Profile

Cover photo
Ebenezer X
276 followers|1,136,342 views
AboutPostsReviews

Stream

 
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Explained

Everything that begins to exist has a cause;

The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause.

#atheists #bigbang #christian #God 
5
Andrew Horton's profile photoEdward Carter (Jesus is the One)'s profile photoRobert  John's profile photoSimeon Iliev's profile photo
48 comments
 
Paul began to exist, Paul had a cause. Everything like Paul that began to exist (like Thomas) has a cause.

Sound and Valid. Thanks for playing. 
 
Evolutionary Embarrassment: Part of Famous ‘Ape-Man’ Skeleton Actually Came from Baboon

 
That's the funny thing about evolutionary "missing links" is they all eventually get disproven. There's a huge difference in how many have been found and how many are still valid. I believe this officially makes it zero valid missing links.

Could maybe evolution not be true? 😂
SAN FRANCISCO – A team of scientists has announced that the famous “Lucy” skeleton, a specimen long heralded as proof of man’s evolutionary descent, likely ...
46 comments on original post
6
1
Ebenezer X's profile photoIan Evans's profile photoOscar Rivera's profile photo
4 comments
 
+Ebenezer X
Thank you.
Add a comment...
 
Reclaiming Reason from Atheism

Katie Galloway

About the Author

Dr. Katie Galloway earned a PhD in chemical engineering from Caltech before serving as an adjunct research scholar at Reasons to Believe (RTB). She has now started postdoctoral studies in neurobiology and regenerative medicine at the University of Southern California (USC). 
View all resources by Katie Galloway

Does atheism have a true monopoly on reason? In my conversations with nonbelievers, I’ve found that probing deeper into the atheistic worldview exposes a key weakness in that perspective and provides an opportunity to demonstrate Christianity’s solid footing in reason.

The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.
— Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 423 / 277.

When I ask my unbelieving friends “Why are you an atheist?” they generally respond with something like “Because there is no God”. I ask them to dig a little deeper to answer my original question.

Generally, a diatribe against religion emerges. Believers are accused of being a bunch of hypocrites who oppress people with their rules while religions are painted in broad strokes as ridiculous superstitions and crutches for weak-minded people. Many claim that belief in God is irrational. From my experience, the atheist asserts that humanity has evolved beyond these irrational impulses and structures, now seeing religion for the garbage it is.

Why Atheism?

My next question is, “Okay, but why choose atheism?”

After all, a lack of faith comes with distinct disadvantages. For example, studies show that people with no faith are more likely than their religious counterparts to suffer from depression and to commit suicide.[1]Besides that (or perhaps at the root of that), atheism doesn’t provide any sense of meaning or purpose for life because everything will end with total annihilation.

most atheists would say that truth is of the utmost importance in dictating their worldview

Even if atheists argue that we can assign meaning to our lives, once the Sun burns out and the universe goes to heat death what is left? What will be the purpose of striving to not believe in superstition? What will be the purpose of helping other people? Why not just spend all your time throwing pebbles into the sea instead? In the end, such an activity will mean as much as the greatest acts of philanthropy. Pragmatically, wouldn’t it be better to be deluded and happy for this brief, meaningless time?

Nonbelievers often answer that they choose atheism because it’s true. Further, pragmatism is not a good test for truth, which I concede. But is truth really worth possibly sacrificing health, happiness, and meaning? Here some opinions diverge, but most atheists would say that truth is of the utmost importance in dictating their worldview.

“Alright”, I reply, “if truth is so important, why is it that only a small sliver of people ever find it?” My familiarity with scientists may bias this response, but I think most atheists would say that people believe in God because humanity has evolved to believe in God. In the past, religion served a useful function in promoting survival by bringing order to communities and existential motivation to mankind.

Thus, over 90 percent of the world population today suffers from the effects of this grand evolutionary delusion. Only the free-thinkers, the 'brights', have figured out how to get beyond the rubbish of mysticism programmed into our genes through the evolutionary process.

But if it’s true that the human brain is wired to believe in something that is false, then the brain is demonstrably unreliable for discerning truth. How then can atheists trust that their brain has found the truth? Why are they free from the mental subroutines programmed via evolution? How can they be certain that their brain finds truth, not just in this case, but ever?

atheism’s very assumptions about the world guarantee that we cannot know truth

As recently highlighted by Kenneth Samples,[2] atheism’s very assumptions about the world guarantee that we cannot know truth. We have become prisoners of our brain and the evolutionary processes that built it. Reason has been reduced to a molecular pool game with proteins and chemicals whacking about through neural circuitry, generating pictures, colors and sensations.

