Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
So quantum physics in not used in the design of semiconductors and other things used in rocket ships. My friend who is a rocket scientist who I asked about quantum physics does not know what he is using?
Regarding james bond. you are the one who has no idea about science. I have given you the scientists and the quotes you refuse to accept them.
LOL. I'm the scientist. You don't need to go anywhere else to ask a scientist's opinion.
More than likely, your rocket scientist friend has never taken a quantum physics course. It's like asking an architect how to use a power drill...
Well now that you were solidly defeated on the issue of design, we a have bunch of sore losers trying to gang up.
You three are four are very sorry excuses for intellects.
And notice to all readers these intellectual fairies did not counter this argument about quantum physics or the argument about design proposed by real physicists.
They did not cite experts in the field or even current science. kJ just put forth his own distorted beliefs about probablity theory and then James Bond chimed in with his useless crap.
Regarding pobability law Mr. Bond already manifested his ignorance on this subject on another thread. he said generals winning five major battles could not be necessarily be considered great because victories in five major battles could still be achieved by random chance.
(man you let an a bunch of psudeo intellects read a book by taleb and you get disturbing ill conceived notions. Suddenly everything course of events in the universe is random unless you have 100s of trials.)
And you intellectual fairies still avoided the point again. Is quantum mechanics used in the design of semiconductors or not.
You three are four are very sorry excuses for intellects.
And notice to all readers these intellectual fairies did not counter this argument about quantum physics or the argument about design proposed by real physicists.
They did not cite experts in the field or even current science. kJ just put forth his own distorted beliefs about probablity theory and then James Bond chimed in with his useless crap.
Regarding pobability law Mr. Bond already manifested his ignorance on this subject on another thread. he said generals winning five major battles could not be necessarily be considered great because victories in five major battles could still be achieved by random chance.
(man you let an a bunch of psudeo intellects read a book by taleb and you get disturbing ill conceived notions. Suddenly everything course of events in the universe is random unless you have 100s of trials.)
And you intellectual fairies still avoided the point again. Is quantum mechanics used in the design of semiconductors or not.
You're distorting yet another scientist's words to suite your needs.
Here is my original post in this thread (the relevant part):
"Here is a good analogy. Once I asked one of my military friends what he considered as a great general. His answer was that if someone won five major battles in a row then he would be considered a great general. Then I asked what he thought the percentage of great generals were among all the generals in history. He thought about it for awhile, and then answered, "maybe 3%."
I laughed. If you flip coins 5 straight times, the chance of 5 straight heads is 3%! So were these 3% really great generals, or were they just lucky?
As a feeble human, I don't think we will ever know the answer to that question. Then why I am against the ID theory? Because it's worse. Not only it won't bring anything to the table as far as our knowledge goes, it prevents scientific thinking. It makes us lazy, makes us less likely to question our own thinking, less likely to challenge false observation. All of this are harmful to science."
And here is a statistics lesson for you:
The chance of winning one battle, everything else being equal (ie you're not better than your opponent) is 50%. That's random chance. That means if you had 100 generals fighting 50 battles, 50 of these generals would win (any surprise here?). The chance of winning two such battles in a row, is half that, at 25%. Take these same 100 generals, ask them to fight in another set of 50 battles, 25 of them would win twice in a row. The chance of winning three in a row, is yet another half, at 12.5%. Four in a row, at 6.25%. Five in a row, at 3.125%, or approximately 3%. So if people just randomly picked their battles, and randomly won a few and lost a few, then 3% of them would have won five in a row (and 3% of them would have lost five in a row, completely because of bad luck).
Do I need to explain it sloowwwwly again for you?
No. Not in the design.
The fundamental reason there are semiconductors, of course, is due to quantum effects. However, you don't need that knowledge to design your semiconductor chips. All chip design softwares use classical (as in non-quantum) physics.
jem,
Here is a course for you. Take it before come back here and discuss "semiconductor" with us.
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~mpf/physlim/
Here is a course for you. Take it before come back here and discuss "semiconductor" with us.
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~mpf/physlim/