Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[leibowde84]

SETI has been in operation for years, but not one single shred of evidence of aliens, but atheist scientists claim we'll find them by 2035 based on the multi-million dollar telescopes and equiment.

Can you support this claim? I've never heard this claim made by any scientists. Sounds like a straw-man.

 

[Parsimony]

Too much here to reply to as it will begat even more topics from you. Why don't we stick to a couple of topics that we can delve in more detail? Interesting you were a YEC and have read the Bible regularly. You've probably read more than me since I've been Christian since 2012.

Unfortunately, that is the nature of debates like this. I've seen it happen all the time. As new evidence is drawn in from both sides, it adds to the evidence that is already being debated but cannot be agreed upon. It's how debates like this inflate so much.

I use the term "atheist" scientists because this is religious forums and my understanding is modern evolution, i.e. they will not accept God or the supernatural theories anymore, started from an atheist Scottish farmer named James Hatton around 1795. Hatton influenced another atheist, Charles Lyell, who in turn influenced Christian (at the time) Charles Darwin. Darwin eventually disavowed his religion. 50% of the scientists do not believe in a deity according to Pew.

You realize that this is nothing unique to evolutionary theory, right? There isn't a single widely-accepted scientific theory that involves or refutes God. Atomic theory, germ theory, cell theory, the theory of gravity, none of those mention God at all.

How about evo scientists? I'm willing to drop it if you can drop the strawmen, quote mining, red herring, etc. claims.

There are quite a few scientists, including biologists and paleontologists, who accept both evolution and God: Michael Behe, Kenneth R. Miller and Simon Conway Morris are some examples.

As for Lucy, you seem to be conceding that it was a chimpanzee

I don't know where you are getting this from. Lucy was most definitely not a chimpanzee.

and they added the knee found at another location.

At this point, I'm not even sure you are reading my posts. I clearly stated that the knee did not belong to Lucy, but to a different individual.

In a Nova episode, Dr. Owen Lovejoy reported that the anatomy of Lucy's hipbone was more like primate than human anatomy.

Can you provide me with the exact quote from Nova and preferably a source as well?

He presumed that this was because the pelvic bone was damaged and reshaped a cast of the bone to give it a more human shape." Why do they presume that the chimp was like a human and then use the evidence to show evolution?

Again, Australopithecus was not a chimp nor do I know of any authoritative scientific source that calls it a chimp.

The two facts above make Lucy sketchy. Can we eliminate Lucy now since you have moved on to Australopithecus?

Lucy is an Australopithecus.

Furthermore, can we can stick to Australopithecus, mutation and Christianity since the first two is what you're interested in and the latter what I'm interested in? I'll look over the new Australopithecus evidence and get back to you.

Very well.

If you want to stick with biology, then it's fine with me. Agree its evolution, but not ToE -- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_01 . So, you agree God created the universe? The Bible does not make limitations like that as Genesis describes everything including biological life. The ToE always had the other thinking behind it as Darwin had to explain the same matters brought up by other scientists like Lord Kelvin, creationists and the public alike. His evolutionary theories didn't have the time. Again, I willing to stick to biology, and I'll limit the Bible/Christianity to biological topics.

I still don't see any definition of the theory of evolution on that page. Please quote it for me if you can find it. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say "limitations". Yes, God creating the universe in no way conflicts with evolution.

As for God is a spirit, that we are in agreement. So, why do you ask strawman questions about God and pretend you do not know?

How have I straw-manned Him?

 

[Zosimus]

Here is the actual logic behind the scientific method:

The scientific method starts with a hypothesis. Then experimentation is conducted and evidence is collected. If there is sufficient evidence and that evidence confirms/supports that the hypothesis is accurate, that hypothesis becomes a scientific theory.

The scientific process does not aim to discredit alternative theories (although that can be a byproduct). It aims to confirm/support the accuracy of a hypothesis through repeated experimentations and observations. A scientific theory is one that is supported through repeated experimentation and observations.

So, your logic is severely flawed.

No, my logic isn't flawed! The exact procedure that you have laid out is the one I criticize!

All right, you start with a hypothesis. Let's use the hypothesis that there is a new form of radiation called N-rays. Let's suppose that a researcher, let's call him René Blondlot was doing some research on X-rays and noticed that when he polarized the X-rays that a new ray appeared. Let's also suppose that he called them N-rays after the town of Nancy.

