Steve says:

@Phoenix
“You can continue to scream “Creationist” over shoulder as you evade the actual facts regarding the unverified and unvalidated ideology that is evolution.” You haven’t given facts unless you think “I can’t imagine how humans could have evolved from non humans” is a fact or valid argument. And I say creationist because this is a “argument” that creationist clowns like Kent Hovind make. Funnily enough you never hear any biologist making such claims.

“Everything you say amounts to inferential speculation, even if you invoke ‘deep time’ (aka billions of years).” In that case then at least most sciences are just “inferential speculation” and are not valid.

“In fact the onus is on you to sufficiently demonstrate how time is able to cause effect.” No it’s not, if you think the process of evolution couldn’t result in humans evolving from non humans you need to explain to why you believe that. Otherwise my analogy is valid, it’s like saying yes every day a baby changes a tiny amount but no matter how many of those changes there are a baby will always stay a baby. That is ridiculous.

“This cause effect relationship has never been tested experimentally, repeated for confirmation and presented with open data in peer reviewed journals where the study could be replicated by an independent party.” I already gave you a link to the evidence for common descent which lists all the predictions, confirming evidence and potential falsification made by the theory of common descent.

“Prediction of fossils is paleontology not evolution.” Transitional fossils was predicted by the theory of common descent.

“False Comparison fallacy coupled with coat tailing actual sciences. Show me where in my link regarding the breakthrough in Gene Therapy where evolution/common descent played a major role?” Fine your point is trivially true, it’s like saying you can invent a parachute without knowing about Gravity.

Steve says:

@Phoenix
“As always, your analogy is egregiously false. No matter how many generations of babies are born, it will never amount to speciation. They remain Homo sapiens” No even in a billion years, why not? Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past.

“How is it that you are unable to grasp the concept of empirical evidence? Why is evolution exempt from being subjected to this methodology? WHY is there no scientific paper explicating the tests, methods, procedures and statistical analysis of the data in support of evolution? WHY do all your links begin with more anecdotes? Where are the falsifiable, repeatable and replicable experiments?” My link showed observed cases of speciation.

” There is in fact a third rhetorical alternative to your false dilemma, which is to celebrate uncertainty. Isn’t this exactly what your public intellectuals promote, when it comes to God that is?” “Skepticism” of an empirical fact is neither relevant or interesting.

“Please do not associate forensics with evolution. Forensics have at least material remnants to analyze as well as witness testimony for corroboration. Forensic scientists base their data on the observed effects from known causes. No such causal relationship exists in evolution. They simply find a peculiar fossil and from there they make all sorts of speculations.” Those “peculiar fossils” was predicted by common descent, do you know what a transitional fossil is? It’s a fossil that shows the intermediate States between an ancestor and it’s descendants.

“The same applies with Biology in general, it does not need evolution for its support., as is evidence in the latest breakthrough in Gene Therapy.” That is like saying chemistry can be taught without the periodic table.

Steve says:

@Phoenix
“The nose will remain the nose but it is not the same as the parents, but just like the parent, the offspring remain homo sapiens, as opposed to another species.” This is like saying a baby is always going to remain a baby, and could never become an adult. With every generation there is a change, when you add that change up you get a new species, like after 18 years you get an adult. It’s not rocket science.

“So what I’m looking for are examples of macro-evolution where new organs, lungs, livers, kidneys, feet, teeth, etc. are produced, not just different shapes and sizes of organs. Or examples of scientific observations where new species have evolved” Macro evolution is just lots and lots of micro evolution, (over thousands of generations, which results in populations being unable to breed where previously they could). I have already given a few cases where speciation has happened here is a list (which I have linked previously http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html ).

This video explains the difference between macro and micro evolution https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

How evolution produces organs like eyes.

“In the process of natural selection, individuals in a population who are well-adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions have an advantage over those who are not so well adapted. These individuals pass their genes and advantageous traits to their offspring, giving the offspring the same advantages. Generation after generation, natural selection acts upon each structure within an organ like the eye, producing incremental improvements in the process. Each tiny change in a structure is dependent upon changes in all the other structures. In this way, individual parts of a system evolve in unison to be both structurally and functionally compatible. Eventually, over thousands and sometimes millions of years, the small improvements add up — the simple, systematic process has produced an almost unfathomably complex organ. Recently, scientists have found clues to the evolutionary pasts of some of the most complex organs,”

And here is a video which explains the evolution of “irreducible complexity”. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4

“Why should I believe evolution when their most pontificated hypotheses are never observed? Oh…and feel free to invoke “deep time” as a causal mechanism for change.” Because there is a mountain of evidence for it. And interestingly you haven’t given an alternative hypothesis, because you don’t have one and you certainly don’t have any evidence. Your “positive evidence” amounts to “I don´t understand it, which means no one else understands it, which means it cannot be understood in principle, which means it must be magic.”
Hint: an argument from ignorance is actually the precise opposite of “positive evidence”.

“And lastly, when you finally find that ONE study out of those ‘thousands’ which demonstrates evolution to be an experimentally verifiable hypothesis then please do share. You know the criteria by now. Your link must list all of its data” I already linked a video which explains why this is fallacious. I guess all forensics must be “pseudo science” and it must “just be guessing” then, according to your “criteria”?

Steve says:

@Phoenix
“If there exists information out there then it must have come from evolution, despite the non-existent experimental data.” Despite the mountain of evidence from the DNA sequences, molecular sequences , the fossil records, the anatomy, and phylogenetics (which puts species in nested hierarchies – based on DNA sequences and morphology similarities – which was predicted by common descent) and all the observed instances of micro and macro evolution both observed in the laboratory and in the wild. (Study of speciation of salamanders If your interested http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_01 ). Of course to “evolution skeptic” Phoenix this is “non existent experimental data”.

