@DrStephenMeyer leaves Darwinist dumbfounded in debate

[adroharv]

that's basically it, you know when something is protected that there's a reason. Truth doesn't need to be protected. Citing he can get another 100 people saying the same thing really doesn't mean much if they're all incentivized not to say a certain other thing. Cat's out of the bag

[TooToo]

He lietrally used "trust me bro" in a science debate!....WOW!

[truthinknowledge]

Darwinian answer: "trust me bro".

[ShogunV]

I’ve seen the full debate, this Darwinist guy was completely obnoxious and condescending.

[troymykink]

You always know you're onto something or about to make a strong point when the opposition will not let you speak or give your point of view. When someone is being defensive because of their insecurities, the only way they can handle that is by going on the offense.

[edhouse]

Beautiful. You can question the govt but can't question Darwin. Love it.

[SubboorAhmadAbbasi]

Dr Stephen Meyer's excellent books can be found here:

[rafayshakeel]

*Evolution:* _You're the result of 4 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it._

*Darwinists:* _Trust me, bro. We're trying 😭_

[sohrab]

BarakAllah feek brother saboor for the book recommendation

[khairt]

These guys think they are too clever and can get away with being arrogant.

This is why a loooot of people converted to Islam just because of the excellent behavior and excellent character that prophet Muhammad saw mastered.

[PoeticSonic]

ayo he did a "what's your source" "just trust me bro" in real life lmao

[MuhammadAli-yeou]

Also shows how we need to be humorous as well to get our point across. Guy had no answers but a better sense of humour than Stephen which might have made him more relatable to the audience until the micdrop at the end.

[strifelord]

Atheist: Simplicity to complexity shows that evolution is the truth.
Theist: There's always been complexity. But I'll concede your point. I will agree. So will you then agree that by that standard God is true.
Atheist: Why's that?
Theist: Because didn't you say earlier that "God created everything" is too simple an answer? It's true that God willed everything into creation. That is the simple answer. Science, however, is really only a tool to show us just how profoundly complex the processes of creation and the universe, all of life, time, matter and energy are, and the more we learn, the more and more complex these become. Complexity is a sign of intelligence and since no other explanation or theory factors intelligence, then God is all that remains. So if God is the simple answer, and if everything else is too complex for God to not be the answer, then God is also the complex answer. Ergo, God is true.

[donotaskmemyname]

The "trust me bro" in action

[kalijasin]

"Can't question Darwinism" None of my biology professors at the University of Washington would let me question Darwinism.
#GoHuskies

[Snakejuce_]

"There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly." Adam Sedgwick (Darwin's teacher, candidly wrote this in a letter to Darwin on Nov 24th 1859).

Sedgwick believed in the Divine creation of life over long periods of time, by "a power I cannot imitate or comprehend -- but in which I believe, by a legitimate conclusion of sound reason drawn from the laws of harmonies of nature." What Sedgwick objected to was the apparent amoral and materialist nature of Darwin's proposed mechanism, natural selection, which he thought degrading to humanity's spiritual aspirations.

In the same letter to Darwin (after reading his "Origin of Species"),
> If I did not think you a good tempered & truth loving man I should not tell you that. . . I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous-- You have deserted-- after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth-- the true method of induction.

10/8/22, 12:15 AM

[trappedinexistence]

*christians claiming stuff happened thousands of years ago without empirical evidence

Atheist: I can't accept that akhi. I need empirical daleel. 🤓

*true scientist™️ claiming stuff happened thousands of years ago without empirical evidence

Atheist: this is the haqq akhi. 😇

[rosalind]

Dr Meyer appears much more researched.

[justaguy]

It is crazy how militant darwinists get about their theory. It's almost as if it's not just a theory for them. It is a non-theistic religion. You can always tell who is more sure of their position by how they act during the debates. The darwinists always act in this manner because they are never challenged on their theory outside of these engagements so they don't see how many holes their theory has. I mean holy crap, if there was ever a theory that you figure people would cause people to have a ton of humility when proposing it would be darwinism. The idea that all of us just came from a primordial soup and somehow miraculously evolved into what we are today is no less crazy then saying God created life, and honestly God seems a little less crazy. At least there's some type of intelligence involved. Darwinism is like magic without the magician.

[gajiburrahman]

Sallamu alaykum Subboor

I know this is kind off Topic, but how do evolutionists explain things like:

1) Depression/Suicidal thoughts

2) Dangerous thrill-seeking behaviour

3) The Age at which girls are able to get pregnant I.e. puberty

The first 2 increase the likelihood of getting injured or killed, and therefore are not conducive to Survival and reproduction. Shouldn't have billions of years of evolution through natural selection eliminated these traits? Evolution is supposedly all about evolving to become better survivors and reproducers, in order to perpetuate those selfish genes. So why did the human brain evolve to have such dangerous traits?

The 3rd problem is the young age at which girls reach the ability to get pregnant(I.e. puberty). I'm pretty sure I've heard many westerners claim that girls giving birth at a young age is dangerous for her survival or health. If that is the case, then why did human females evolve over billions of years to reach puberty at such young ages? Why did they evolve the ability to get pregnant as soon as they hit puberty? Should not have evolution through natural selection eliminated this harmful trait??
Do evolutionists have an explanation for these things?