Let's furthermore propose that N-rays were repeatedly detected by other researchers such as Augustin Charpentier and Jean Becquerel, who discovered that N-rays could be transmitted over a wire. Let's also suppose that hundreds of papers have been published on the subject of N-rays.

Would you say that all of this evidence strongly confirms the existence of N-rays?

 

[leibowde84]

No, my logic isn't flawed! The exact procedure that you have laid out is the one I criticize!

All right, you start with a hypothesis. Let's use the hypothesis that there is a new form of radiation called N-rays. Let's suppose that a researcher, let's call him René Blondlot was doing some research on X-rays and noticed that when he polarized the X-rays that a new ray appeared. Let's also suppose that he called them N-rays after the town of Nancy.

Let's furthermore propose that N-rays were repeatedly detected by other researchers such as Augustin Charpentier and Jean Becquerel, who discovered that N-rays could be transmitted over a wire. Let's also suppose that hundreds of papers have been published on the subject of N-rays.

Would you say that all of this evidence strongly confirms the existence of N-rays?

No. N-rays were said to only have been seen through peripheral vision, which opened up any experiment to the likelihood of monumental error. Literally Rene said that you couldn't see them if you looked straight on. I agree that whenever a scientist claims that something should only be looked at with the corner of your eye, he is most likely a fraud, or at least unreliable.

This doesn't support your argument agains the scientific method in any way. The experiments were done in a way that wasn't properly controlled and, as a result, produced completely unreliable evidence. If the experiments were done in a properly controlled way, as it was by the vast majority of scientists trying to replicate Rene's findings, n-rays could not be seen.

So, do you have anything that actually shows any fault with the scientific method, because this example certainly doesn't.

 

[leibowde84]

No, my logic isn't flawed! The exact procedure that you have laid out is the one I criticize!

All right, you start with a hypothesis. Let's use the hypothesis that there is a new form of radiation called N-rays. Let's suppose that a researcher, let's call him René Blondlot was doing some research on X-rays and noticed that when he polarized the X-rays that a new ray appeared. Let's also suppose that he called them N-rays after the town of Nancy.

Let's furthermore propose that N-rays were repeatedly detected by other researchers such as Augustin Charpentier and Jean Becquerel, who discovered that N-rays could be transmitted over a wire. Let's also suppose that hundreds of papers have been published on the subject of N-rays.

Would you say that all of this evidence strongly confirms the existence of N-rays?

Here is an excerpt from the article you got that from:
Let this serve as a lesson: Be wary of men who forbid you from looking at something straight-on. Not that he was intentionally trying to pull the wool over our eyes, as it were, but Blondlot’s insistence that the observer only view the luminous effects of N-rays with their peripheral vision guaranteed all kinds of error. It already was known in Blondlot’s time that this perspective produces strange effects on our vision, according to Collins, who cites the experiences of one astronomer: “It is a curious circumstance, that when we wish to obtain a sight of a very faint star, such as one of the satellites of Saturn, we can see it most distinctly by looking away from it, and when the eye is turned full upon it, it immediately disappears.” N-rays were Blondlot’s Saturnian moons.

And they ruined him. His friends say the shock even drove him mad. He retired three years after Wood’s disclosure and all but disappeared from the scientific community, which had been left understandably stunned. It was an embarrassment, sure, but also one of history’s more conspicuous triumphs of the scientific method: Experiments demand replication. Pick a good fight, and history may remember you for the right reasons instead of the wrong ones.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes, well, what we have is a hypothesis. Let's call this hypothesis "N" for N-rays.

What will happen if N-rays are real? Well, you'll see something out of the corner of your eye. I'll call this something S for something.

So if N then S. We can write that as

N => S (N implies S).
And of course M. Blondlot saw them just fine, as did M. Charpentier et M. Bacquerel.
So S.

Does this imply N? Well, no. You see, although N can cause S, there are other things that can cause S. Repeated observations of S do not confirm N in the slightest. They are merely neutral to the theory of N.

So anyone who thinks that finding Something proves N-rays needs to have a remedial logic class.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, well, what we have is a hypothesis. Let's call this hypothesis "N" for N-rays.

What will happen if N-rays are real? Well, you'll see something out of the corner of your eye. I'll call this something S for something.

So if N then S. We can write that as

N => S (N implies S).
And of course M. Blondlot saw them just fine, as did M. Charpentier et M. Bacquerel.
So S.

Does this imply N? Well, no. You see, although N can cause S, there are other things that can cause S. Repeated observations of S do not confirm N in the slightest. They are merely neutral to the theory of N.