“when in fact it contradicts your claim that mutation is the ONLY causal mechanism.” I never claimed its the only mechanism (and nor does the science) please read a science book on evolution and educate yourself on this subject instead of going to creationists websites and accepting the garbage they come out with. But this should do for starters http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_14

“Besides, “a beak which can crack nuts” does not qualify as a “new feature”, because the beak already exists, except stronger now. This is NOT a change outside of the genome. However, if you wish to assert Darwin’s Finches as evidence for your claim then we can discuss that too.” So a beak (or a whole bird for that matter) could not become anything non bird like through this process not even in billions of years? As far as Darwin’s finches are concerned see this https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150211141238.htm . “A team of scientists from Uppsala University and Princeton University has now shed light on the evolutionary history of these birds and identified a gene that explains variation in beak shape within and among species. The study is published today in Nature, on the day before the 206th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.”

“Ok, but I don’t see how cell division can lead to all the phyla which erupted during the cambrian explosion. Seems like quite a leap in logic and science.” Sounds suspiciously like an argument from incredulity. Anyway this explains it http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

“Interesting definition. Dogs have four legs and rhinos have four legs, therefore they’re the same species.” We make up the term “species” for our purposes, for example in science species is defined as “organisms capable of producing fertile offspring”. This is the most useful and reasonable definition. Now what is your definition? Are humans and chimpanzees the same species- since we share 99% of our DNA? Also what is your concept of “kind” that creationists and “evolution skeptics” such as yourself talk about when you say a thing can only produce more of its own “kind”? What is your concept of kind – it cannot be species because speciation is observed and there are many different species of the same “kind” (e.g spiders) so what are you talking about when you say a organism can only produce more of its own “kind”?

“Your arrogance aside, you have not provided a shred of scientific evidence in support of evolution, so please stop using the term “science” when discussing this fairy tale.” Your arrogance and ignorance aside please go and read a textbook on evolution and learn about what you are talking about – before repeating absolute garbage that you have read on creationist websites.

“Unless your study was experimentally designed, tested, repeated, reproduced and the data mathematically analyzed, don’t bother me.” There are thousands of studies on the evolution and it’s mechanisms, why are you lying? Also this video explains why your “logic” is nonsense and fallacious. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ONvDjHM3eNg

Phoenix says:

//1)The point was evolution adds information. 2) Even if epi genetics adds information which can be inherited, this does not contradict evolution or common descent.//

I’m going to point out your fallacious reasoning which you refuse to accept. You have consistently throughout your posts engaged in blatant question begging, i.e., you presuppose the conclusion in your premise.

For eg. You can’t state that “evolution adds information”, without presupposing evolution happened and without specifying the delimiters of evolution, which seem to cover every topic. If there exists information out there then it must have come from evolution, despite the non-existent experimental data.

Furthermore, you also attacked a straw man argument, that epi-genetics contradicts common descent or evolution, when in fact it contradicts your claim that mutation is the ONLY causal mechanism.

//A mutation to a Hox gene could produce a new feature, such as a beak which can crack nuts. This mutation would then become more common in the population – as it was would increase fitness.//

Another red herring. This is an unrelated issue. Besides, “a beak which can crack nuts” does not qualify as a “new feature”, because the beak already exists, except stronger now. This is NOT a change outside of the genome. However, if you wish to assert Darwin’s Finches as evidence for your claim then we can discuss that too.

//If you understand why a species is fluid and not solid then you will understand why the creationists are wrong. 1)All individuals are different (except identical twins). (If they wasn’t evolution couldn’t happen).//

Ok, but I don’t see how cell division can lead to all the phyla which erupted during the cambrian explosion. Seems like quite a leap in logic and science.

//2) Species are a group of individuals which share characteristics. 3) Science splits species into groups based on how similar or (dissimilar) they are (and how closely related they are) e.g mammals and reptiles. 4) Got it?//

Interesting definition. Dogs have four legs and rhinos have four legs, therefore they’re the same species.
Another false definition.

// 3) Science splits species into groups based on how similar or (dissimilar) they are (and how closely related they are) e.g mammals and reptiles. 4) Got it?//

Your arrogance aside, you have not provided a shred of scientific evidence in support of evolution, so please stop using the term “science” when discussing this fairy tale.

Steve says:

@Pheonix

“How exactly is that link evidence of experimentation and replication of a phenomenon? It is pure inference, aka story telling.” Since you don’t what you talking you will to read this about nested hierarchy’s. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html Species are grouped to together based on shared characteristics, so snakes and lizards for example are grouped together because they are much more closely related to each other than to other animals. This is like how we group languages together, we do it for a valid reason and not a subjective preference- like we would for cars for example. E.g Nobody would reasonably argue that Spanish should be categorized with German instead of with Portugese. While cars could be classified according to many different things according to subjective preference, e.g manufacturer, model, size, colour etc.
“Show me a theory of a cause and effect chain supporting the emergence of humans and chimps from a common ancestor. I’m guessing you can;’t because such an ancestor never existed.” Do you what a transitional fossil is, evolution skeptic? I guess not, anyway here is the evidence. Of human evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

“You can’t prove they’re fallacious, you can only deprecate the concept. That’s why when mathematicians take on evolution, it fails from the start.” The concept is nonsense, end of story.

