Profile

Cover photo
Ebenezer X
290 followers|1,233,092 views
AboutPostsReviews

Stream

Ebenezer X

The Evidence for a (Recent) Creation  - 
 
Speciation? Yes
Evolution? No

Thanks for sharing +Rich White​ are you related to +Matt White​?
2
Rich White (‫ن‬‎)'s profile photoEbenezer X's profile photoMatt White's profile photo
4 comments
 
Thanks
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

Discussion/Q&A  - 
 
The Failure of Atheism to Account for Existence


As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems.  One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account for our own existence.

Okay, so we exist.  That's obvious.  And though atheists like to tout the evolutionary flag, evolution isn't the issue here.  Instead, we need to go way back and ask, where did the universe come from?  You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else.  The universe came into existence.  So, what caused it to come into existence?

When answering this question, there are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the universe:  an impersonal cause and a personal cause. This is an antonymic pair that exhausts all possibilities.  It is either one or the other.  There is no third option.  Let’s first look at the atheist option to explain the universe: an impersonal cause. 

If the atheist were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature; and with no nature, there are no attributes; and with no attributes, actions can’t be performed such as bringing itself into existence.  So, that doesn’t work.

If the atheist said the universe has always existed, that doesn’t work either because that would mean the universe was infinitely old.  If it is infinitely old, then why hasn’t it run out of useable energy by now as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would state.  Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed.  But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now.  These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can’t work.

If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea.  But, this explanation would pose yet another problem.  If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy; and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago.  But this can’t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again)--not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now.  So, that explanation doesn’t work either.

Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot be infinitely old in its present form or any other form.  So, how did it and ultimately we get here?  Atheism can’t help us here.  So, let’s turn our attention to the other option: a personal cause.  If there is a personal influence, which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe.  Let me explain.

A rock doesn't suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head unless acted upon by something else.  For matter and energy to change and form something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist?

Whatever caused the universe existed before the universe.  Since the universe had a beginning in time and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.

In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being whom we call God.

You see?  The atheists have nothing to offer us with the important issue of explaining how we got here.  Atheism can’t answer one of the most important philosophical questions pertaining to our own existence.  It is deficient and lacking and at best can offer us only ignorance and guesses.

Okay, finally, even though it isn’t necessary in this video, I’ll deal with one of the standard objections atheists have when this topic comes up.  What brought God into existence?

The answer is simple.  Nothing brought him into existence.  He has always existed.  He is the uncaused cause.  Think about it.  You cannot have an infinite regression of causes.  It’s like having an infinite line of dominos falling one after another.  If you go back infinitely in time to try to find the first domino that started it all, you’d never find it because you’d have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do.  This would also mean that there you can’t have an infinite regression of causes.  Furthermore, this would mean there would never be a first cause.  If there is no first cause, then there can’t be a second, or a third, and so on; and you wouldn’t have any of them falling at all.  But since they are falling, there had to be a first cause--that itself was uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past.  So, too, with the universe.  It was caused to exist at a specific point in time.  The uncaused cause is God, who decided to create the universe and who, as the Bible says inPsalm 90:2, “is from everlasting to everlasting.”

https://carm.org/failure-atheism-account-existence

6
Paul Peacock's profile photoSecond Lieutenant “Lt” Evans's profile photo
74 comments
 
+Paul Peacock I can't honestly say I have. But, your velocity calculation, I have it backwards for a reason. If we know how far an item traveled, we need a way to measure it, and we use time to measure nearly everything. However...

We know time exists. No one questions that... except illiterates. But WHAT time IS is a much harder question. If you had to define time in your own words, what would it be? And where did it come from/start? 
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

Discussing Morality  - 
 
Dr. Craig Moral Argument. "Can you be Good without God?" Not to be confused with, "Can you be good without believing in God?"

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-moral-argument-for-god#ixzz3YlCD04W7

There's no such thing as Relative Morality...

Discuss...
5
Ging Free's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photoEbenezer X's profile photo
96 comments
 
+Thomas Bridgewater​ welcome back. How do you know North is really North? And not south?
Add a comment...

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 photoPaul Peacock's profile photo
94 comments
 
+Ebenezer X
it's only a value "worth" call in that my degree is far more important
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
290 people
Tammie Letroise-Brown's profile photo
willam suffling's profile photo
Daniela Atiseret's profile photo
Илья Чернигин's profile photo
Associated Credit Union of Texas's profile photo
Christopher Scott's profile photo
Ifeoma Anene's profile photo
Zachery Licquia's profile photo
harmeet sahni's profile photo

Ebenezer X

Discussion/Q&A  - 
2
Ebenezer X's profile photoThomas Huxley's profile photo
14 comments
 
+Ebenezer X I disagree. I think Archeopteryx Lithographica is an excellent example of the transition from dinosaur to bird. What's so different about it from other birds is how oh so dinosaurian it is. It really does look like a dinosaur as well as a bird.

Archeopteryx did not have a beak. It has a proper jaw with proper teeth. This is a very unbirdlike characteristic, and a very dinosaur-like characteristic. It also has a bony tail; this is again not very birdlike and is very dinosaur-like.

Archeopteryx has features of both birds and dinosaurs. It can be classified as just a bird (by some scientists and not others), but it still is a species representative of the transition from dinosaur to bird.
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

Shared publicly  - 
 
No one is born gay studies show.
 
