Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[NxNW]

here is intelligence in the way cells function. Where does that intelligence come from? There is really only one source and that is God, where all intelligence comes from.

So God creates cancerous tumors?

 

[sjastro]

From BRITTANICA encyclopedia:

redshift
astronomy
BY The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica |View Edit History

redshift, displacement of the spectrum of an astronomical object toward longer (red) wavelengths. It is attributed to the Doppler effect, a change in wavelength that results when a given source of waves (e.g., light or radio waves) and an observer are in motion with respect to each other.

To add to @Hans Blaster post, one of the challenges astronomers face in measuring cosmological redshift of an object is to separate out the Doppler shift components attributed to the motions of the object and the observer.

You are wrong, I was right.

If Doppler and cosmological redshift were one in the same thing astronomers wouldn't go through the trouble in the measurement as described above.
Whether an object moves in space-time (Doppler shift) or is carried by the Hubble flow (cosmological redshift) or somewhere in between depends on gravity.
In our local cluster of galaxies which is a gravitationally bound system the observed redshift (or blueshift) is purely Doppler related whereas for very distant galaxies which are not gravitationally bound is due to cosmological redshift.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What is the difference between a robot's answer to a question and a human's answer? One is limited to programmed replies, the other has limitless ability to reply and shows intelligence in the response and not simply a programmed answer. You only need to make the observation.
Another observation is found in disease. A person's reactions to negative ideas causes them to react and that reaction is physiological. Thus they develop adverse bodily reactivity, which over time becomes disease. Once the person understands what is at play they can simply stop reacting and sometimes need to resolve some issues that are causing ongoing emotional reactivity, and the disease is gone. They have a spontaneous remission from whatever it is. Or as doctors say "sometimes the disease just goes away by itself". This is not about a meat robot as is supposed by the biomedical scientists. It shows intelligence at play. This intelligence is not something evolved but of God.

You are still just saying "It must be a god behind it because I cannot think of another reason".

You need to link the observation to a cause that is a god. You have not done that. Again, how have you ruled out another cause that you don't know about?

Why should we not link gravity to a god cause?

 

[sjastro]

To review some fundamental astronomy and science, the hypothesis that the universe is expanding came from one line of evidence, only - the assumption that the red shift of light is solely from a Doppler effect - thus when it becomes known that redshifts of galaxies are quantized, and are not a Doppler effect from velocity of receding bodies of light, the theory of expansion of the universe and the BB theory which came from reverse extrapolation of expansion, is called into question.

Quote:

How is it proved that the Universe is expanding?
Astronomers measure the movement of objects relative to us using Doppler shift. When you hear a train coming, its whistle is heard at a different frequency compared to when it is receding, right? In the same way, light also has a Doppler shift, whereby its frequency is shifted depending on the motion of the emitting object.

Astronomers observed that light from distant objects in the universe is redshifted (shift in the frequency of light towards red color), which tells us that the objects are all receding away from us. This is true in whatever direction you look at: all the distant galaxies are going away from us. This can only be due to the fact that the Universe is expanding.

Further, by measuring the distance to the galaxies, one finds that the velocity of recession is proportional to the distance of the galaxy from us


How is it proved that the Universe is expanding? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

A common criticism of scientists explaining science in a way which is comprehensible to the general public through analogies can result in accuracy being compromised.
To use the train analogy is particularly bad as it is an example of an object moving through space-time.
The whole point of cosmological redshift is the object is stationary and is being carried along by expanding space-time known as the Hubble flow.
Cosmological redshift is distinct from Doppler shift.

Although cosmological redshift at first appears to be a similar effect to the more familiar Doppler shift, there is a distinction. In Doppler Shift, the wavelength of the emitted radiation depends on the motion of the object at the instant the photons are emitted. If the object is travelling towards us, the wavelength is shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum, if the object is travelling away from us, the wavelength is shifted towards the red end. In cosmological redshift, the wavelength at which the radiation is originally emitted is lengthened as it travels through (expanding) space. Cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself and not from the motion of an individual body.

Cosmological Redshift | COSMOS

 

[Kyrani]

So God creates cancerous tumors?

No God didn't create any cancerous tumors, the individual created them and that is important to understand in order to eradicate them.
God made the basic living forms and maintains them.
Humans at the very least, are co-creators, which means that by their reactions, which give rise to physiological effects, they may change their physiology in some way.
The most obvious are our emotional reactions. Fear for instance in response to the perception of danger gives rise to a fight or flight response, which has various physiological changes.
The biomedical scientists are selling a story that cancer is due to damage and /or miscopied genes. HOWEVER their own research contradicts this public story.