“Here you have changed the rules again. Now “species” is well defined but before it was broad and subjective” The idea of species is something we humans made up for our own convenience. The most useful definition however is “a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.” Obviously though this definition is problematic when applied to organisms that reproduce asexually.
” And “random chance” is deprecated as being too improbable, even though it is the very basis for evolution.” Natural selection isn’t “chance” so no chance is not the basis of evolution.
“Here you seem to concede you don’t know how it happened, even though that is the entire reason for evolution, which you yourself said that science does deal with the “how” but then you provide a straw man (stork) possibilty which is easy to refute, hoping your fictional story would seem the more reasonable approach. Unfortunately, both is equally absurd.”
The central tenets of evolutionary theory are all clearly defined. The mechanims that cause genetic change have been studied for decades and are understood in considerable detail (see any textbook on Biochemistry or Molecular Genetics). The processes that shape allele frequencies in populations have detailed mathematical descriptions (see any textbook on Population Genetics). Constructing evolutionary models based on the previous points and statistics, to explain past events, is clearly explained in most textbooks on Bioinformatics. Which possible observations in paleontological, embryological, biogeographical etc. research are consistent with common descent and which observations would refute it is clearly explained in most textbooks on Evolutionary Biology.

“How exactly are breeds of dogs “new species”? Have you changed the definitions again? This is becoming more and more absurd” You said new features remember, not new species? Or are you changing the goalpost now? Also many kinds of dog cannot produce fertile offspring E.g Great Dane and a pug cannot breed together, and it through this variation that you get a new species, it is not rocket science.

“Then show me these “transitional fossils” which I am certain are actually failed mutations, with no significant offspring.” You can do your own research and you will find that there are thousands of such fossils – despite the creationist lie that there are none.

Phoenix says:

// Epi-genetics is about changes to the gene expression (phenotype) which are “switched” on or off by environmental triggers. Mutations cause changes to the genotype, epi genetic switching does not. For example sunburn is environmental, but how easily or how much natural resistance you have to sunburn is determined by the genes. So if you have white skin, if you get sunburnt (environmental) you will burn, but you burn more quickly and easier than a black person because of the genes. An epi genetic effect is not going to make a persons skin more resistant to damage from the Rays of the sun.//

This is a red herring, it does not even address the issue at all which is that there are other causal mechanisms but claims to address it with an off topic issue.

// You don’t understand your own link and what it was saying read this
“Before we did our research it was possible that completely different genes were involved in making beaks of different shapes. We didn’t think that was likely, based on what we knew about how genes control development, but it was possible. What we found reinforced the general emerging picture: that the same genes are involved in making a sharp, pointy beak or a big, broad, nut-cracking beak. What makes all the difference is how much you turn a gene on, when you turn it on, when you turn if off—the subtle differences in regulation. Specific genes are essential to make any beak, but it’s the tweaking—the amount of the gene, the timing of the gene, the duration of the gene—that’s actually doing the trick.”//

Huh??? I was talking about the change which allowed the nylon to be digested. What the frick does pointy, sharp, broad and nut-cracking beaks have to do with anything? This is not even a red herring, should be called a giant blue whale.

//“Mutations are often the victims of bad press — unfairly stereotyped as unimportant or as a cause of genetic disease. While many mutations do indeed have small or negative effects, another sort of mutation gets less airtime. Mutations to control genes can have major (and sometimes positive) effects…
“Many organisms have powerful control genes that determine how the body is laid out. For example, Hox genes are found in many animals (including flies and humans) and designate where the head goes and which regions of the body grow appendages. Such master control genes help direct the building of body “units,” such as segments, limbs, and eyes. So evolving a major change in basic body layout may not be so unlikely; it may simply require a change in a Hox gene and the favor of natural selection.”//

As usual, this is just mere opinion supporting a narrative. No one has ever produced a beneficial new organ in the lab, even with all the countless of drosophilia experimentations done. And what exactly is your point regarding the Hox gene?

//1) “Microbes dont ‘breed together’, they maintain mitosis.” Yes and because of that it is difficult to decide what “species” that organisms that reproduce asexually belong to. In fact the concept of “species” is not absolute it’s like the concept of “vehicle” it’s very broad and subjective.//

Ok, now that you concede the concept of ‘species’ is not solid, then why claim evolution is a solid concept?

Steve says:

@Pheonix
“Why don’t you apply that same selective skepticism to the probability that life evolved from minerals in a chemical mix and to the probability that all phyla sprang into existence during the Cambrian explosion, which are far more improbable occurrences.” That’s because these calculations are fallacious. It like saying Phoenix cannot have being born from natural processes but only can have come about through “design”. This is nonsense.

Alu transpositions can’t be considered markers for evolution because:
a) they are not consistent across the homo sapien population
b) they do not cause speciation.
c) They cause far more harm than they are beneficial, if any.” If one species has the same pseudo gene as another species it is highly probably to be because they are related. Just like if you have an exact same DNA sequence as your father it is incredibly more probably that you inherited it than random chance.

“Ok, so a common event occured to humans and chimps living in the same region during the same period in Africa. Do you have evidence of the precise events that occurred, then where is it? Because all the evidence refers to what currently is observed to exist in genomes…NOT how it happened to get there.” 1)Not Relevant 2) Do we need to know all the events and processes and all the precise details of how you inherited your genes from your mother and father? Is it logical to believe that a stork delivered you?

“The “how it happned” is all conjecture, invented fairy tales with zero experimental and repeated evidence.” There are many theories as to “how it happened”, that a God being created you however is not one of them, just like the belief in a stork delivering babies is not a scientific hypothesis.