So anyone who thinks that finding Something proves N-rays needs to have a remedial logic class.

No, it has nothing to do with the method. It is, very obviously, a problem with the incorrect assumption that seeing S supports the conclusion that N-Rays exist. This has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is merely a false assumption.

 

[Zosimus]

No, it has nothing to do with the method. It is, very obviously, a problem with the incorrect assumption that seeing S supports the conclusion that N-Rays exist. This has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is merely a false assumption.

Ahh, but that's exactly what you said that the scientific method said! Why don't you outline your confirmation method, and we'll see how it stacks up.

 

[leibowde84]

Ahh, but that's exactly what you said that the scientific method said! Why don't you outline your confirmation method, and we'll see how it stacks up.

No I didnt. The evidence has to actually confirm the hypothesis and the experiments must be repeatable. In the case of n-rays, the false assumption meant that the evidence didn't actually confirm the hypothesis.

 

[metis]

I kept an open mind with God and the supernatural and compared it to science and found the God side more credible.

I asked you in post #2333 exactly what evidence you based this on, but you either forgot or ignored it, so let me ask again: What evidence was your conclusion based on?

 

[Thief]

Yet belief in the Big Bang requires circular logic. There is no reason to believe that there was a big bang.

it's called ....linear....
having a beginning at a 'point'
often called .....the singularity

 

[Sapiens]

Can you provide me with the exact quote from Nova and preferably a source as well?

From Nova:

DON JOHANSON:At first, I thought it was just from a monkey, maybe a baboon, but it went together in a way that didn't look like any monkey. If it wasn't a monkey's knee what was it? It looked vaguely human, but how could that be? I needed an expert opinion. Owen Lovejoy is an anatomist, part-time forensic scientist and an expert on animal locomotion. If anyone could tell me what sort of creature that knee belonged to, he could.

OWEN LOVEJOY: When Don brought the Hadar knee back from Ethiopia, he brought it over to my house and laid it out on the living room carpet, and I knew instantly, that was a human knee.

DON JOHANSON: My suspicions were confirmed. As Lovejoy pointed out, the joint had all the hallmarks of a creature that moved around on two legs, not on all fours. Walking upright is something that only humans can do. And it needs a special kind of knee joint, one that can be locked straight. A chimp gets around on all fours. If it tries to walk upright, it's knee joint doesn't lock. It's forced to walk with a bent leg and that's tiring. This mysterious fossil really perplexed us. What was a modern-looking human knee doing among fossils that were millions of years old.

-------------------------------------------

DON JOHANSON: We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.

OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.

DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.

OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.

DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. Anatomically at least, Lucy could stand like a human. The case for our earliest ancestor walking upright was growing stronger, and Lucy wasn't the only evidence. Around the same time, another remarkable fossil was found by a team working in Tanzania led by Mary Leakey. It was a mysterious footprint. Three and a half million years ago, a volcano erupted a thousand miles from Hadar near a place called Laetoli in Tanzania. Over the weeks, it threw tons of ash into the air that repeatedly blanketed the landscape. By a stroke of good fortune, the eruption took place at the beginning of the rainy season. As the rain set in, the ash became muddy and covered with animal prints. A bird picked its way across the ground, followed by a scurrying African hare. Then as time passed, another creature arrived that left prints we would all recognize. Eventually, all these prints were covered by ash from another eruption and preserved forever as they hardened into rock. Three and a half million years later, Mary Leakey's expedition uncovered this trail. There were footprints from at least two individuals, apparently walking side by side. The unusual chemistry of the volcanic ash was like plaster, preserving the prints as a series of detailed molds and casts in solid rock. Evidence like this would delight a forensic scientist like Owen Lovejoy. The analysis of footprints from a crime scene can be vital in identifying a suspect. How different were those ancient footprints in Laetoli from ones like these?

OWEN LOVEJOY: There's no better evidence than that provided by a footprint. That's what makes the Laetoli prints so exciting, because they give us a direct record of how our ancestors walked almost four million years ago. When we compare the Laetoli print to that of a chimpanzee, the difference is immediately obvious. The chimpanzee, which is a quadruped, but occasionally a biped, still has a free great toe, and that great toe extends out away from the foot and leaves a very distinct mark. On the other hand, when we compare the Laetoli print to that of a crime scene human print, they're virtually indistinguishable. The great toe is in line with the rest of the toes. And what this has done in the human and the Laetoli print is to create an arch. And that's a hallmark of typical modern upright locomotion, because the arch is an energy absorber. And that's the kind of fine tuning that you would expect in a biped that had been that way for a very long period of time.

