This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ElwoodBlues · M
@BibleData says
Science, among other things, creates new theories that predict possible inventions. Bardeen, Brattain, & Shockley were using quantum mechanics of solid materials to investigate an electrical conductivity oddity. This allowed B&B to invent the point contact transistor, and later Shockley to develop the junction transistor. The science of QM led to the invention of the transistor.
Flight science said no such thing. In fact, rubber band style toy powered airplanes already existed; the Wright Bros only scaled it up. BTW, Gustave Whitehead, in Connecticut, made the first powered, controlled, and sustained airplane flight in 1901; 2 years before the Wright bros.
The Kenbak-1 was the first personal computer; the Altair 8800, 1975, was more successful. The Apple 1, 1976, was NOT first. Steve Jobs' genius was MARKETING, not invention. The Altair & Apple both relied on microprocessors, all based on the transistor developed thru the SCIENCE of quantum mechanics by Bardeen, Brattain, & Shockley.
P.S. the internet is just an application of the invention of packet switching, independently invented by Donald Davies and Paul Baran in the 1960s. Davies built his first packet switched network, the NPL Network Mark 1 in the UK in 1969, the same year the ARPANET connected its first two nodes.
Science creates new theories that predict possible inventions such as the transistor.
Similarly, Leó Szilárd developed the theory of the sustained nuclear chain reaction based on the scientific theory of atoms.
Science doesn't create it investigates.
!!! DEAD WRONG !!!Science, among other things, creates new theories that predict possible inventions. Bardeen, Brattain, & Shockley were using quantum mechanics of solid materials to investigate an electrical conductivity oddity. This allowed B&B to invent the point contact transistor, and later Shockley to develop the junction transistor. The science of QM led to the invention of the transistor.
Wright Brothers were trying to invent mechanical flight science said it was impossible.
!!! DEAD WRONG AGAIN !!!Flight science said no such thing. In fact, rubber band style toy powered airplanes already existed; the Wright Bros only scaled it up. BTW, Gustave Whitehead, in Connecticut, made the first powered, controlled, and sustained airplane flight in 1901; 2 years before the Wright bros.
Science didn't invent the personal computer or internet. Two dropouts in their parent's garage
!!! DEAD WRONG AGAIN !!!The Kenbak-1 was the first personal computer; the Altair 8800, 1975, was more successful. The Apple 1, 1976, was NOT first. Steve Jobs' genius was MARKETING, not invention. The Altair & Apple both relied on microprocessors, all based on the transistor developed thru the SCIENCE of quantum mechanics by Bardeen, Brattain, & Shockley.
P.S. the internet is just an application of the invention of packet switching, independently invented by Donald Davies and Paul Baran in the 1960s. Davies built his first packet switched network, the NPL Network Mark 1 in the UK in 1969, the same year the ARPANET connected its first two nodes.
Science only tries to explain how they work.
!!! DEAD WRONG !!!Science creates new theories that predict possible inventions such as the transistor.
Similarly, Leó Szilárd developed the theory of the sustained nuclear chain reaction based on the scientific theory of atoms.
BibleData · M
@ElwoodBlues
Well, that's not very original. I wonder where I picked up that nasty habit.
Hmmm. People, in my opinion, do tend to labor the point, don't they. Especially atheistic folk.
Actually, it's me turning the table. I don't care about it. Never have. Even in school long before I became a believer in the Bible I thought it was pure bullshit like most of the stuff they tried to cram down my throat.
God damn you muther fuckers I would say. Go to hell!
Isn't that odd? Boy I bet it makes some people madder than a wet hornet. Very much like when I tell self righteous religious people their propaganda is nonsense.
Oh well.
Reductionism: is it the last refuge of scoundrels??
Well, that's not very original. I wonder where I picked up that nasty habit.
You are relying on one of the cheapest tricks in the sophistry handbook. You might as well say that the so-called "Bible" is nothing but black marks on white paper; thus unable to convey any meaning whatsoever.
Hmmm. People, in my opinion, do tend to labor the point, don't they. Especially atheistic folk.
You and I both know that the skeletons recovered from the fossil record for many different species show a sequence of changes over millions of years. Your reductionism is just you covering your eyes, plugging your ears, and denying the reality of all those skeletons.
Actually, it's me turning the table. I don't care about it. Never have. Even in school long before I became a believer in the Bible I thought it was pure bullshit like most of the stuff they tried to cram down my throat.
God damn you muther fuckers I would say. Go to hell!
Isn't that odd? Boy I bet it makes some people madder than a wet hornet. Very much like when I tell self righteous religious people their propaganda is nonsense.
Oh well.
BibleData · M
@ElwoodBlues No, no, no! I'm not talking about silly useless stuff nobody cares about like beakers and pocket protectors. I'm talking about reality. It's true, though, now that you mention it, I did see a dog food commercial that proudly concluded with the delightful phrase "Science did that."
[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2so6VvtkQ8]
Now., that makes sense to me.
[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2so6VvtkQ8]
Now., that makes sense to me.
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
In all fairness, this post is a bit of a strawman.
PhoenixPhail · M
RedBaron · M
PathwayMachine · M
@RedBaron You don't have a clue, do you.
RedBaron · M
@PathwayMachine You shouldn’t talk about yourself like that, but if the shoe fits…