[Bored chemist]

Not to change the subject, but

Then don't.

[CliveG]

Science accepts the concept of a Prime Cause.

Really? Where have you been for the last 100 years?

You may be right that science has changed its stance on this one, and now ignores the "need" for a Prime Cause.

That avoids having to deal with it as a religious argument. Before that, science saw the universe as infinite and once more that avoided the need for a Prime Cause. Having time and space possibly coming into existence at the Big Bang now requires the question of what existed before the Big Bang.

The Big Bang was proposed by a priest.     Scientists at first were worried that this supported the viewpoint of a "Creation" and it took some time for acceptance. Religion was not just stuffy Popes ruling by edict from an ivory tower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
...In his 1225 treatise De Luce (On Light), English theologian Robert Grosseteste explored the nature of matter and the cosmos. He described the birth of the universe in an explosion and the crystallization of matter to form stars and planets in a set of nested spheres around Earth.
...In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe

1225 was the time of the first proposal of a Big Bang. Do you see what insights religious people can have into the nature of the universe? 

[CliveG]

This article has further shrunk scientific gaps for gods to hide in.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/lifes-first-molecule-was-protein-not-rna-new-model-suggests-20171102/

Not at all. Quite the opposite.

It reinforces the need for an Intelligent Designer. What gave the molecules their emergent property of being able to form such complex units? It had to happen at the time of the Big Bang. Every aspect of that Bang had to be in perfect balance to get galaxies to form, to get planets to form, to get an incredible complexity of terra-forming capable of supporting the formation of proteins and RNA on this planet.

The more we know about the evolution and mechanics of life, the more amazing is the design. Which is why a number of scientists support Intelligent Design.

Note: My dyslexia and dementia are getting worse. As much as I try spell checking I still often miss bad words and grammar. I spell "of" as "fo" and "no" as "not" and "the" as "teh". And those are just the simple ones. I struggle to find words I know I want to use. I often have to do a synonym check to find them.  My logic seems intact though.

[Bored chemist]

It reinforces the need for an Intelligent Designer.

You can't "reinforce" something that's not there.

You may be right that science has changed its stance on this one, and now ignores the "need" for a Prime Cause.

That avoids having to deal with it as a religious argument.

Not at all.
They simply coppied the approach taken by religion.

You can't explain where God came from, we can't explain where the BB came from.

But if you have to pick one, Occam's razor says you should choose the simpler one.
Why do you pick the other?

1225 was the time of the first proposal of a Big Bang. Do you see what insights religious people can have into the nature of the universe?

Yes, just as soon as they stop searching in a dusty old book, and start doing science.

So, why are you seeking to encourage the unproductive effort?

What gave the molecules their emergent property of being able to form such complex units?

The 4 fundamental forces, QM, and relativity.

You could print the whole lot on a t shirt.

Yet you seem to think that a God is the simple answer.

Don't you understand that if a universe is too complicated to happen without a designer, then to an infinitely greater extent, a God is also too complicated?

[jerrygg38]

Naked 4.25.2020 8 am
David Willams asks: Why hasn't science been able to prove the existence of God? I was A2A on a question about turning into an atheist at 13 years of age. It bothered me deeply and I came to question my own beliefs. I'm at a crossroad. Help me through logical answers.
GG: Science is still marching forward. We have come a long way but we are only exploring higher dimensions. The underlying structure of the universe in my Dot-wave theory is a higher light speed dimension. Science depends upon verification and measurements. Our instruments operate at light speed Co. Einstein’s space time is a best fit mathematical solution.
   Yet in the not too far future science will produce light speed Cs sensors. This is difficult to do but it will be done. The world of science will then be expanded. We well be able to pick up the spiritual dimension and see the spiritual mind within all of us. Then God will be self-evident.
   Until that future time we are left with the inability to prove the existence of God by measurements. All we have are encounters between many different people and the spiritual world. I am one who has had a lifetime of encounters. So I study God and the Universe from the information I obtain from encounters and subsequent dreams.
  My God is different It is a natural God that is part of the Darwinian process. It will produce future man out of us. Then we need the Fifth dimension as the means by  which the product of lower man will become higher man upon a new Earth. Religion enables the spirits within us to become part of God and future man.
   Is this true? The encounters of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus happened. The prophets of the Bible and other holy books happened. Yet the Bible is mythological and not scientific. Should we believe it? My God tells me that it is spiritually true. It could not be scientifically true because the natural God is an evolved God and the intelligence of the natural God depends upon the intelligence of man at the time.
  Jesus says that the stars fall from the sky. This what man believed at that time. As the intelligence level of man evolves the intelligence of God evolves as well. You cannot separate man and the natural God. Our God is merely a higher level of ourselves. Anyway believe it or not my God told me “I evolved” .
  The Biblical writers believed that God created the universe. The truth is that the universe created God. In time man will come to understand that.