 

[Sapiens]

it's called ....linear....
having a beginning at a 'point'
often called .....the singularity

No. A singularity is not, by definition, linear.

 

[Thief]

No. A singularity is not, by definition, linear.

and that is correct ....right before the 'bang'

and that is where science cannot go

for a singularity to be truly singular.....the secondary point cannot be present
therefore ...no height, no width or length
no distance or movement
no velocity ....or time

in the instant the secondary is allowed.....infinity is there
and the arrow of time (linear)....... begins

 

[Zosimus]

No I didnt. The evidence has to actually confirm the hypothesis and the experiments must be repeatable. In the case of n-rays, the false assumption meant that the evidence didn't actually confirm the hypothesis.

All right. Since you cannot follow a simple, logical argument let me try to break this down as simply as possible.

My uncle, who happens to be an astronomer, and I were talking one day about the Big Bang theory. I asked him whether he believed in the theory, and he said yes.
"Why?" I asked.
"Because of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation," he replied.
--------------------
Okay, so let's follow the argument very carefully. Here's how it works.

If the Big Bang theory is true, then we should observe a CBMR of around 2.7ºK.
We observe a CMBR of around 2.7ºK.
Therefore, the Big Bang theory is true.

This is a textbook example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.
Why is this wrong, you may say. Let's look at another situation to see why this is wrong.

If Bill Gates owns a gold mine, he will be rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, he must own a gold mine.

Do you see the problem here? Just because he's rich doesn't guarantee that he will own a gold mine. You may think that affirming the consequent proves something. It doesn't.

Even multiple confirmations are no guarantee. Here's an example.

If Dawkins is the Prime Minster of England, he will be:
A) controversial,
B) well known, and
C) English
Dawkins is controversial, well known, and English.
Therefore, Dawkins must be the Prime Minister of England.

Triple confirmed! Yet still wrong. Why? Because it's a logical fallacy. No finite number of logical fallacies will ever prove anything.

This logical fallacy is the basis of the scientific method. That's why no scientific theory is or ever can be confirmed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, my logic isn't flawed! The exact procedure that you have laid out is the one I criticize!

All right, you start with a hypothesis. Let's use the hypothesis that there is a new form of radiation called N-rays. Let's suppose that a researcher, let's call him René Blondlot was doing some research on X-rays and noticed that when he polarized the X-rays that a new ray appeared. Let's also suppose that he called them N-rays after the town of Nancy.

Let's furthermore propose that N-rays were repeatedly detected by other researchers such as Augustin Charpentier and Jean Becquerel, who discovered that N-rays could be transmitted over a wire. Let's also suppose that hundreds of papers have been published on the subject of N-rays.

Would you say that all of this evidence strongly confirms the existence of N-rays?

According to peer pressure review, denying N- rays would make one a science denier! Just as those who questioned Piltdown man, canals on Mars, global cooling/warming etc.

Nothing wrong with the scientific method.. academic, political institutions that simply slap the label 'science' on a sales pitch are something completely different

 

[gnostic]

I kept an open mind with God and the supernatural and compared it to science and found the God side more credible. Since you already call it foolish without examining the evidence, you already have a closed mind. I would think having a closed mind in more foolish.

The only who's closed-minded is you, James Bond.

For instance, you keep stating and associating evolution with "atheism" and people who evolution to be "atheists". This is where you are very narrow-minded, because leibowde84 and parsimony here are both Christians and theists, and yet they accept the theory of evolution ( not just of Natural Selection, but other possible mechanisms, like Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, etc) to be a valid and well-substantiated explanation (meaning theory backed up by verifiable evidences) for biological changes over number of generations (time).

You say you are open-minded, to both theism and science, but that certainly not true, because you reject evolution, where as both leibowde84 and parsimony don't; which make them more open-minded than you. And leibowde84 and parsimony are not the only ones who are Christians and theists who accept evolution in this forum; I have mentioned their names because they are the ones currently and recently participating in this thread.

Even the current pope - Pope Francis - is more open-minded than you, and he the biggest name in Christianity and he accepted evolution as the theory explains the facts. And the current stance of the Roman Catholic Church is that evolutionary biology is a fact, and it's theory well-substantiated and grounded on facts.