As far back as 1997, the cancer stem cell was discovered. AND since then it has been shown that without a cancer stem cell there ain't no cancer. All the experiments that are done on lab mice are using transgenic mice. These have their DNA tampered with so that if A happens, then B happens. Hence they create what is really transformed cells. Transformed cells are NOT cancer.

Cancer is the reaction of a person or animal (pet) to negative ideas/ negative perceptions. The perception is of some possible harm. So the body builds what can be described as a protective, novel organ, a barrier . To do that the body recruits stem cells and changes them to become cancer stem cells or maybe we could call them barrier-forming stem cells. And the evidence is stark.

All solid cancer, which are the 95% or more of all cancers have the characteristics of an organ. That is to say they develop a blood supply, a lymphatic supply and in many cases even a nerve supply. They have also a microenvironment of connective tissue cells that are normal and seen in all organs. They also have resident immune system cells as is seen in all organs.

Despite all this they promote a public story that is nothing more than fear mongering to sell medical treatments. If you understand how and why and under what conditions you react as to develop cancer then deliberate spontaneous remission is as easy as!

There is underhanded foul game play and related, inhumane people with some agenda behind cancer. I have had eight episodes of cancer, though only the first was diagnosed by doctors. It was stage 4 ovarian cancer with plenty of metastases and the doctors had said "nothing we can do for you". After I moved from where I was living in Cairns to Sydney, within about 6 to 8 months, after I went to have more tests since I was still alive and feeling okay, I had no evidence of disease. The doctors were gob grabbing. None of the cancers was God's work.

 

[Kyrani]

You are still just saying "It must be a god behind it because I cannot think of another reason".

You need to link the observation to a cause that is a god. You have not done that. Again, how have you ruled out another cause that you don't know about?

Why should we not link gravity to a god cause?

There is no "a god" there is only God. All the gods and goddesses professed by some religions are only avatars of God or attempts to represent attributes of God.

What physical cause can give rise to intelligence? There is none. All the physical causes, chemistry etc., that we can observe do not show intelligence. They sure show that there are rules or laws at play. These too have to have a cause behind them.

It is well appreciated that there is information at the basis of all physical forms from the sub-atomic particle right up to the largest star and everything in between. There are plenty of physicists that are claiming that the information is physical to try and make the case that it is all physical. There is no way this can be so.

All of the information that is required to bring the physical into being and which is in The Mind (or The Mind of God) is upheld in the Divine Consciousness. Thus the physical comes into being and is sustained /maintained in existence.

I know that but of course I can't show you evidence. My knowledge comes from an enlightenment experience where one sees beyond the forms.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There is no "a god" there is only God. All the gods and goddesses professed by some religions are only avatars of God or attempts to represent attributes of God.

This is a claim without good evidence.

What physical cause can give rise to intelligence? There is none.

This is what I am talking about. This is an argument form incredulity. How can you say "there is no other cause"? That is a claim that needs to be supported by evidence. I can also invoke a God to explain gravity. However, we don't need to because we know the cause of gravity. We know this because of repeatable experiments based on the theory.

All the physical causes, chemistry etc., that we can observe do not show intelligence. They sure show that there are rules or laws at play. These too have to have a cause behind them.

I agree that the laws of the universe have a cause. I would say "I don't know" why the laws of the universe are as they are. If you want to claim God is the cause, then you need to demonstrate that.

It is well appreciated that there is information at the basis of all physical forms from the sub-atomic particle right up to the largest star and everything in between. There are plenty of physicists that are claiming that the information is physical to try and make the case that it is all physical. There is no way this can be so.

All of the information that is required to bring the physical into being and which is in The Mind (or The Mind of God) is upheld in the Divine Consciousness. Thus the physical comes into being and is sustained /maintained in existence.

More claims without evidence.

I know that but of course I can't show you evidence. My knowledge comes from an enlightenment experience where one sees beyond the forms.

Ahh ok, you don't have evidence. When you do please let me know.

 

[Neogaia777]

The whole point of cosmological redshift is the object is stationary and is being carried along by expanding space-time known as the Hubble flow.
Cosmological redshift is distinct from Doppler shift.


Cosmological Redshift | COSMOS

Except the only truly stationary point in the universe is wherever you are at in it though, right...?

God Bless!

 

[sjastro]

And you are who? I see no staff badge on your identification info to the left.

