(12-15-2016 12:54 PM)banker Wrote:  We can't cure diseases that are current. Ones that we can hold, examine, test and retest. Ones that we have mountains of data on.

But we have cured many diseases via the scientific method. Lack of a current cure for a disease does not indict a current failure of science.

(12-15-2016 01:02 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:54 PM)banker Wrote:  We can't cure diseases that are current. Ones that we can hold, examine, test and retest. Ones that we have mountains of data on.

But we havecured many diseases via the scientific method. Lack of a current cure for a disease does not indict a current failure of science.

We haven't cured liberalism.

(12-15-2016 01:03 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:02 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:54 PM)banker Wrote:  We can't cure diseases that are current. Ones that we can hold, examine, test and retest. Ones that we have mountains of data on.

But we havecured many diseases via the scientific method. Lack of a current cure for a disease does not indict a current failure of science.

We haven't cured liberalism.

/lock thread

(12-15-2016 01:03 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:02 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:54 PM)banker Wrote:  We can't cure diseases that are current. Ones that we can hold, examine, test and retest. Ones that we have mountains of data on.

But we havecured many diseases via the scientific method. Lack of a current cure for a disease does not indict a current failure of science.

We haven't cured liberalism.

Time to double fund the National Institute of Health!

(12-15-2016 12:54 PM)banker Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:41 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:21 PM)banker Wrote:  I always appreciate it when someone makes a statement like "we have compelling scientific data" for an event that is purported to have occurred 13,800,000,000 years ago. That is the epitome of human narcissism.

Except that we can see it. Well almost, as we are about 380,000 years short of the 13.8 billion.

No, you simply have a theory of what you are seeing and when they theory hits a roadblock a new theory to explain the roadblock is developed and you keep right on going.

We can't cure diseases that are current. Ones that we can hold, examine, test and retest. Ones that we have mountains of data on. Given that level of scientific knowledge in today's society, I am to believe that we can definitively explain things that happened 13.8 billion years ago?

All we know about the age of things is based on tests that we have developed, such as carbon dating. Problem is that we don't have any clue what variables may or may not have occurred 10 billion years ago, or a million years ago, or 10,000 years ago, that would lead us to make adjustments to those processes if they were in fact known. It's all theory.

We can't say "definitely" about anything and no one is suggesting otherwise. That's what science is about; testing and refining our theories. But these theories make predictions that have been experimentally confirmed. Einstein's General Relativity predicted gravity waves 100 years ago but it has only been this year when they it was confirmed that they were observed. The theories of cosmology do a pretty good job of explaining what we can observe. For example, the observable levels of hydrogen in the universe is consistent with the theories of what happened at the earliest moments of creation. To be fair, our theories do run into a bit of a problem when we get down to what happened before .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the moment of creation. But we're working on it.

As someone who has studied biology and human anatomy, I have no problem believing in a God. The simple biological functions that go on in the body to me are far too complex to have simply evolved and not been created by a higher power.

(12-15-2016 11:50 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Kaku is a media darling, but he's a goofball, and he's publicly on record advancing ideas that are just wrong. That said, he's welcome to his opinion. He's just not particularly credible as a physicist.

He's credible as a physicist AND he didn't actually say this.

People should stop believing everything they read on the internet.

(12-15-2016 01:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:50 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Kaku is a media darling, but he's a goofball, and he's publicly on record advancing ideas that are just wrong. That said, he's welcome to his opinion. He's just not particularly credible as a physicist.

He's credible as a physicist AND he didn't actually say this.

People should stop believing everything they read on the internet.

What did he not say?

(12-15-2016 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:50 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Kaku is a media darling, but he's a goofball, and he's publicly on record advancing ideas that are just wrong. That said, he's welcome to his opinion. He's just not particularly credible as a physicist.

He's credible as a physicist AND he didn't actually say this.

People should stop believing everything they read on the internet.

What did he not say?

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=14864

http://barthsnotes.com/2016/06/12/no-mic...od-exists/

and from the man himself
http://innotechtoday.com/michio-kaku-cle...discovery/

(12-15-2016 01:38 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:50 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Kaku is a media darling, but he's a goofball, and he's publicly on record advancing ideas that are just wrong. That said, he's welcome to his opinion. He's just not particularly credible as a physicist.

He's credible as a physicist AND he didn't actually say this.

People should stop believing everything they read on the internet.

What did he not say?

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=14864

http://barthsnotes.com/2016/06/12/no-mic...od-exists/

and from the man himself
http://innotechtoday.com/michio-kaku-cle...discovery/

I wonder how that particular quote (the thread title) has been so widely attributed to him.

I once listened to a POD cast on chaos theory where scientists discovered particles that traveled faster than the speed of light but only did so when they were actively being observed by humans. Don't ask me how they figured that out. Anyhow, it led them to believe that the order of the universe is in fact held together by our collective belief in physics.

I know, it's complicated.

Basically however, it seems to lead to the theory that God exists because we want him to exist.

(12-15-2016 02:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I once listened to a POD cast on chaos theory where scientists discovered particles that traveled faster than the speed of light but only did so when they were actively being observed by humans. Don't ask me how they figured that out. Anyhow, it led them to believe that the order of the universe is in fact held together by our collective belief in physics.

I know, it's complicated.

Basically however, it seems to lead to the theory that God exists because we want him to exist.

There are also theories of reverse causality that posit that our observation of the results of the Big Bang played a role in actually causing it.

Much of this is just thought experiment and philosophizing. Interesting, but not really science...at least not yet.

(12-15-2016 01:30 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:50 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Kaku is a media darling, but he's a goofball, and he's publicly on record advancing ideas that are just wrong. That said, he's welcome to his opinion. He's just not particularly credible as a physicist.

He's credible as a physicist AND he didn't actually say this.

He is not to me, because he doesn't seem to genuinely value his own credibility more than face time on TV.

As for the article, I could really care less about the thread topic.

(12-15-2016 11:52 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  What ideas of his were wrong?

He was the most prominent physicist interviewed in the wake of the catastrophic Tsunami that led to the Fukushima nuclear meltdown and acted as a fear-monger to get more facetime on TV, even when he was consistently and obviously wrong. His statements were not based in sound reasoning or science. When someone plays fast and loose with the facts for self-aggrandizement, they are no longer credible, regardless of their credentials.

I believe I've heard him with a number of howlers on unrelated topics, but that was long after I regarded him as a crank.

To quote a famous or infamous person, take your pick, "what difference does it make?" Does it really matter that in reading the Bible we come up with a number and with that alone people would prefer not to believe in God? If it's 13 million plus one day is insignificant. What matter is that there is a God regardless of what people think. We believe in Christ and celebrate His birthday and the day that we do isn't even the correct date. Does it matter? I say no because the important part is that He was born. If your family celebrates your birthday on the wrong day and you get presents on that day do you refuse them? Heck no.

Look I'll tell you what I believe. I believe that everything was created by the Lord and if there's any doubt we can all ask Him when He created earth and us and you can ask for the specifics when we die and get to meet Him. Those are things that don't matter to me as they are not important the important part is that He exists. If you don't believe He does then you shall find out for sure when you die. No doubt in my mind whatsoever that you will meet Him.