“And yet you have not provided a single definite and precise observation demonstrating how and if it happened.The only “design” referenced here is the analogy/comparison of sneakers to your common descent inferences.” Its a proven fact – through genetics, the fossil record (including transitional fossils) and the anatomy/bone structure the evidence for common descent is overwhelming.

“Then why can’t you produce even one out of your supposed “thousands of papers” proving that natural selection of random mutations produce new features?
Please, just ONE.” See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html 1)New abilities have evolved 2)New species have been observed to evolve 3) Hundreds of different breeds of dog (for example) have being produced through selective breeding with new features.

Phoenix says:

//Mutations are they only thing that add variation, unless the designer designed organism with resistance to artificial substances which did not exist (which seems highly unlikely). Also it didn’t “switch back on” that bacteria can now only digest nylon byproducts – and nothing else.//

First off, it seems that you’re not familiar with Epi-genetics the study of mechanisms which causes variations but does not involve mutations, including gene switching.

See links: http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/06/genetic-switches-play-big-role-human-evolution

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/gene-switches.html

Secondly, the causal meachanism was a frame shift of one place which created a new set of amino acids which was 2% effective on the nylon. And this easily oscillates back and forth, as is the case in gene switching.
===

//1) If they had the same DNA they would still be part of the same species and be able to breed together. 2) Do you think humans and chimpanzees are the same species – since we share about 99% of our DNA?//

1) Microbes dont ‘breed together’, they maintain mitosis.
2) Only a small part of the DNA was tested which would support that 99% narrative, while ignoring the most part which is very dissimilar.

//Okay then what is your belief? Either you believe in a creation theory or an alternative evolutionary theory. What are its claims, how they can be tested and what is the evidence for them?//

Your false dichotomy still persists. I have no alternative theory and I don’t need one. I am agnostic, since there is no objective empirical evidence for support.

//Nonsense for example you are much more similar to a close relative than to a randomly chosen person. If someone is similar to you it is much more probably that they are closely related to you than just a random stranger. People are much more similar to closely genetic relatives than a random person, (and MUCH more similar to them than a randomly chosen member of a animal non-human species.) It is highly improbable that a person who is similar to you IS not a close relative, likewise chimpanzees sharing the same genes as humans is much more probably due to the fact we share a common ancestor than random chance. In Fact these are the odds of it happening without a hereditary mechanism and unlike the odds that creationists give these are not made up. “Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25.”//

1. Attacking creationism remains a straw man, no matter how often you repeat that.
2. Nike is more similar to Adidas than Converse, does this mean they derive from a common ancestor?
3. Science does not deal with the why of existence or even the how. That is for philosophy.

Steve says:

Prediction 4.3 Confirmation
“More specifically, three different specific SINE transpositions have been found in the same chromosomal locations of cetaceans (whales), hippos, and ruminants, all of which are closely related according to the standard phylogenetic tree. However, all other mammals, including camels and pigs, lack these three specific transpositions (Shimamura 1997).”
“Here they admit that not all mammals have their SINE transpositions in the same locations, therefore their commonality should warrant doubt.” No they don’t have it because they are not closely related. As it says “Very recent human Alu transpositions have been used to elucidate historic and prehistoric human migrations, since some individuals have newer Alu insertions that other individuals lack”. “In fact, common Alu transpositions have been demonstrated to be reliable markers of common descent in paternity cases and in criminal forensics”
Prediction 4.4 “These facts offer strong support for the conclusion that most pseudogenes have little, if any, function. Like transpositions (see prediction 4.3), the creation of new redundant pseudogenes by gene duplication is a rare and random event and, of course, any duplicated DNA is inherited. Thus, finding the same pseudogene in the same chromosomal location in two species is strong evidence of common ancestry.”
“There is no experimental evidence offered to support common ancestry here, except inferential factoids linked together. Which one of these factoids have been relpicated under laboratory conditions, since replication is the hallmark of empiricism? I’m guessing none since evolution cannot be subjected to the scientific method beyond “possible conjectures”.” You just examine the Genotype. “There are very many examples of redundant pseudogenes shared between primates and humans. One is the ψη-globin gene, a hemoglobin pseudogene. It is shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that destroy its function as a protein-coding gene (Goodman et al. 1989). Another example is the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene. Humans have two copies of the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene, a functional one and a untranslated pseudogene. Inactivation of the functional gene leads to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH, a rare and serious genetic disease), giving positive evidence that the 21-hydroxylase pseudogene lacks its proper function. Both chimpanzees and humans share the same eight base-pair deletion in this pseudogene that renders it incapable of its normal function (Kawaguchi et al. 1992).” I guess nobody can check this claim right and its pseudo science according to a “evolution skeptic” like you?

//1)” Evolution does not make any prediction” This is false. (as I have shown common descent does make predictions which can be falsified.)//
“Evolution predicts everything so it cannot be falsified.” It doesn’t predict “everything”. Rather it’s the so called intelligent design which postulates that an unknown number of unknown “designers” interacted with this object or process in an unknown way at unknown points in time for unknown reasons, which predicts “everything”.
//2) “Evolution does not appear in any scientific paper” False there are thousands of scientific studies involving evolution.//
“I diid not make any of these other claims below.” You claimed evolution isn’t in any science paper – when their are thousands. Also you was talking about evolution being the “atheists tenent” or something like that.

Steve says:

@Pheonix
“Too many links, I don’t have time to read all those different articles. I would’ve preferred you summarizing and paraphrasing those points in your own words. I could just as easily counter your links with other links.” Fine just read this one which answers pretty much all of the questions and claims creationists make.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB100

In this case I find it easier to post links as these people know all about the science and its details.