[CliveG]

God helps me because I was challenged by a skeptic to give scientific papers which prompted me to do some work. In trying to find the best 5 papers, I was re-organising and re-reading some material I had. That prompted me to Google some of the sources and people to see what would come up.

And through skimming and noticing little references that seemed interesting I came up with a couple of what I found. The first one does the mathematics on standing waves which I mentioned, and references Dr Palls work on calcium ion channels.

The first one was this one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914.pdf
Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity Dimitris J. J. Panagopoulos.
...A large and increasing number of studies during the past few decades have indicated a variety of adverse biological effects to be triggered by exposure to man-made EMFs, especially of radio frequency (RF)/microwaves, and extremely low frequency (ELF). The recorded biological effects range from alterations in the synthesis rates and intracellular concentrations of different biomolecules, to DNA and protein damage, which may result in cell death, reproductive declines, or even cancer. Under the weight of this evidence the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified both ELF magnetic fields and RF EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans. The intensities of radiation and durations of exposure in all these studies were significantly smaller than those of corresponding exposures from natural EMFs in the terrestrial environment. Moreover, the field intensities applied in the studies were several orders of magnitude smaller than physiological fields in cell membranes, or fields generated by nerve and muscle excitations.
...As is evident from the described mechanism, the field does not gate the channel by forces exerted directly on the channel sensors. It would take a field on the order of the transmembrane field (106–107 V/m) for that. It is the mediation of the oscillating free ions in close proximity to the S4 channel sensors that allows such weak fields to be able to exert the necessary forces to gate the channel.Thus, ELF electric fields emitted by mobile phones and base stations stronger than 0.0004 V/m are also potentially able to disrupt the function of any living cell. This ELF intensity value is emitted by regular cell phones at distances up to a few meters and base stations at distances up to a few hundred meters. For N number of mobile telephony antennas vertically oriented, the last value is divided by N (according to Eq. 19) at locations of constructive interference.


I also came across this 2020 article on EHS which is a scientific paper on the symptoms and the field strengths/durations I listed as personal observations - and also references the fact that my underlying histoplasmosis issues probably make me more sensitive. It shows the scientific tests that are available that I was not aware of (I will give this one to my GP and my neurologist). Note the debunking of psychosomatic and nocebo myths.

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/6/1915
Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It
...Altogether, these data strongly suggest that EHS is a neurologic
pathological disorder which can be diagnosed, treated, and prevented. Because EHS is becoming a new insidious worldwide plague involving millions of people, we ask the World Health Organization (WHO) to include EHS as a neurologic disorder in the international classification of diseases.
...Symptoms in patients with EHS were compared with those from a series of apparently healthy control subjects that showed no clinical evidence of EHS and/or MCS. As indicated in the table, EHS is characterized by the occurrence of neurologic symptoms including headache, tinnitus, hyperacusis, dizziness, balance disorder, superficial and/or deep sensibility abnormalities, fibromyalgia, vegetative nerve dysfunction, and reduced cognitive capability, including immediate memory loss, attention–concentration deficiency, and eventually tempo-spatial confusion. These symptoms were associated with chronic insomnia, fatigue, and depressive tendency, in addition to emotional lability and sometimes irritability. A major observation is that symptoms were repeatedly reported by the patients to occur each time they reported being exposed to presumably EMF sources, even of weak intensity, and to regress or even disappear after they left these presumed sources. With the exception of arthralgia and emotivity, which were observed at a similar frequency range in the control group, all clinical symptoms occurring in EHS patients were found to be significantly much more frequent than those in apparently normal controls.
...On the basis of previously published experimental data, we selected and identified several biomarkers in the peripheral blood and urine of EHS and/or MCS patients which can allow physicians to objectively characterize EHS and MCS as true somatic pathological disorders, discounting the hypothesis that EHS and MCS could be caused by a psychosomatic or nocebo-related process.


But the die-hards on this forum will no doubt reach deep to discredit these so that they can discredit me. Here is a example of my predictions starting to be supported by science. I was 12 months ahead of reading this article.

[Bored chemist]

So, IARC can't prove a negative, and WHO have been asked to classify something.

Did you think you had a point?

[RD]

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/6/1915
Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies

[Bored chemist]

So, IARC can't prove a negative, and WHO have been asked [ by a bunch of nutters] to classify something.

Did you think you had a point?

[alancalverd]

What gave the molecules their emergent property of being able to form such complex units?

Schrodinger.

[alancalverd]

1225 was the time of the first proposal of a Big Bang. Do you see what insights religious people can have into the nature of the universe?

Yes indeed. Grosseteste described the geocentric universe that pretty well everyone else wrongly assumed. Religious folk burned Bruno and forced Galileo to recant for telling the truth. Insights my arse. More like a holy sigmascope.

The term Big Bang was first proposed as an insult, by Fred Hoyle, one of the great atheists of the Sixties. Funny how it has been appropriated by the religiosi. I have no idea of the religious proclivities of Penzias and Wilson, but they didn't find evidence consistent with a Big Bang through prayer, more through persistent disbelief.