And Charles Darwin was never an atheist. He was a Christian all his life, but he did admit in his letter that he was leaning towards agnosticism, not atheism. He clearly in that same letter rejected atheism.

For you to attack evolution because you think evolutionists to be the same as atheists, with your continuous absurd "atheist scientists" jabs is not only generalising, but you are continually attack the same straw man over and over again, not learn from your mistakes, is a classic case of closed-mindedness.

I think a large part of your rejection of evolution is due to ego and to your ignorance on evolution.

Your ignorance is clearly confuse evolution with the Big Bang. The Big Bang is not biology, and evolution is not astrophysics, and yet you continued to associate the two as if you are speaking the same subject. That's not only showed that you are closed-minded, but ignorant to boot.

How about if you did some ACTUAL reading and research on evolution and the Big Bang, so you understand what they actually teach. You will be doing yourself a favour if you know what you are talking about.

And lastly, I am well-acquainted with the bible, because as a teenager, I nearly joined my sister's church. At that time, I thought the contents in bible were historical.

I didn't join her church because I realised I was ready, because I would have been joining her church on the basis of her faith, not mine. So I sought nearly join another church 2 years later, but got into very heated argument with my pastor, whom I thought was my friend. And I believe in Jesus and the gospels at that time.

I was already very well-acquainted with the bible, but not much on church history, especially with its early history and its stance against heresy. When I read about the gospel of Thomas in the newspaper, I was interested in reading a translation of this gospel not found in the bible. I didn't know at that time, the gospel of Thomas was associated with Gnosticism. Instead of explaining to me about Gnosticism and why the gospel of Thomas was rejected, he got angry with me of being curious and asking him questions in the first place.

At that time, I couldn't understand his anger, so I didn't join his church. A year or two later, I had stopped reading the bible altogether, and didn't seek any more churches, not because I turned towards atheism. No, I was merely very busy with my life, like my studies, helping my parents with their restaurant, and working as civil engineer after studying.

I didn't touch the bible for 14 years, though I still believe in the bible. I was changing my career path at that time - in computer science. In my last year in my studies, I started making my own website called Timeless Myths, in 1999, and a year later (after graduating), I decided to add section on the Arthurian Legends to Timeless Myths. Only then, did I picked up the tbible again, for my research on Joseph of Arimathea for my webpages on Grail legends. At that time, I still myself as a Christian, but a Christian without a church, because I still believe in Jesus.

I ended up the next months re-reading the entire bible, of both OT and NT, but my view had changed, because I could see flaws that I didn't see when I was a teenager, not merely in the bible itself, but from church teachings. My understanding of the bible were flawed, because I had allowed church interpretations of the bible, to cloud my judgement.

If my studies in civil engineering and computer science taught me anything, the one valuable thing I learned by heart, is to teach that I should verify and test what I read and what I have learn. With my research on myths for website, I had learned to examine and read more than just one source, and examine them against each other.

If anything, James, I read the bible with more open-minded than I did when I was a teenager. I have learned to read the bible for myself, without the church interference with how I should think.

I have re-examine not only Genesis creation and flood, but also what were written in the gospels, letters and Revelation.

For instance, I took Matthew's words at face value, when he quoted the sign of Isaiah 7:14 associating with Jesus' birth; as a teenager, I didn't bother to cross-reference the two sources. Upon re-reading Isaiah 7 (and 8), fourteen years later, I realised that gospel's interpretation is wrong, and the sign had nothing to do with Jesus; the sign actually had nothing to do with any messiah whatsoever.

A few years after starting up timeless myths and re-reading, I viewed myself not as an atheist, but as an agnostic. But the funny thing is that I didn't even know what agnosticism is, until I had joined Free2Code forum (2003), of which YmirGF was also a member of.

You keep saying I don't understand what theism is or the bible, but you don't know me, nor my past history. That may be true when concerning the church themselves or church customs, but I understand the bible more than you think I do.

And think about this, James. Before shooting yourself in the foot as you customarily do, many of the atheists and agnostics at RF, were former Christians, so it is more than possible for to be just as knowledgeable as you, when it come to bible studies. They are not as ignorant as you think they are.

But it bring me back to same questions I have asked you before, which clearly you have ignored:

Why do you ignore theists can accept evolution too?​

This question comes from you repeatedly stating evolutionists as "atheist scientists". You are ignoring the facts that there are Christians out there, who do accept evolution. Do you not see, james, that the only closed-minded one is yourself?