“Regarding the nylon-eater: The presumption that the nylon eater did not exist prior to 1935 is presumed true without direct experimental evidence. It could just as easily be inferred that the nylon-eater had an alternative source of nourishment prior to nylon” “In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations”. Also pesticides and antibiotics (and other man made substances – such as nylon) are unlike anything else in nature, and it is highly unlikely that a designer/creator made them already fitted with resistance to substances that did not even exist and was very different to anything else in the environment.

A few comments on your other claims.
1)” Evolution does not make any prediction” This is false. (as I have shown common descent does make predictions which can be falsified.)

2) “Evolution does not appear in any scientific paper” False there are thousands of scientific studies involving evolution.

3) “Many scientists don’t accept evolution.” False, in the USA 95% of all scientists accept evolution and well over 99% of biologists accept it (again regardless of their worldview). And the USA has more creationists than any other industrial nation.

4a) “Evolution is anti God” In this case all other sciences then must also be “anti God” since they don’t reference God or an “intelligent designer” to explain the phenomenon they study. (Such as earthquakes for example”.)

4b) Many religious don’t see a contradiction between their God and evolution (or science in general). E.g virtually all of Judaism, the Catholics and many other schools of Christianity accept the evolution.

4c) Science is not concerned with beliefs that cannot be tested, this doesn’t mean they don’t exist. All science cares about is making models that work, it is not concerned with a persons metaphysics, nor does it say whether any metaphysical system is true OR false. This claim of yours (and many creationists) is based on a misunderstanding of science and what it is.

Steve says:

@Phoenix

“Firstly, the onus is on you to demonstrate empirically that such a mutation did in fact take place, just in time to digest nylon. Secondly, when you assert ‘mutation’ without pointing to a particular and distinct change in the structure of the genome then it amounts to magic. See below how more magic is invoked:”

“Now, let’s get back to Biology, and the case of the bacterium which has evolved the capability of ingesting nylon waste (see Kinoshita et. al.). This case is most interesting. Nylon didn’t exist before 1935, and neither did this organism. Detailed examination of the DNA sequences of the original bacterium and of the nylon-ingesting version show identical versions in the gene for a key metabolic enzyme, with only one difference in over 400 nucleotides. However, this single microevolutionary addition of a single thymine (‘T’) nucleotide caused the new bacterium’s enzyme to be composed of a completely novel sequence of amino acids, via the mechanism of frame shifting. The new enzyme is 50 times less efficient than its precursor, as would be expected for a new structure which has not had time to be polished by natural selection. However, this inefficiency would certainly not be expected in the work of an intelligent designer. The genetic mutation that produced this particular irreducibly-complex enzyme probably occurred countless times in the past, and probably was always lethal, until the environment changed, and nylon was introduced” (source http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm ).” (This link also explains what a frame shifting mutation is and how it produces information).

“This is not an answer, it is pure rhetoric without any accompanying empirical data. Where is the experimental study methodically analyzing the cause for the ‘supposed’ observed effects?Your asserted “Confirmation paragraph” makes wild assumptions for all sorts of mechanisms for change but where is the relationship between the stated causes and their specific effects? It does not produce any data of test results but just more and more assertions. Why are evolution hypotheses exempt from being subjected to the scientific method?” Read it “Prediction “The genetic information specifies everything about an organism and its potential. Genotype specifies possible phenotypes, therefore, phenotypic change follows genetic change. This obviously should be one of the areas where evolutionary change is seen, and genetic change is truly the most important for understanding evolutionary processes.”

Confirmation Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294). ”

“That could’ve been true if the effect was known NOT to exist in a prior state that was disabled. What was listed was a whole bunch of possible mechanisms without any specific effects accompanied by specific mechanisms, which mean we cannot know if the cause is a mutation or if the cause pre-existed in the genome. Thus evolution is presupposed in the hypothesis” No
Potential falsifications- Once the genetic material was elucidated, it was obvious that for macroevolution to proceed vast amounts of change was necessary in the genetic material. If the general observation of geneticists was that of genomic stasis and recalcitrance to significant genetic change, it would be weighty evidence against the probability of macroevolution. For instance, it is possible that whenever we introduce mutations into an organism’s genome, the DNA could back-mutate to its former state. However, the opposite is the case—the genome is incredibly plastic, and genetic change is heritable and essentially irreversible (Lewin 1999). ”

“Once again, these are unwarranted conjectures without any scientific studies for support.” That’s why it provides hundreds of 1)predictions (made by the theory) 2) Predictions confirmed by the scientific evidence and 3) Potential falsification.

“It merely asserts that an event occurred within the organism and did not die, but it also did not revert back. That’s all we can know and that’s all what’s being claimed. Anything else is extrapolation and inferential conjecture.” The nylon eating bacteria can now only digest nylon byproducts, it cannot digest any other carbohydrates (like other bacteria can). If what you believed was true the DNA could back mutate and the nylon – only – eating bacteria could again become capable of digesting other carbohydrates. But that doesn’t happen so your belief is falsified by the evidence. Or perhaps your “hypothesis” is unfalsifiable? Interesting, what you claim about common descent is actually true of your belief.

“If they are mutation/selection then what exactly did mutate? This statement has no content to analyze.” It means they have evolved in such a way that they no longer do – or can – breed together..

“Functional materialism is not the issue, it is Philosophical materialism and the knowledge claims it makes outside of its arena. This paragraph does nothing to demonstrate any actual scientific data within Evolution. In fact, it is a false association fallacy.” The theory of evolution doesn’t make “claims outside of its arena”.

