for a 37% share of the global beverage market, and therefore they need to understand each and every country’s market in order to stay in line with their PESTLE situations. Pepsi is a big brand, currently holds the 23rd place in the Interbrands report of the World’s Leading Brands. Their advertisements feature major celebrities and athletes like David Beckham, Robbie Williams, Britney Spears, and Michael Jackson etc. Their market reach is also very diverse, as they’re present in almost every country from the US to New Zealand. Their PESTLE analysis is given below: Political: Pepsi is a non-alcoholic beverage and is therefore regulated by the FDA. So, they’re supposed to maintain a firm standard of the laws set out by the FDA with consistency. Also, many different markets across the world have different set of regulations that are either relaxed or are either stringent. There is competitive pricing by Pepsi’s competitors and that is one factor that Pepsi has to keep in mind at all times. The political scenario also matters greatly as there can be some civil unrest in certain markets or due to inflation the sales of the product can fall. Most importantly, cross border situations are starkly different therefore Pepsi has to stay in line with all those policies and changes so that they can adapt to all those changes accordingly. Economic: As the recent economic downturn has plagued the economy, companies had to restructure their sales and marketing campaigns greatly. Also, with diminishing profits they had to undergo downsizing internally and re-think upon how to penetrate the market. Economic conditions have the highest influence on a business, regardless of what trade it is in. Though, in Pepsi’s favor, the economic downturn that started in 2008 resulted in increased sales of its beverages mainly as people were being laid off from jobs, they were spending time with friends and family or at home. Social: Social factors greatly impact Pepsi, as it’s a non-alcoholic beverage it has to remain in line with the strict and stark differences of cultures the world over. Also, Pepsi has to communicate its image as a global brand so that the people can associate it with themselves as something that connects the world together. Usually, the social implications are seen in marketing campaigns for example certain countries have religious festivals, so Pepsi has to keep in line with all those festivals in order to understand the psyche of their market and how they can cash upon the opportunity. Technological: With the advent of the new age in technology, companies have completely integrated themselves with all the recent changes that have taken place. To mention a recent trend that has greatly picked up and something that almost every business is turning toward is Social Media. The social media explosion has allowed for increasingly interactive engagement with the consumers with real time results so Pepsi has to stay ahead of all the developments that take place with keeping in view how the youth of today utilizes technology for their benefit and how can Pepsi reach them in order to keep on increasing brand recall and brand engagement. Legal: There can be many legal implications upon the beverage industry. I would cite one very famous incident took place in India, where Pepsi was accused of using contaminated water, given a lab test that was done upon the water flowing into the Pepsi factory that was located nearby an industrial estate. A massive recall was issued for the products from shelves and then the product was tested costing the company many billions of dollars upon the tests as India is a very major market. Environmental: These factors can affect Pepsi, but not immensely alter its trade and profit generation as these factors affect agri-businesses much more directly.