Enlighten me as to your authority, please.

Seems you have missed the point.
I assume you are a creationist and apart from your posts being erroneous they based on a false dichotomy as pointing out the supposed errors in mainstream science does not advance the case for creationism.

 

[sjastro]

Except the only truly stationary point in the universe is wherever you are at in it though, right...?

God Bless!

If an object displays pure cosmological redshift it is stationary.
It is the space-time between the object and observer which is expanding.

 

[chad kincham]

This is a claim without good evidence.

This is what I am talking about. This is an argument form incredulity. How can you say "there is no other cause"? That is a claim that needs to be supported by evidence. I can also invoke a God to explain gravity. However, we don't need to because we know the cause of gravity. We know this because of repeatable experiments based on the theory.

I agree that the laws of the universe have a cause. I would say "I don't know" why the laws of the universe are as they are. If you want to claim God is the cause, then you need to demonstrate that.

More claims without evidence.

Ahh ok, you don't have evidence. When you do please let me know.

Can you prove God exists to someone who doesn’t want him to exist?

No.

As someone said, a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

Can it be shown that there is a lot of circumstantial and inferred evidence that a god exists as first cause and prime mover, to someone not biased against his existence?

Yes.

From DNA and the anthropic principle/fine tuning, there is evidence.

Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, wrote a book, The Signature of God, outlining evidence of the existence of God, since DNA is a 4 letter code (computer code/language uses a simpler binary code) that is the biological programming code that is the OS (operating system) cells run on. The cell is the biological equivalent of hardware, DNA the software. Software and programming code does not and can not write itself, it requires an intelligence - there is no natural mechanism that can create or write information.

Then there’s the fine tuning/anthropic principle, that both the universe and our planet exhibit evidence of a creator who designed the universe, and the earth for life on it.

Here’s a list of the universal constants that exist on a very narrow parameter required for the universe to exist and support life in it, which is evidence of fine tuning, that can’t come about from random processes:


Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe


strong nuclear force constant:

if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry

if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry


weak nuclear force constant:

if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible


gravitational force constant:

if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry

if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form


electromagnetic force constant:

if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission

if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry


ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant:

if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support

if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements


ratio of electron to proton mass:

if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

if smaller: same as above

ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

if smaller: same as above


expansion rate of the universe:

if larger: no galaxies would form

if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed


entropy level of the universe:

if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies

if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form


mass density of the universe:

if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form

if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements


velocity of light:

if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support


age of the universe:

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy

if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed


initial uniformity of radiation:

if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed

if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space


average distance between galaxies:

if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit


density of galaxy cluster:

if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit

if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material


average distance between stars:

if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life


fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines):

if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun

if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields

if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun


decay rate of protons:

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation

if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life


12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio:

if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life

if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life


ground state energy level for 4He:

if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life

if smaller: same as above


decay rate of 8Be:

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars

if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry



ratio of neutron mass to proton mass:

if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements

if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes


initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons:

if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation

if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation


polarity of the water molecule:

if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life

if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result


supernovae eruptions:

if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet

if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form


white dwarf binaries:

if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry

if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production

if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry


ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass:

if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form

if smaller: no galaxies would form


number of effective dimensions in the early universe:

if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible

if smaller: same result


number of effective dimensions in the present universe:

if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable

if larger: same result


mass of the neutrino:

if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form

if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense


big bang ripples:

if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly

if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form


size of the relativistic dilation factor:

if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly

if larger: same result


uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:

if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable


cosmological constant:

if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Here’s a quote from famed astronomer Fred Hoyle on this:

If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually found to be ... A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (Hoyle F., 'The Universe: Some Past and Present Reflections," University of Cardiff, 1982, p16, in Davies P.C.W., "The Accidental Universe," [1982], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1983, reprint, p.118)

And physicist Paul Davies:

Taken together they [lists of design evidences] provide impressive evidence that life as we know it depends very sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on some seemingly fortuitous accidents in the actual values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, force strengths, and so on. If we could play God, and select values for these natural quantities at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. Some knobs would have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if life is to flourish in the universe" (Paul Davies, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science", in John Marks Templeton, Evidence of Purpose (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1996), p. 46.)


And that’s not even addressing the many fine tuning parameters necessary for this planet to support life.