““Potential” falsifications mean absolutely nothing. It merely asserts that a future possibility might exist where it could be falsified, but that cannot be tested at any present moment. What is needed, is to demonstrate an observed cause/effect relationship. The effect being speciation and the cause being a specific mutation, so we can determine”” It could very easily be falsified either by showing 1) That mutations don’t happen or 2) That mutations cannot be passed on to the next generation. Here is the evidence from genetics.
“Part 4:
The Molecular Sequence Evidence”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html )

Stardusty Psyche says:

Ali Sina
“I would create a safe haven in Syria for the refugees, protect them and shelter them with all the might killing anyone who comes to harm them ”
How are you going to do that?

The whole country is a war zone. The Islamic State, Al Qaeda factions, a brutal dictator, and various waring rebel groups occupy the country in ever shifting zones of military control.

The USA, Russia, and other foreign forces are continually bombing and conducting raids.

Much of the country is bombed out and decimated.

Where and how in all of that do you propose to establish “safe haven” and “protect them from harm”?

What do you propose, sending American troops into Syria to surround and create a security parameter around a refugee camp someplace in that war torn bombed out hell hole of a country? You might just as well paint a bulls eye on our children’s backs and send them off to an Islamic land to be used as target practice.

Sorry Ali, your idea of an American secured safe haven in Syria is a non-starter, although I generally share your insistence that we not allow Syrian refugees into the USA.

Steve says:

Phoenix
“What evidence do you have that these “new fucntions” are not the result of prior capabalities already inherent within part of the population?” Explain how there is a strain of bacteria capable of digesting byproducts of nylon? (And nylon was only invented in 1935). (And no other strain of bacteria is capable of digesting nylon).

“The same applies here. Revealing prior capabilities which were disabled is not proof of common descent. ” If you bothered to have a look at my link you would have found this is answered. “The genetic information specifies everything about an organism and its potential. Genotype specifies possible phenotypes, therefore, phenotypic change follows genetic change. This obviously should be one of the areas where evolutionary change is seen, and genetic change is truly the most important for understanding evolutionary processes.
Confirmation:
Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).

Potential Falsification:

Once the genetic material was elucidated, it was obvious that for macroevolution to proceed vast amounts of change was necessary in the genetic material. If the general observation of geneticists was that of genomic stasis and recalcitrance to significant genetic change, it would be weighty evidence against the probability of macroevolution. For instance, it is possible that whenever we introduce mutations into an organism’s genome, the DNA could back-mutate to its former state. However, the opposite is the case—the genome is incredibly plastic, and genetic change is heritable and essentially irreversible (Lewin 1999).”

“We must fully grasp the mechanism before claiming “evolution” No we not need to fully grasp the mechanism to know evolution is true as my link (which you would know anyway if you bothered to have a look instead of just repeating creationist garbage), correctly states. “Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.”

Allopolyploid hybrids are usually sterile. Sterile species cannot be proof of evolution.” “Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).//”

“Much like the previous paragraphs, this one is also an unfounded assertion. That is why I insist on empirical research. If you have the evidence published in reputable journals then do produce it. I’ll stop here for now until you can conjure up some actual scientific data.”
http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html

“First of all, the link does not provide empirical evidence. It provides mountains of inferential associations, which are NOT actually observed but speculated to connect two observations.”
The link answers this
“The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferredvia indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these “invisible” phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference. When the term “evidence” is used in this article, it is used strictly with respect to this scientific method.”
“Secondly, observations does not equal empirical evidence. Observations only initiate the inductive approach but the hypothesis must eventually be tested deductively by deducing a natural cause for the observed effects. The process of experimental testing must be repeatable, replicable and falsifiable. There is none such instances” My link answers this also “Many anti-evolutionists, such as the “scientific” creationists, are especially fond of Karl Popper and his falsifiability criterion. These cynics are well known for claiming that evolutionary theory is unscientific because it cannot be falsified. In this article, these accusations are met head on. Each of the evidences given for common descent contains a section providing examples of potential falsifications, i.e. examples of observations that would be highly unlikely if the theory is correct.”.

Phoenix says:

Steve

//See this link, which lists the mountain of evidence for common descent//

First of all, the link does not provide empirical evidence. It provides mountains of inferential associations, which are NOT actually observed but speculated to connect two observations.

Secondly, observations does not equal empirical evidence. Observations only initiate the inductive approach but the hypothesis must eventually be tested deductively by deducing a natural cause for the observed effects. The process of experimental testing must be repeatable, replicable and falsifiable. There is none such instances in your link.

See link: http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html
======

//(Observed evidence for organism’s acquiring new functions.).
“Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously (Endler 1986). Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases (Futuyma 1998, p. 274)….//

To describe an ability which already existed but then the organism was deprived of the ability as being a “new function” seems incorrect. What evidence do you have that these “new fucntions” are not the result of prior capabalities already inherent within part of the population?

//Such evolutionary acquisition of new function is also common in metazoans. We have observed insects become resistant to insecticides (Ffrench-Constant et al. 2000), animals and plants acquire disease resistance (Carpenter and O’Brien 1995; Richter and Ronald 2000), crustaceans evolve new defenses to predators (Hairston 1990), amphibians evolve tolerance to habitat acidification (Andren et al. 1989), and mammals acquire immunity to poisons (Bishop 1981). Recent beneficial mutations are also known in humans, such as the famous apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation that confers lowered risk to cardiovascular disease in its carriers.”//

The same applies here. Revealing prior capabilities which were disabled is not proof of common descent. We must fully grasp the mechanism before claiming “evolution”. Else you are guilty of affirming the consequent.
====
//(Observed evidence of speciation).
“Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).//

See link: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/allopolyploid.aspx

Allopolyploid hybrids are usually sterile. Sterile species cannot be proof of evolution.