 

[gnostic]

According to peer pressure review, denying N- rays would make one a science denier! Just as those who questioned Piltdown man, canals on Mars, global cooling/warming etc.

Sorry, but no one today believe in the Piltdown man. Everyone know that it is a hoax, and the people who discovered the fake Piltdown man were scientists. You keep bringing up this straw man, but no one today accept the Piltdown man as fact, and certainly none from those who accept evolution.

The peer review are there, to ensure that the scientific method is followed, and to weed out errors and hoax.

The Intelligent Design from the Discovery Institute, is another one of those hoax, advocated by creationists. Read their own manifesto - the Wedge Document - and you can see their agenda have nothing to do with science, but attempting to use law and media (PR) for promoting their creationism through misinformation and propaganda.

If anyone is attempting to browbeat any knowledge, is the creationists and the ID advocates, and it is they who are trying to push pressures on schools to teach religious creationism and pseudoscience Intelligent Design in science classrooms of public schools.

Creationism belonged to theology, it is not a science subject. And as to Intelligent Design, it is nothing more than another name for creationism, pretending to be science or scientific, but failing on that account.

 

[gnostic]

The fine devices that you mention are tools made to help people. However, they do not prove the existence of aliens, for example. SETI has been in operation for years, but not one single shred of evidence of aliens, but atheist scientists claim we'll find them by 2035 based on the multi-million dollar telescopes and equiment. That's just as misleading and presumptuous claim as evolution. Creation scientists have the Fine Tuning Theory that disagrees.

The Andromeda Galaxy is not 2 million light years away. You aren't accounting for spacetime which has been proven. There are about 3000 visible stars and that is what the ancient astronomers believed of our universe.

Why in the hell you are bringing up aliens into this?

I also didn't bring up SETI. I was only talking about astronomy, not about extraterrestrial life on some other planets.

I didn't bring it up. Again, more straw man attack from you.

I only stated that that without the aid of telescopes, the human eyes cannot perceive individual stars from our nearest spiral galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy.

All the stars that we can see in the sky (not referring to galaxies) and that the ones we can distinguish with the naked eye, are only few thousand light years away. With the naked eye, we cannot distinguish individual stars of binary system (two stars orbiting one another).

The Sirius star (known as Dog Star) for instance, is very well known star by the ancient people, and it is the brightest star that we can see in our sky. What everyone is unaware of (before the telescope), is that Sirius is actually binary system - a white main-sequenced star (Sirius A) and white dwarf (Sirius B). The discovery of companion star wasn't found until 1860s.

And guess what, james, Sirius is only 8.6 light year away from Earth, and yet for millennia, no one knew of Sirius binary system.

I admired the contribution of the ancient people to astronomy,, but without the technology, their knowledge are very limited, and confined by what they can see unaided.

The companion star (Sirius B) is not invisible, it is just too distance for us to see.

You talk of invisible particles of the universe, but your ineptness in grasping astronomy and astrophysics is due your own lack of education and your ego.

And there you go again, mixing astronomy and astrophysics with evolution and with science and atheists:

"However, they do not prove the existence of aliens, for example. SETI has been in operation for years, but not one single shred of evidence of aliens, but atheist scientists claim we'll find them by 2035 based on the multi-million dollar telescopes and equiment. That's just as misleading and presumptuous claim as evolution."

What does anything I say about Andromeda Galaxy have to do with evolution????

Nothing...nada. It is just your silly attempt at attacking straw man and moving the goalpost, and only demonstrated why no one here view your posts/opinions seriously.

 

[james bond]

It most certainly is a mutation. I’ve found the scientific paper describing it. Here is a link if you want to see it for yourself. The mutation is a single nucleotide replacement; a guanine to thymine change. This results in an amino acid change from glycine to valine in the produced LRP5 protein. The total number of nucleotides is not changed nor is the total number of amino acids, so the total information content of the genome is the same.

I woke up in the middle of the night to take a leak and couldn't get back to sleep. It struck me that you support mutation, but will you ingest it? Suppose the evo scientists claim this pill will increase your bone density better. Will you take it. Also, will you eat GMO foods? I try to avoid GMO foods and am an advocate for its labeling. I would not knowingly take any modified product to increase bone density or anything else. I would not recommend modified products that eat oil, for example, to use on oil spills.

Can we call it case closed on Lucy? Lucy was a chimp. Not rated interesting by the man who put her back together. http://www2.kent.edu/news/newsdetail.cfm?customel_datapageid_9299=27947