While having a molecular pool game governing your decisions may sound fun for a bit, it precludes any master-of-my-own-destiny claims to independence or ownership of achievements, capacities or ideas. After all, you don’t own your ideas, choices, achievements or fate; that’s just the way the balls bounce.

The Christian Alternative

Bereft of the certainty of reason and truth that results from a godless worldview, it seems better for the atheist to seek an alternative. In his book C.S. Lewis’ Case for the Christian Faith, Richard Purtill offers the biblical perspective on reason and its origins:[3]

One way of getting a preliminary insight into Lewis’ argument [from reason] is to ask whether nature is a product of mind or mind is a product of nature. If God created nature, as Christians believe, then nature is understandable by reason because it is a product of reason.

Christianity offers that man is made in the image of God and from this we gather that our mind is formed in likeness to God’s mind. Thus, we have a reason for our reason which is Jesus Christ, the creator of the universe, Earth, and our mind. Indeed the apostle John describes how 'the Word' (Greek word logos, which can also be translated as 'reason') was with God in the beginning, how reason formed all of nature, and how the incarnate Word came to Earth.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-4, 14)

The idea of Christ as the Word is further refined in John 14:6 where Jesus describes Himself as “the way and the truth and the life”. Here Jesus, reason incarnate, properly claims primacy over truth and life, highlighting how truth and life flow from reason.

Conversely, atheism fails to provide hope, a reason for living, a reason for meaning, or a reason for reason at all. With such a hopeless doctrine for life or truth, I hope atheists will consider reclaiming their reason by exploring the rich doctrines of Christianity that celebrate reason and hope.

#atheism #reason #agonsotic #christianity


http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/reclaiming-reason-from-atheism


1
Melanja Grigorian's profile photoMatta Abhimanya reddy's profile photo
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

Debate/Q&A  - 
 
The persistence of Evolution.

Can an evolutionist answer these questions?

How did life originate?

Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?


How did the DNA code originate? 

The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? 

How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See:Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? 

Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is *not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks *explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? 

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

 Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather thanlogical causes?

How did multi-cellular life originate?

 How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

How did sex originate? 

Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

 Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism(life is meaningless) in science classes?

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

 Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

 Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operationalscience? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?
19
Matthew Sahagian's profile photoEbenezer X's profile photoBrett Martin's profile photoScott Van Ek's profile photo
138 comments
 
Last word:

+Matthew Sahagian​​ it was good talking to you. However, I see the same denial time and time again from evolutionists. Despite your best efforts, you have done nothing to answer my original questions.

Fact: Evolution on a large scale is not observable. The fossil record bears it out. There's nothing you can say to dispute that.

But thanks for trying.

 
The arguments that support evolutionary theory are astonishingly weak.

First, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. No verifiable transitions from one kind to another have as yet been found. Charles Darwin had an excuse; in his day fossil finds were relatively scarce. Today, however, we have an abundance of fossils. Still, we have yet to find even one legitimate transition from one kind to another.

Furthermore, in Darwin’s day such enormously complex structures as a human egg were thought to be quite simple—for all practical purposes, little more than a microscopic blob of gelatin. Today, we know that a fertilized human egg is among the most organized, complex structures in the universe. In an age of scientific enlightenment, it is incredible to think people are willing to maintain that something so vastly complex arose by chance. Like an egg or the human eye, the universe is a masterpiece of precision and design that could not have come into existence by chance.

Finally, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the laws of science are a bullet to its head. The basic laws of science, including the laws of effects and their causes—energy conservationand entropy—undergird the creation model for origins and undermine the evolutionary hypothesis. While I would fight for a person’s right to have faith in science fiction, we must resist evolutionists who attempt to brainwash people into thinking that evolution is science.2

What about “Theistic Evolution”?