According to the latest Gallup poll, 51 percent of Americans say that people are born gay or lesbian, while only 30 percent say outside factors such as upbringing and environment determine sexual orientation.

However, science would not bear that out. No fewer than eight major studies from around the world have found homosexuality is not a genetic condition.
The latest Gallup poll finds 63 percent say homosexual acts are morally acceptable.
63 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

Personnel (trades, free agents, etc)  - 
 
I remember when Josh Smith got dogged on every sports show I watched. "Pistons were brilliant in getting rid of Smith, he's a cancer". Where are those people now? #Jsmoove #Rednation #Rockets
152
3
Anthony De Los Santos's profile photopascoal kwaya's profile photoHrishik Kunduru's profile photoWilliam Holley's profile photo
67 comments
 
Yeah the got a good squad no bs!! Only time will tell it's on tonight..... 
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

Debate/Q&A  - 
 
Ten Major Flaws of Evolution



1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
 
A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system’s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present.  Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.g vision, blood clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution.  The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin’s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell.  The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance – they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
 
According to information science, information can only be produced by intelligence. Highly complex information must originate from a highly intelligent source.  DNA is by far the most compact and complex information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive, can contain multiple copies of all the information necessary to build and maintain things as complex as the human brain and body, and is self-replicating.  However, the proponents of evolution believe that random chance, not intelligence, gave rise to all of the information found in DNA.  Ironically, evolutionary scientists involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project search the sky with massive radio telescopes, hoping to detect even simple patterns in radio signals which might be a sign of otherworldly intelligence, all the while ignoring the clear evidence of intelligence built into the incredibly complex DNA patterns of every living creature right here on Earth. 

3. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution.

Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information.  Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information.  The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect.  Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies!  Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information.  This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution.

4. Natural Selection is conservative, not creative.
 
The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types.  Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types.  However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones.  For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years.  This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal.  In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong. 

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true.

If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life.  Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
 
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. Many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes, and most fossils hailed with much fanfare as “missing links” are later quietly reclassified as simply extinct varieties of non-human primates.  Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” were fully human.  The body hair and the blank expressions of the supposedly primitive humans in these models don’t come from the bones, but from the evolutionary assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones.  The “missing links” are still missing.

7. The radioactive dating methods that evolutionists use to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are based on questionable assumptions and give unreliable results.
 
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine a rock’s age assume that the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can be accurately estimated, that no isotopes moved into or out of the rock after its formation (closed system), and that radioactive decay rates have always been constant.  However, the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can rarely be estimated with reasonable accuracy.  In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that hydrothermal fluids (hot, mineral-rich water) often transport both parent and daughter isotopes from one rock to another, invalidating the closed system assumption.  In fact, this process is often cited as a reason for rejecting dates that don’t fit the evolutionary timeline.  What is not commonly known is that radioactive dating methods usually give a number of different results for the same formation and often even for the same rock!  In practice, geologists choose the “correct” age from among these different results based on the age expected from the evolutionary timeline.  This is a classic case of circular thinking!  Also, different methods give different results, with heavier isotopes consistently giving older ages than lighter isotopes for the same rock.  This pattern should not exist if radioactive decay rates have always been the same.  Furthermore, lava flows with known historical ages often date as millions or even billions of years old.  If radioactive dating methods can be off by so much for rocks of known age, how can they be considered reliable for rocks of unknown age?

8. “Leftover” body structures are not evidence for evolution.
 
Evolutionists point to vestigial organs (supposedly “leftover” body structures with no know function) as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. In fact, over 100 organs formerly thought of as vestigial are now known to perform essential functions. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs and only a small number are still considered vestigial. It is increasingly clear that vestigial organs are not the result of evolution but simply examples of scientific ignorance.  It’s also worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. Proponents of evolution need to provide examples of developing organs that are not yet fully functional but can be shown to be increasing in complexity with each succeeding generation.  No such examples exist.

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. 

When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.

There are two types of science.  Operational science deals with the present, and arrives at conclusions based on repeated observations of existing phenomena.  Historical science deals with the past, which is not repeatable.  Investigations of origins clearly fall within the scope of historical science, and therefore cannot draw definitive conclusions.  Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. This interpretation is greatly influenced by one’s prior beliefs.  If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, themselves, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I



Read more: http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/#ixzz3ZjyWLfrr

4
2
Ebenezer X's profile photoPatrick Smith's profile photoBHayes82's profile photoImma Wake's profile photo
69 comments
 
+Ebenezer X I will answer them one at a time. choose the best one.
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

Discussion/Q&A  - 
 
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. 
Add a comment...

Ebenezer X

Discussion/Q&A  - 
 
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 photoSecond Lieutenant “Lt” Evans's profile photoPaul Peacock's profile photoOscar Rivera's profile photo
5 comments
 
There's a New Scientist article on the subject here http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton.html, too.
Add a comment...
People
Have them in circles
290 people
Tammie Letroise-Brown's profile photo
willam suffling's profile photo
Daniela Atiseret's profile photo
Илья Чернигин's profile photo
Associated Credit Union of Texas's profile photo
Christopher Scott's profile photo
Ifeoma Anene's profile photo
Zachery Licquia's profile photo
harmeet sahni's profile photo
Apps with Google+ Sign-in
  • MARVEL Contest of Champions
  • Scramble With Friends
Links
YouTube
Food was fantastic! Service was just as good!
Public - 3 months ago
reviewed 3 months 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 - 2 years ago
reviewed 2 years ago