[CliveG]

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/6/1915
Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies

Does being a non-mainstream site discredit the article? What about the other article? It has been 26 years since Henry Lai (working for Motorola at the time) showed that cell microwave caused DNA damage. How long can the Telco's suppress the science? I would say quite a long time with the help of various critics as I am seeing on this forum. Hence the silent electrosmog plague will not be stopped until too late. However, the blow-back will be massive when the populace realize how they were duped.

It does indicate that I am not some lone wacko.

The previous articles had good references. You can follow them if you have the interest and the time.

You have to ask why none of these get traction in the popular press. They are certain more sensational than aliens.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...991?via%3Dihub
...The number of studies showing adverse effects on living organisms induced by different types of man-made Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) has increased tremendously. Hundreds of peer reviewed published studies show a variety of effects, the most important being DNA damage which is linked to cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, reproductive declines etc

[CliveG]

What gave the molecules their emergent property of being able to form such complex units?

Schrodinger.

Is he dead or alive?

[CliveG]

So, IARC can't prove a negative, and WHO have been asked to classify something.

Did you think you had a point?

These are proving positives (among the many studies being done). Do you think you had a point with silly statements?

Please take issue with specifics in the articles.

[CliveG]

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/6/1915
Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies

It is a jungle out there - and main stream media are clearly seen to have bias and opinion. Choose which one you want. CNN or Fox News for example. The science world also has issues. They play favorites and succumb to industry pressure. Money and funding drives nearly all of them, and upsetting (directly or indirectly) a source of funding is avoided. Telcos and their lobbies are among the most powerful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Beall
Phil Davis, in an analysis of the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? sting operation, observed that "Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher' on appearances alone." He continued to say that Beall "should reconsider listing publishers on his 'predatory' list until he has evidence of wrongdoing. Being mislabeled as a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory publisher' by circumstantial evidence alone is like the sheriff of a Wild West town throwing a cowboy into jail just 'cuz he's a little funny lookin.' Civility requires due process."

[duffyd]

1225 was the time of the first proposal of a Big Bang. Do you see what insights religious people can have into the nature of the universe?

Yes indeed. Grosseteste described the geocentric universe that pretty well everyone else wrongly assumed. Religious folk burned Bruno and forced Galileo to recant for telling the truth. Insights my arse. More like a holy sigmascope.

The term Big Bang was first proposed as an insult, by Fred Hoyle, one of the great atheists of the Sixties. Funny how it has been appropriated by the religiosi. I have no idea of the religious proclivities of Penzias and Wilson, but they didn't find evidence consistent with a Big Bang through prayer, more through persistent disbelief.

How did you do it? Singlehandedly, apparently, you came up with the perfect argument to dismiss Christianity. Wow. Congratulations!
Now, when was the N.T. written? No. It wasn't in the 200s or the 300s or the 900s or the 12 billions. Guess again.
BTW, when you get around to it, tell us who JESUS CHRIST was/is--besides being a nice guy who got whacked by the Romans. Or, is that the best you've got?
You see, your attempts to run from Christ don't work. Nobody who knows anything believes your utter nonsense, including you and you know that. Being cute doesn't block the pain, either, does it? You don't spend a great deal of your limited, precious time remaining, getting your kicks from mocking Moses or Abe or Dave or Santa? I wonder why?
He's called the Hound of Heaven for a reason. He's right on your tail, bro. Good luck.

[Bored chemist]

Please take issue with specifics in the articles.

It does not matter what the specifics of the articles say.
The outcomes are that IARC has not said that it's a carcinogen and WHO hasn't said that electrosensitivity is real.
Did you think you were making some other point?

I had a look at the abstract which says "80% of the patients with EHS present with one, two, or three detectable oxidative stress biomarkers in their peripheral blood, meaning that overall these patients present with a true objective somatic disorder. "

Which simply isn't true.
Oxidative stress biomarkers can be a sign of psychological stress, and are thus  perfectly consistent with  a psychosomatic origin for the conditions.

Any proper peer review would have stopped such an obvious falsehood getting published.

And that's why you shouldn't take non-mainstream publications at face value.

It does indicate that I am not some lone wacko.

It is true; we never have a wacko shortage.

[Bored chemist]

Now, when was the N.T. written? No. It wasn't in the 200s or the 300s or the 900s or the 12 billions.

Instead of messing about telling us when it wasn't written, why not nail your colours to the mast and tell us when you think it was written?

[Colin2B]

It is a jungle out there - and main stream media are clearly seen to have bias and opinion. Choose which one you want. CNN or Fox News for example. "......"...........

Clive, this series of posts appear to be off topic, can we bring the thread back to the main question rather than running 2 threads.
Thanks

[alancalverd]

tell us who JESUS CHRIST was/is--besides being a nice guy who got whacked by the Romans. Or, is that the best you've got?

It's what your bible says, and I have no reason to doubt it. But this argument belongs in a different thread.