Under the banner of “theistic evolution,” a growing number of Christians maintain that God used evolution as His method for creation. This, in my estimation, is the worst of all possibilities. It is one thing to believe in evolution; it is quite another to blame God for it. Not only is theistic evolution a contradiction in terms—like the phrase flaming snowflakes—but in the words of the Nobel prize-winning evolutionist Jacques Monod: “[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species….The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethic revolts….I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

First, the biblical account of creation specifically states that God created living creatures according to their own “kinds” (Gen.1:24–25). As confirmed by science, the DNA for a fetus is not the DNA for a frog, and the DNA for a frog is not the DNA for a fish; rather the DNA of a fetus, frog, or fish is uniquely programmed for reproduction after its own kind. Thus while the Bible allows formicroevolution (transitions within “the kinds”) it does not allow for macroevolution (amoebas evolving into apes or apes evolving into astronauts).

Furthermore, evolutionary biology cannot account for metaphysical realities such as ego and ethos. Without data demonstrating that physical processes can produce metaphysical realities, there is no warrant for dogmatically declaring that humans evolved from hominids.

Finally, an omnipotent, omniscient God does not have to painfully plod through millions of mistakes, misfits, and mutations in order to have fellowship with humans. As the biblical account of creation confirms, He can create humans instantaneously (Gen.2:7).

Evolutionism is fighting for its very life. Rather than prop it up with theories like theistic evolution, thinking people everywhere must be on the vanguard of demonstrating its demise.3

— Hank Hanegraaff

#evolution #Darwin #creation #bible
11

Ebenezer X

Shared publicly  - 
 
Smart and Strong, now there's a combo!
1
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
276 people
David Bertsch's profile photo
Akabalu Obi's profile photo
Paul Walker's profile photo
Ida Santos's profile photo
Ernest Petruf's profile photo
ivan vinson's profile photo
Orlando Hoops's profile photo
Nwanneka Anene's profile photo
David K's profile photo

Ebenezer X

Debate/Q&A  - 
 
William Lane Craig would destroy Richard Dawkins in a debate, if Dawkins wasn't so afraid to debate him.

Atheists are smug and arrogant when they say "We don't know how life came to be, but we do know one thing, it wasn't God, there's no evidence."

Well, Mr. Atheist, did you ever think, that the evidence you're searching for is the beginning of life that you can't explain? Dang that was easy.

Rejection of God won't get you the answers. I guarantee you that. Just because you put your fingers in your ears and refuse to believe something has no bearing on it being true. Truth is constant and unchanging no matter who rejects it, or how many reject it. Remember that.


-Ebenezer X
1
Ebenezer X's profile photoCheapPhilosophy's profile photoIan Evans's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photo
71 comments
 
+Ian Evans
"I did. You don't like it, so what?"
Where? If you have already done it, quoting it again really wouldn't be too hard.

"I'm not going to waste my time on someone who refuses to accept that he's wrong"
I will happily accept that I am wrong, if sufficient evidence is provided.
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

Atheist Posts  - 
 
 
Reclaiming Reason from Atheism

Katie Galloway

About the Author

Dr. Katie Galloway earned a PhD in chemical engineering from Caltech before serving as an adjunct research scholar at Reasons to Believe (RTB). She has now started postdoctoral studies in neurobiology and regenerative medicine at the University of Southern California (USC). 
View all resources by Katie Galloway

Does atheism have a true monopoly on reason? In my conversations with nonbelievers, I’ve found that probing deeper into the atheistic worldview exposes a key weakness in that perspective and provides an opportunity to demonstrate Christianity’s solid footing in reason.

The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.
— Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 423 / 277.

When I ask my unbelieving friends “Why are you an atheist?” they generally respond with something like “Because there is no God”. I ask them to dig a little deeper to answer my original question.

Generally, a diatribe against religion emerges. Believers are accused of being a bunch of hypocrites who oppress people with their rules while religions are painted in broad strokes as ridiculous superstitions and crutches for weak-minded people. Many claim that belief in God is irrational. From my experience, the atheist asserts that humanity has evolved beyond these irrational impulses and structures, now seeing religion for the garbage it is.

Why Atheism?

My next question is, “Okay, but why choose atheism?”

After all, a lack of faith comes with distinct disadvantages. For example, studies show that people with no faith are more likely than their religious counterparts to suffer from depression and to commit suicide.[1]Besides that (or perhaps at the root of that), atheism doesn’t provide any sense of meaning or purpose for life because everything will end with total annihilation.

most atheists would say that truth is of the utmost importance in dictating their worldview

Even if atheists argue that we can assign meaning to our lives, once the Sun burns out and the universe goes to heat death what is left? What will be the purpose of striving to not believe in superstition? What will be the purpose of helping other people? Why not just spend all your time throwing pebbles into the sea instead? In the end, such an activity will mean as much as the greatest acts of philanthropy. Pragmatically, wouldn’t it be better to be deluded and happy for this brief, meaningless time?