====
//Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.//

I’m not aware of any beneficial Drosophila mutations. They are usually disastrous with shortened wings and unable to fly, eyeless, legs on the odd shaped head, etc.

===
//Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.//

Much like the previous paragraphs, this one is also an unfounded assertion. That is why I insist on empirical research. If you have the evidence published in reputable journals then do produce it. I’ll stop here for now until you can conjure up some actual scientific data.

Steve says:

Phoenix
“But more to the point; There has never been any DNA, RNA or RNA-ase produced under laboratory conditions, even after attempting it for decades and the worst part is that they weren’t even attempting to construct an information carrier molecule but quit after failing to create a randomized molecule.” See this link, which lists the mountain of evidence for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

This is taken from that link which rubbishes your nonsense claim which you got from some creationist site.

(Observed evidence for organism’s acquiring new functions.).
“Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously (Endler 1986). Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases (Futuyma 1998, p. 274). Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998). Bacteria have evolved to grow at previously unviable temperatures (Bennett et al. 1992). In E. coli, we have seen the evolution (by artificial selection) of an entirely novel metabolic system including the ability to metabolize a new carbon source, the regulation of this ability by new regulatory genes, and the evolution of the ability to transport this new carbon source across the cell membrane (Hall 1982).”

Such evolutionary acquisition of new function is also common in metazoans. We have observed insects become resistant to insecticides (Ffrench-Constant et al. 2000), animals and plants acquire disease resistance (Carpenter and O’Brien 1995; Richter and Ronald 2000), crustaceans evolve new defenses to predators (Hairston 1990), amphibians evolve tolerance to habitat acidification (Andren et al. 1989), and mammals acquire immunity to poisons (Bishop 1981). Recent beneficial mutations are also known in humans, such as the famous apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation that confers lowered risk to cardiovascular disease in its carriers.”

(Observed evidence of speciation).

“Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.

Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian et al. 2000).”

“So go ahead and produce your empirical data or admit that Evolution is a science fiction fantasy akin to pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters” See that link which lists all the evidence, (and the different lines of evidence). This link says,

“The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.”

So common descent is the best theory, it’s predictions have been confirmed, other competing explanations are either contradicted by the enormous amounts of scientific data or else they are untestable (if they even make any predictions.) So no evolution is not science fiction it’s science fact.

Steve says:

@Phoenix From your link
“They’ve never asked scientifically if random mutation and natural selection can generate the information content in living things.” Yes it does “So when a creationist asks, are there examples of mutations that increase information, the answer is simple. ALL mutations that are selected for add information to the genome.”

See these videos for more information.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg (How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I ) and

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i9u50wKDb_4 (part 2).

“The second half of the video presents a study by Dr. Thomas Schneider, which was published in 2000 in Nucleic Acids Research. This study simulates a small genome containing a gene that codes for a DNA binding protein and a stretch of DNA containing 16 sites that if that protein binds to any of them the organism will gain a fitness advantage. The result of this simulation clearly shows that natural selection coupled with random mutations will lead to a steady increase in information over generations.”

“even as the evidence supporting his theory crumbles and more and more scientific challenges to it emerge” Nonsense, I suppose he has a superior theory then?

“Regarding the evidence for common descent from your wiki article, which one in your list do you consider the strongest evidence that has passed experimental or observational testing and has been peer reviewed? Remember, the strict rules of empiricism must apply, no exceptions.” All of them is very strong evidence, there are thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that confirm the evolution, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

Phoenix says:

Steve,
//Nonsense evolution is accepted by all scientists regardless of there religion or worldview. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent//

Steve, you still have a habit of making universal generalizations without considering the implications of your assertion. “All, everyone, no one” are universal terms, which require either universal opinion on your side or proof that every case has shown to be investigated. Both are highly unlikely, and all it takes to falsify your categorical assertion is to provide one contradiction.

Here is a list of 100 scientists who have dissented from Darwinism: http://www.discovery.org/a/2732

Regarding the evidence for common descent from your wiki article, which one in your list do you consider the strongest evidence that has passed experimental or observational testing and has been peer reviewed? Remember, the strict rules of empiricism must apply, no exceptions.

Ali Sina (@AliSinaOrg) says:

Ali Sina closed the comments

The comments are closed I thing after 30 days automatically. This is to avoid people spam the comments that no one reads with their commercial links

Phoenix says:

\Steve,
We use the term “person” to indicate a thing or being which experiences the world from a particular location in space (and also has certain physical and mental characteristics). In fact, consciousness itself is dependent on the experience of time and space from one perspective at a time. If there were several perspectives at a time, and several experiences at a time, then we would actually have several different consciousnesses, or human beings.//

You cannot possibly prove this because personal experience is subjective and requires anecdotal testimony which cannot be objectively observed.

//The laws of reality or metaphysics are not physical. For example the law of identity is not physical or 1+1=2 is not physical. These laws apply to all things in the physical world but themselves are not physical.//

OK, so you admit there exists non-physical entities\?

//You either believe that mind is somehow fundamental to reality (which so far you haven’t given an argument for) or you you believe it’s some magical thing which exists and functions independent of the physical world.//

I did not make the claim of functioning independently did I? The mind is existentially independent but functionally dependant on the material. That is the claim.

\Steve, let’s focus the next part strictly on evolution. \OK? this could go one forever.