 

[chad kincham]

A common criticism of scientists explaining science in a way which is comprehensible to the general public through analogies can result in accuracy being compromised.
To use the train analogy is particularly bad as it is an example of an object moving through space-time.
The whole point of cosmological redshift is the object is stationary and is being carried along by expanding space-time known as the Hubble flow.
Cosmological redshift is distinct from Doppler shift.

All redshifts refers to the fact that a source of light moving away from a fixed observer will shift to the red end of the light spectrum when filtered through a prism - whereas a source of light moving toward you will shift light to the blue end of the spectrum, and a non moving light won’t shift at all from white light.

Every mention of the shifting of light is a reference to the Doppler effect - defined as the compression or expansion of wave frequencies of a moving object relative to a fixed observer, be it SOUND waves or LIGHT waves - thus the analogy of a locomotive train whistle is very appropriate.

The only difference between galaxy redshift and cosmological redshift is that the expansion of space-time adds to the velocity of galaxies and increases the red shifting (in theory, see below).

If redshifts are quantized, then they are not moving away from us, and space-time isn’t expanding either, falsifying the BB theory.

 

[sjastro]

All redshifts refers to the fact that a source of light moving away from a fixed observer will shift to the red end of the light spectrum when filtered through a prism - whereas a source of light moving toward you will shift light to the blue end of the spectrum, and a non moving light won’t shift at all from white light.

Every mention of the shifting of light is a reference to the Doppler effect - defined as the compression or expansion of wave frequencies of a moving object relative to a fixed observer, be it SOUND waves or LIGHT waves - thus the analogy of a locomotive train whistle is very appropriate.

Here is the formula again.

If the locomotive analogy is "very appropriate" then what is the physical significance for zH and what values does it obtain for non cosmological scales?
If you want to go down this rabbit hole that's fine by me.

 

[chad kincham]

Congratulations! You've found one kind of bad science:

"Individual research over enamored with is old idea that is increasingly at odds with the piles of evidence against it and who will not give it up."

Yeah, the BB is a failed hypothesis and theory , just like abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis.

The odds of abiogenesis occurring have been calculated in many ways by many scientists, as being a higher number that the number of seconds of the purported 14 BY age of the universe.

 

[chad kincham]

So God creates cancerous tumors?

No, God gave man dominion over the earth, and man has created over 80,000 chemicals, and put carcinogens in our food, river water that tap water comes from, and in products we put on our bodies and use around the home for cleaning, etc, which makes cancer mankind’s fault, not God’s.

 

[chad kincham]

Seems you have missed the point.
I assume you are a creationist and apart from your posts being erroneous they based on a false dichotomy as pointing out the supposed errors in mainstream science does not advance the case for creationism.

No, but DNA and the anthropic/fine tuning principle does.
I’m sure you’ll see my post on that in this thread.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, but DNA and the anthropic/fine tuning principle does.
I’m sure you’ll see my post on that in this thread.

That pile of uncited plagiarism. We've heard most of that before and even had whole threads about some of the individual items. I am not impressed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Cancer is the reaction of a person or animal (pet) to negative ideas/ negative perceptions. The perception is of some possible harm. So the body builds what can be described as a protective, novel organ, a barrier . To do that the body recruits stem cells and changes them to become cancer stem cells or maybe we could call them barrier-forming stem cells. And the evidence is stark.

I'm no biologist, but that's not how cancer works. I feel quite confident in saying that mental states (negative ideas or perceptions) cause exactly zero cancers.

There is damage to cells of various origins, etc. that cause different kinds of cancers, not "bad thoughts".

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yeah, the BB is a failed hypothesis and theory , just like abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis.

The odds of abiogenesis occurring have been calculated in many ways by many scientists, as being a higher number that the number of seconds of the purported 14 BY age of the universe.

You have again seemed to have not understood my statement.

Tifft seems to have fallen into the "crank trap" by becoming over enamored with his idea (redshift quantization). This is a problem that has happened to several senior scientist that got stuck in the past and failed to integrate new data into their interpretations. On a very similar track is Halton Arp who also had weird ideas about redshift.

This type of bad science has nothing to do with the BB generally. Even if the BB theory was "bad science" it would not be a "lone crank trap" as BBT is widely accepted in astrophysics and cosmology and not the idea of a crotchety emeritus professor that no one pays attention to while the rest of the community moves on.

 

[Neogaia777]

If an object displays pure cosmological redshift it is stationary.
It is the space-time between the object and observer which is expanding.

Yes, accelerating or expanding away more or away faster the further out from wherever you are in it, is, correct...?

But how does that make sense, or can that be true...?

God Bless!