are Christians anti science? Christians respond Dave and Dave

[DarkEmergence]

I simply asked for the scientific findings that you said were being ignored. Instead of just using the "troll card" which doesn't hold because I was respectful to you and complimented you in the past, you could have given the evidence and proved me wrong.

A pretty weak way to end a debate.

[DeJay14]

@DarkEmergence i told you evidence you can find design in nature everywhere but not entirely I appreciate your respect

[DarkEmergence]

@DeJay14 But there's natural explanations for what you call design. And the watchmaker argument isn't scientific evidence, not in the way DNA comparisons of dinosaurs and birds are, or endrogenous retroviruses are. These are things that can be tested and verified. Until creationism puts forward actual findings, then there's nothing to be bias against.

[DeJay14]

@DarkEmergence assuming natural explanations are all we need to discover truth

again what I said was a design can be observed through complexity and again Ive said look to the experts on this from the other point of view im not expert but I certainly see the bias

so again Im dont with this

[DeJay14]

@DarkEmergence also the "natural explination" for things like Archaeology is design and we know thats intelligent

[MereChristianLogic]

Will the real Dejay please stand up?

[DarkEmergence]

While it's good to question scientific theories, evolution has peer reviewed findings, meaning it's submitted to scrutiny by people of many faiths and lack thereof. Creationists don't have findings. They don't submit to peer review.

And modern science was developed over a long time by people of different faiths. It has it's roots in Greek and Arabic pioneers as well as Christian.

[DeJay17Revolution]

@DarkEmergence I think its difficult for people who dont support any naturalistic model to search for truth outside that paradigm and with that in a technical sense you arent allowed to discover truth through observation. I know intelligent design(Im sure youve heard of it and the counters to it ect ect...) has a decent case in some areas and is excepted by people of different beliefs. If evolution is todays big theory thats one thing but people thought the world was flat

[DarkEmergence]

@DeJay17Revolution The intelligent design community doesn't present findings to the scientific community either, and it's been shown in a court of law to have ties to the creationism movement.

Remember, creationism was the assumption. Evolution has been scrutinized, questioned, and denied for over a century and is now THE scientific explanation for the diversity of life. That's a lot more than assuming the world is flat.

[DeJay17Revolution]

@DarkEmergence my point is that while now something is held by the majority to be true that doesnt mean a century later that it still will be like thos long held Ideas

and the information we have now will be primitive compared to say a thousand years in the future you never know they may look at our information and say the same you say Im open to all possibilities but it scares me to see whats happening in the scientific community

[DarkEmergence]

@DeJay17Revolution If it's the general acceptance of evolution that scares you and the fact that they don't take creationism seriously, there's a reason for that. Evolution makes sense of biology in general, it's been observed. Creationists are asking them to ignore all that without providing any reasons. It's not about religion as many Christians stand up for evolution as well. It's about the scientific method over revelation.

[DeJay17Revolution]

@DarkEmergence of course im not afraid Im just stating a fact simply im afraid of the reaction to people who dare question it in the name of science and how they are labelled creationists and everything else

and my point still stands we coud discover a thousand years from now evolution is a joke if not oh well truth is truth I know youve established multiple times over that most people except it but I still stand to my points that Im skeptical and am allowed to be

[DarkEmergence]

@DeJay17Revolution We use Evolution. We may be mistaken about timelines, even mechanism, but it's a fact that animals evolve.

You are, of course, free to be skeptical, but you should really look into scientific findings. Not from "atheist" organizations, but from biologists.

[DeJay17Revolution]

@DarkEmergence i hear ya evolution is a very encompassing term

like I believe it on a micro level but am skeptical of it on a macro scale

and Ive seen it from biologists from both sides

[DarkEmergence]

@DeJay17Revolution Over 90% of biologists accept common descent. And those who disagree, don't offer findings. By and large, the controversy is one taking place outside the scientific community.

[DeJay14]

@DarkEmergence no offense but truth isnt determined by majority vote

his point is that at one point everyone excepted the earth being flat for whatever reason that seemed completely logical

and that even though the big bang was resisted and probably viewed the same way you view intelligent design now but that doesnt determine anything so please understand that and lets all move on im tired of you guys making the same points hes skeptical and you believe cool move on thank you

[DarkEmergence]

@DeJay14 I just think it's unfair comparing intelligent design to the Big Bang. The Big Bang was purposed after evidence of it was found. No evidence of intelligent design has been given to the scientific community the way proponents of the Big Bang gave evidence of their theory. It's not that I believe, but that I accept the various evidences and scientific findings provided by scientists.

[DeJay17Revolution]

@DarkEmergence they have presented evidence or tried to that is but the problem is that the "community" wont except it and in fact many who do are attacked for it

[DarkEmergence]

@DeJay17Revolution Actually, there's only a handful of papers by creationists presented to peer review at all, less in any reputable journals, and some of those don't even mention design, and what's left has been rebutted (when it's published by biologists and not philosophers). This isn't about bias, but a lack of findings and evidence, which is actually absent in all the papers that actually attempt to challenge evolution.

[DeJay14]

@DarkEmergence I know for one Steven Meyer has submitted a few but has been rejected like several others that have been attacked

and if you really dont see the bias then i dont know what to tell you except end the conversation because truly its not going anywhere but I thank you for your respect very interesting discussion :)

[DarkEmergence]

@DeJay14 Steven Meyer wasn't rejected or attacked for being a creationist, but because his paper didn't properly go through the peer review process. There are many papers outside the evolution/creationism debate that don't pass peer review; and Meyer's paper didn't contain any actual findings, evidences, things we can test for. That's not bias, it's just standards.

[DeJay14]

@DarkEmergence again the people that youve probably learned that are biased as well I really dont find any point to talk about this more I know people who are scientists that have heard this bias themselves and are afraid to go against the system the naturalists have built

[DarkEmergence]

@DeJay14 If there is really bias, then can you name a single intelligent design finding? Any? An example for evolution would be finding Tyrannosaurus Dna and discovering it's closer to birds than modern lizards, confirming the descent of birds from dinosaurs.

Can you name any finding or experiment conducted by a creationist that's been shut out?

[DeJay14]

@DarkEmergence again biased in the sense of refuted by you means most likely you close the case when people who are like minded close the book on the matter

design in nature? thats simple you have no issue with archeology we seee evidence of design but it cant be verified but we dont assume ancient pottery is the result of natural selection but mr dark Ive noticed that youll never stop at this so i will chose to end this ive seen your channel and how you get in these debates dude

[DeJay14]

@DeJay14 and dude like i said this isnt going anywhere

[DeJay17Revolution]

@DarkEmergence also atheists except intelligent design theory 

[DeJay17Revolution]

@DeJay17Revolution not all mind you but some do

[DeJay17Revolution]

@DarkEmergence continued sorry people thought the world was flat for thousands of years which actually was a held belief by the intellectuals for the longest time irrelevant to who said it it was believed untill new data radically shaped our view of reality. Also the idea of a big bang or beginning of the universe also seemed to have supernatural implications and youd better believe naturalists weren't happy but eventually truth cant be censored by the courts or lame PBS specials

[DarkEmergence]

@DeJay17Revolution The world being flat was held by people without information. The Greeks discovered the Earth was spherical and able to measure it centuries before Christ.

Yes, the big bang wasn't accepted at first as many scientific theories aren't, but evolution is the theory that had to overcome bias, not creationism.