Steve says:

@Phoenix
“Ali Sina closed the comments over at “Violence in the Bible vs violence in the Quran”. Why he decides to let you guys have the last say is beyond me.” I think comments for all articles on this site have a time limit.

Also Ali Sina may let you respond here.

Stardusty Psyche says:

Ali Sina (@AliSinaOrg)
“You are right. That is also my understanding. It seems to me that it is here that we get enlightenment and evolve spiritually. Once we leave this body there is no more growth or at least not as huge as here. So once we leave this world the opportunities for growth are lost and that is why we choose to come back again and again.”
Why would that be? A soul drives the mind on Earth, yet when it joins god and presumably gains much enlightenment through contact with myriad other souls it is somehow barred from learning anything thereby? Sorry Ali, I don’t see any logic in all that.

“An evil person like the guy in the above picture, Hitler or Muhammad will not become enlightened once they die. They end up in the same hole that other evil souls reside, still denying God.”
Again, why? I mean, if I die and start floating around in heaven or hell that would be a pretty good evidence to stop being an atheist, now wouldn’t it?

I mean, I am actually a fairly intelligent guy, so if I go off to the Jesus hell because I denied him here on Earth I am gonna be like “oh snaps, that stuff was true after all, it is really painful up in here, guess I should have placed that Pascal wager”.

“Don’t be deceived. Muhammad was not a believer in God. No one who truly believes in God would dare to lie in His name as much as he did. “
How do you know god isn’t really evil by your standards and mine. Now, I agree, Allah as described by Muhammad is about the most deplorable god out there, but let’s just suppose your definition of god as pure good is actually mistaken, and god is actually evil by my standards and your standards. Maybe that evil god is what inspired Muhammad. I know, that’s a pretty unpleasant thought, but it would make Muhammad a truth teller after all.

“Muhammad’s god was his won alter ego, a concretion of his fantasies, a tool to manipulate and to control the foolish.”
Yes, in truth, I agree with you. Muhammad, Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard, David Koresh…

Yahweh was pretty ugly too, and a good case could be made that Moses and Joshua were greedy for power and money and land and sex like all the rest and this thing about the chosen people was just made up as a convenience like so many others have done.

“God is love and had Muhammad had any understanding of God he would not be so hateful and so evil.”
Well, I agree that if god is love he sure could not be Yahweh or Allah, and even though Jesus had a few nice sounding instructions for us to follow I still think getting raptured to hell is going to be not necessarily the most loving thing that ever happened to me.

Stardusty Psyche says:

Lizzie
“Stardusty your understanding is in error. 20.5.20
Does that make it easier for you? ”

No. Is that 20 May 2020? So what? Is that your birthday or something? If so, happy birthday in advance.

“How about some condemnation of this evil photograph or are you more interested in promoting Islam?”
Absolutely too busy promoting Islam, here is one example, you can google the username if you want more
http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php?PHPSESSID=9f99eeca404c5f3afbbe55710f92ac20&action=profile;area=showposts;u=36105

Ron says:

it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

Einstein’s quotes

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”5

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”6

Einstein on Jesus

Albert Einstein received instruction in both Christianity (at a Roman Catholic school) and Judaism (his family of origin). When interviewed by the Saturday Evening Post in 1929, Einstein was asked what he thought of Christianity.

“To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?”
“As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”
“Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?”
“Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!”
“You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”
“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”7

So, although Einstein was not a Christian, he had great respect for Jesus, and recognized that He was an amazing figure in history. Personally having grown up as an atheist in a non-religious home, I initially saw Jesus as a brilliant teacher when I read the gospels for the first time at age 32.

Steve says:

@Ali Sina
“Yes Einstein did not believe in a personal God but now he does. I too did not believe in a personal God and now I do.” If the consciousness survives the death of the brain there is no reason to think evil people become good, or that delusional people will magically be free of there delusions and ignorance.

Lizzie says:

Stardusty your understanding is in error. 20.5.20
Does that make it easier for you? How about some condemnation of this evil photograph or are you more interested in promoting Islam?

Steve says:

@Ron

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

– Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman.”

Lizzie says:

This disgusting photo of an evil,grinning muslim who has slaughtered a beautiful,young woman beggars belief.
Do muslims really think this type of behaviour is acceptable to God? Does brutality,terrorism and murder bring heavenly rewards? Delusional to say the least.
Four Years Left and then Islam is finished. This is why things are getting worse as satan gives a final push.
Last day-20520

Walter Sieruk says:

One of the explanation as to how such totally unconscionable, ruthless, vicious actions and murderous are committed by the Muslim terrorists who compose the brutal and deadly jihad entity ISIS is answer in the following . The jihadists of ISIS are engaging in the Islamic doctrine of “Muruna” which is the dogma of Islam that teaches committing evil for the greater good is a noble part of the jihad for Islam. This is, in essence, the same type of “philosophy” that the communists had gone by in the twentieth century. That it’s a “good thing “ to commit many evils to obtain a “worker’s paradise.” Likewise, during World War II even the Nazis had this line of thinking.” To express, as in to illustrate this idea, even more, is by using a twenty-first century movie. Near the end of this movie, just before the final defeat of the super-arch –villain General Zod , that super villain said “No matter how brutal and deadly I was I did it for the greater good.” That is the common mindset of many villains including those of ISIS.

Truth Seeker says:

@Ali Sina

Sir, again great masterpiece. You are great intellectual and your communication skill touches the heart. You make the everything crystal clear. I believe if one wants to understand Islam & spirituality in a short time read Ali Sina.