Nonbelievers often answer that they choose atheism because it’s true. Further, pragmatism is not a good test for truth, which I concede. But is truth really worth possibly sacrificing health, happiness, and meaning? Here some opinions diverge, but most atheists would say that truth is of the utmost importance in dictating their worldview.

“Alright”, I reply, “if truth is so important, why is it that only a small sliver of people ever find it?” My familiarity with scientists may bias this response, but I think most atheists would say that people believe in God because humanity has evolved to believe in God. In the past, religion served a useful function in promoting survival by bringing order to communities and existential motivation to mankind.

Thus, over 90 percent of the world population today suffers from the effects of this grand evolutionary delusion. Only the free-thinkers, the 'brights', have figured out how to get beyond the rubbish of mysticism programmed into our genes through the evolutionary process.

But if it’s true that the human brain is wired to believe in something that is false, then the brain is demonstrably unreliable for discerning truth. How then can atheists trust that their brain has found the truth? Why are they free from the mental subroutines programmed via evolution? How can they be certain that their brain finds truth, not just in this case, but ever?

atheism’s very assumptions about the world guarantee that we cannot know truth

As recently highlighted by Kenneth Samples,[2] atheism’s very assumptions about the world guarantee that we cannot know truth. We have become prisoners of our brain and the evolutionary processes that built it. Reason has been reduced to a molecular pool game with proteins and chemicals whacking about through neural circuitry, generating pictures, colors and sensations.

While having a molecular pool game governing your decisions may sound fun for a bit, it precludes any master-of-my-own-destiny claims to independence or ownership of achievements, capacities or ideas. After all, you don’t own your ideas, choices, achievements or fate; that’s just the way the balls bounce.

The Christian Alternative

Bereft of the certainty of reason and truth that results from a godless worldview, it seems better for the atheist to seek an alternative. In his book C.S. Lewis’ Case for the Christian Faith, Richard Purtill offers the biblical perspective on reason and its origins:[3]

One way of getting a preliminary insight into Lewis’ argument [from reason] is to ask whether nature is a product of mind or mind is a product of nature. If God created nature, as Christians believe, then nature is understandable by reason because it is a product of reason.

Christianity offers that man is made in the image of God and from this we gather that our mind is formed in likeness to God’s mind. Thus, we have a reason for our reason which is Jesus Christ, the creator of the universe, Earth, and our mind. Indeed the apostle John describes how 'the Word' (Greek word logos, which can also be translated as 'reason') was with God in the beginning, how reason formed all of nature, and how the incarnate Word came to Earth.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-4, 14)

The idea of Christ as the Word is further refined in John 14:6 where Jesus describes Himself as “the way and the truth and the life”. Here Jesus, reason incarnate, properly claims primacy over truth and life, highlighting how truth and life flow from reason.

Conversely, atheism fails to provide hope, a reason for living, a reason for meaning, or a reason for reason at all. With such a hopeless doctrine for life or truth, I hope atheists will consider reclaiming their reason by exploring the rich doctrines of Christianity that celebrate reason and hope.

#atheism #reason #agonsotic #christianity


http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/reclaiming-reason-from-atheism


View original post
7
Matthew Sahagian's profile photoTheServantofiam's profile photoVanillaphantola's profile photo
76 comments
 
+Matthew Sahagian I didn't read the OP, I merely responded to the statement that there are no absolute truths as being an irrational statement. 
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

Science Supports the Bible  - 
 
Nice explanation of fine tuning. This didn't happen by accident folks.
 
Nice article from the Wall street journal. The odds that this intricate world arrived by chance is simply unrealistic. #intelligentdesign 
In The Wall Street Journal, Eric Metaxas writes that the odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
View original post
5
3
Ging Free's profile photoAndrew Horton's profile photoVanillaphantola's profile photoPastor Brian Madden's profile photo
87 comments
 
+Ebenezer X //Say something like "God, if you're real, show me." If you mean it , he will. I guarantee that. //

More with this nonsense. If I ask Him and mean it, doesn't that mean I already believe in him? What would be the point? 
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

How to Refute Organic, Geologic and Macro-Evolution  - 
 
Weaknesses in the evolution theory

The below are a very small sampling of some quotes taken from peer reviewed journals and other evolutionist writings.  

