Perhaps there's some virtue in admitting that you really can't quite yet explain the universe but you continue to make an effort, as opposed to just assuming you know it all right off the bat?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Dawkins Admits that they are working on it.
- Thread starter speakout
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,774
- 52,552
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You guys go ahead and make your jokes, and we'll be glad to explain it again later on down the road. It's no wonder you guys don't understand even basic differences like:
- morality and ethics
- miracles and magic.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,774
- 52,552
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Was this aimed at me, Mongoose? I have a feeling it was, since I've never seen an agnostic challenge an atheist.
We can go further back in the "beginning" of this universe than any "scientist" can. Right to the Source, even.
Upvote
0
You stated your definitions of morality and ethics a while ago. When I looked it up in a dictionary, you were wrong. When I looked it up in any source I could think of you were still wrong. Can you imagine why I might be inclined not to trust you?
Upvote
0
There's just one small thing I'd say in response to the OP.
Theology is quite good at coming up with colorful, hopeful, and incredibly confident answers to even the most difficult of questions. This doesn't mean (or even attempt to show) that they are the right answers, though. Theology is not subject to verification according to reality. If a popular theological claim is shown to be quite different than what we see in the real world, the real world example is hand-waved away and the theology stands firm. "I just don't know" or "we're looking into it" are never acceptable answers.
Science works in quite a different way. The "testimony" of nature reigns supreme, and no one claims to know what they just don't know. There are no "enlightened" prophets or personal revelations, but public knowledge and methodology fully open to critique.
You can criticize theology for its lack of objectivity and falsifiability, or you can criticize science for all the things it doesnt yet know. Only one of these is remotely worthwhile to do.
Theology is quite good at coming up with colorful, hopeful, and incredibly confident answers to even the most difficult of questions. This doesn't mean (or even attempt to show) that they are the right answers, though. Theology is not subject to verification according to reality. If a popular theological claim is shown to be quite different than what we see in the real world, the real world example is hand-waved away and the theology stands firm. "I just don't know" or "we're looking into it" are never acceptable answers.
Science works in quite a different way. The "testimony" of nature reigns supreme, and no one claims to know what they just don't know. There are no "enlightened" prophets or personal revelations, but public knowledge and methodology fully open to critique.
You can criticize theology for its lack of objectivity and falsifiability, or you can criticize science for all the things it doesnt yet know. Only one of these is remotely worthwhile to do.
Upvote
0
So youare saying that Dawkins is mistaken to say that they are working on it?Of the earth? Yes. Of our solar system? Yes. Of our galaxy? Yes. Of stars and planets? Yes.
And for all those, we have good working models and theories.
What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know, and neither do you. Difference is, I'm not willing to throw my arms up and settle for an unsupported "answer", and end any further inquiry on the subject. The god of the gaps won't suffice.
But, you, have it all modelled, carbon dated and tested.
Upvote
0
Hnefi
Regular Member
Did you even read what he said? Dawkins said that we don't know what happened before the big bang, but they're working on it. TheBear said the exact same thing.
Besides, having working models of something is not the same thing as having nothing more to investigate. The models can always be improved, because in the real world there are no absolutes and no perfect knowledge.
Neither the Earth, nor the solar system or the universe have been carbon dated. They were dated with other methods. I believe you've been told that about fifteen times already.
Upvote
0
No, Dawkins was talking about the origin of the universe itself (at least that's what I gather from the thread, I can't watch videos), not the origins of specific things within the universe.
Upvote
0
It doesn't matter how many correct predictions you make, if you screw up just once your infallibility is disproven
So be careful with your prophecies
Naw, if you think a prophecy has been disproven you just need to wait. Or you were interpreting it wrong.
Upvote
0
So youare saying that Dawkins is mistaken to say that they are working on it?Originally Posted by TheBear
Of the earth? Yes. Of our solar system? Yes. Of our galaxy? Yes. Of stars and planets? Yes.
And for all those, we have good working models and theories.
What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know, and neither do you. Difference is, I'm not willing to throw my arms up and settle for an unsupported "answer", and end any further inquiry on the subject. The god of the gaps won't suffice.
But, you, have it all modelled, carbon dated and tested.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I genuinely can't tell at this point.
Upvote
0
You know that carbon dating is only good going back 50 000, maybe 100 000 years, right? You are aware that carbon dating can only be performed on things that were once alive, right?
It's perfectly useless to try to carbon-date the universe.
Upvote
0
I note that the video cuts Dawkins off it does not allow him to explain why he used the words that he did. This would not be a bit of cheap creationist propaganda would it?
Did the other guy explain how it all got to be?
How do you explain how it all got to be speakout?
Regards, Roland
Upvote
0
That is false carbon dating does not work for 3000 years old, I was being ironic to show you how messed up your speculation is.
You got the dates using distances and what you speculate happened, if you theory is wrong the whole edifice collapses.
You should be humble enough to realise you are still daydreaming and there is no way of testing so if someone talks billions that is mere extrapolation and no dating technique is even involved.
Upvote
0
Elduran
Disruptive influence
I remind you that you still haven't actually managed to address my reasons for why carbon dating works in your thread on it. You ignored my post for the rest of the time you actually bothered to participate in your own thread, which leads me to believe that you don't even know the first thing about carbon dating. The fact that you think it's not even accurate to 3000 years is therefore completely irrelevant.
Upvote
0
TheOutsider
Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure
He still hasn't explained why thorium-uranium dating is incorrect. And why he thinks that radiometric dating has anything to do with the age of the universe.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
