Comments by "Master Sonogashira" (@mastersonogashira1796) on "Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children | Big Think" video.

@juicyjfan 4000 years old? carbon isotope: am I a joke to you
1
@juansamudio1171 just cuz a religious man is funny doesn’t make him less stupid
1
@juansamudio1171 tbh you are right, I was trying think of a decent quality of Lennox. Maybe more like “he’s nice guy, but that doesn’t make his view less stupid”
1
@juansamudio1171 ofc, Jordon Peterson as well. The lovely duo of “saying nothing for an hour”. Look mate, I’m not disrespecting your faith. But trying to use science to justify your believe in disrespectful for science <.<
1
@juansamudio1171 first, neither Evolution or Big Bang was made to “disprove” god. They are scientific theory that explain phenomenons. All I see are angry Christians going around trying to debate something that had nothing to do with theology. Religion doesn’t need to be scientific, it is not scientific, it’s a social construct. So the argument of “does god exist” isn’t a scientific one, it’s a philosophical one. As for why I think Peterson is bad, he is the very example of trying to make something non-scientific sounds like science. I recognize his work as a clinical psychologist, but his whole “free speech” and “gender role” talks are nothing but political propaganda. Frequently, I found these “scholars” disgusting. They hold on to the idea as long as you are a scholar in one field, it automatically makes you more qualified to debate everything else. Lennox may have been a great mathematician, but when he argues about god, he isn’t a scholar, he has just as much to say about theology as some random pastor.
1
@juansamudio1171 science has no value beyond what it claims. Unlike religion, scientific predictions are based on observations and previous knowledge. There is also no such thing as “philosophy of science”. Philosophical questions may arise from scientific discoveries like “what came before the Big Bang”, but Big Bang itself is a mathematical prove of past event. The reality is, science explain the observable world better than religion. If religious people stick strictly to spiritual believe, I would have no problem with religions.
1
@juansamudio1171 first and foremost, learn how to use comma, pls. I love the fact that you argue science is set in stone, yet religion has always deal with absolute. If you believe in ever evolving understanding, then I assume it’s reasonable to say that the bible is an outdated text? And also, as for “foundational theories”, modern science has never changed those. Newton may have been ignorant of quantum, but that doesn’t mean Newtonian physic is wrong. Or if we talk about biology, Darwin didn’t have access to genotyping technology so most of his phenology tree is wrong, but that doesn’t mean his theory of evolution is wrong. 99% of scientific finding that made its way to through the review process is the reflection of the observable world. It may be incomplete, but never nonsensical But to say religion “explain” anything is a far stretch. Religion is a need, just jewelry. It’s nonsensical from an objective view.
1