In nearly all cases, the authors do believe in the general concept of evolution, 
and yet are pointing out weaknesses with the theory!

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question..." - Charles Darwin

 
Life from Non-Life

Weakness:  Chemical Origin of Life Has Not Even Been Demonstrated To Be Possible!

Hoyle, Sir Fred, The Intelligent Universe (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983), 256 pp.

pp. 20-21

"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon."

p. 23
"In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."

Weakness:  No Transitional Fossils, particularly in huge systematic gaps, not just species to species!

_"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the
geological record." - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st Edition, 1859. _

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, over one hundred years after Darwin first publishedOn The Origin of Species, massive gaps in the fossil record persisted.  The gaps were not just between what were believed to be closely related species, but more troublesome for gradualists, included large systematic gaps such as the Cambrian explosion, the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, and marine vertebrates (fish) to amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.  The plant kingdom had similar difficulties.  These gaps were widely known in academic circles but rarely discussed openly.

Hence in 1972, Niles Eldridge and Harvard's late Stephen J. Gould, (a Marxist), neither of whom were questioning the general concept of evolution, proposed what is referred to as punctuated equilibrium, that in essence said that evolution was mostly unobservable (i.e. did not usually happen), but that when it did it happened so fast that it left no evidence!

Why did Gould propose this fundamentally un-testable idea?  It was precisely in an attempt to craft a different (non-Darwinian) theory of evolution (albeit still driven by natural selection), that better fit observable data, or more correctly, the lackof data, commonly referred to as the "gaps in the fossil record"!  To quote the late Gould in a 1977 issue of Natural History, “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology — we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”  In short, there was no evidence Harvard's Gould could use to support evolution, so he carefully crafted an alternative theory that didn't require evidence at all!

Weakness:  Major Structures Have No Known Ancestry!

From Online edition of Scientific American, March 2003 issue...

"The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question or the origin of evolutionary novelties-- structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers."

A few more to look at http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/evol_quotes.htm
21
7
Gary Maccagnone's profile photoTim Jordan's profile photoBHayes82's profile photoTOUQEER QAMAR's profile photo
94 comments
 
+Antonio DeAguiar Yes yes, ive already read it, and ive already replied to it. Perhaps YOU didnt read it in full. 
Your logic: "Because evolution was proposed by a creationist, it cannot be true."
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

Shared publicly  - 
 
Atheist professor destroys evolution. #atheism #evolution 
2
Add a comment...
People
Have them in circles
276 people
David Bertsch's profile photo
Akabalu Obi's profile photo
Paul Walker's profile photo
Ida Santos's profile photo
Ernest Petruf's profile photo
ivan vinson's profile photo
Orlando Hoops's profile photo
Nwanneka Anene's profile photo
David K's profile photo
Links
YouTube
Food was fantastic! Service was just as good!
Public - a month ago
reviewed a month ago
Great food. Great atmosphere. My favorite dish is "Juanita". Best Mexican food around, and a good price.
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago
Look, let's be honest, the beignet is a New Orleans treat. so if you're not from here sometimes you might not get how popular it is in this city. for what its worth, it's a good place to go to get beignets. I'm just not a huge fan. And be prepared to have powdered sugar over everything pants shoes clothes everything sometimes even in your hair.
Food: GoodDecor: GoodService: Very Good
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago
This place was highly recommended by a relative, but it really didn't live up to the hype. the food was bland, and unexciting. I've had better seafood other places. Flatley it was just okay.
Food: GoodDecor: GoodService: Good
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago
18 reviews
Map
Map
Map
Was extremely impressed by this place. our waitress was phenomenal. she was able to entertain us be very polite and it was just that awesome and pleasurable experience. the beignets, we're fine even though I'm not a huge fan, but it was all about the service. I give it my finest rating
Food: ExcellentDecor: ExcellentService: Excellent
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago
This place is actually really good. the décor was phenomenal. we came in elegant white tablecloths, and really old but fashionable silverware. I had the chicken fried chicken or what they call the big breakfast. it was absolutely delicious, the chicken was marinated to perfection. they treat my family with great respect they get my highest rating.
Food: ExcellentDecor: ExcellentService: Excellent
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago
Fresh food, and clean store. That is something you can expect when you come into heb. And I absolutely love their products. Especially their tortillas and their Chips.
Quality: ExcellentAppeal: ExcellentService: Very Good
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago