Evidence for God from Science

Mazzy wrote: As far as the thread topic is concerned what is currently called 'science' in relation to the universe and how mankind came to be is not science at all, as you indicated. What is often argued to be science that only the ignorant would challenge, is no more than a faith that is pushed onto others as almost irrefuteable in essence. The sad fact is that current models often do not meet expected predictability. The current scientific method is a crock as evidenced by a rubbish bin full of falsified 'empirical evidence'. The holy grail of this so called science, is to reduce the earth and mankind to nothing of significance.

Mazzy wrote:What is observed and does not need models and theories is that there are galaxies all around us as if our galaxy is a cenrtral view point.

Mazzy wrote:No galaxy has disappeared out of sight although theorized to be expanding away from the Milky Way faster than the speed of light.

Mazzy wrote:Despite bucket loads of statistics there is no sign of single celled life anywhere, let alone any evidence of intelligent life elsewhere to date. There are bucket loads of contrived reasons as to life has not been found, no sound heard by SETI, no life on Mars. To date, what is observed is that the earth is special. Mankind is special and the only species wishing to make sense of the universe.

Mazzy wrote:In other words if the theory claimed is that 'earth and mankind are special', then what is observed and what has been found with the exploration done so far, supports this claim. There is no solid evidence to contradict this claim and all that has been observed is supportive of this claim.

Supporting or even one day proving the earth and mankind are special, which for atheists would take exploration of every single galaxy in the entire universe, may not 'prove' there is a God. Even then, atheists would lodge long winded arguments as to why no life has been found. However finding mankind and earth to be special goes a long way in progressing a strong argument that such co-incidence is unlikely if there is no Creator.

1over137 wrote:

Mazzy wrote: As far as the thread topic is concerned what is currently called 'science' in relation to the universe and how mankind came to be is not science at all, as you indicated. What is often argued to be science that only the ignorant would challenge, is no more than a faith that is pushed onto others as almost irrefuteable in essence. The sad fact is that current models often do not meet expected predictability. The current scientific method is a crock as evidenced by a rubbish bin full of falsified 'empirical evidence'. The holy grail of this so called science, is to reduce the earth and mankind to nothing of significance.

Holy grail of science is to understand the universe. Some scientists may produce 'rubbish' but I would not paint with a broad brush. Not all scientists are anti-scientists.

Mazzy wrote:What is observed and does not need models and theories is that there are galaxies all around us as if our galaxy is a cenrtral view point.

It may appear that we are in centre but it may appear from other galaxies as well.

Mazzy wrote:No galaxy has disappeared out of sight although theorized to be expanding away from the Milky Way faster than the speed of light.

How we can see it disappear once we see it? We would see coming light in more reddish spectrum. Or not?

Mazzy wrote:Despite bucket loads of statistics there is no sign of single celled life anywhere, let alone any evidence of intelligent life elsewhere to date. There are bucket loads of contrived reasons as to life has not been found, no sound heard by SETI, no life on Mars. To date, what is observed is that the earth is special. Mankind is special and the only species wishing to make sense of the universe.

Do we have bucket loads of statistic? How many stars are there and how many we examined?

Mazzy wrote:In other words if the theory claimed is that 'earth and mankind are special', then what is observed and what has been found with the exploration done so far, supports this claim. There is no solid evidence to contradict this claim and all that has been observed is supportive of this claim.

Supporting or even one day proving the earth and mankind are special, which for atheists would take exploration of every single galaxy in the entire universe, may not 'prove' there is a God. Even then, atheists would lodge long winded arguments as to why no life has been found. However finding mankind and earth to be special goes a long way in progressing a strong argument that such co-incidence is unlikely if there is no Creator.

One day more scientists may realize God created the universe.

Mazzy wrote:Look Morny, I think the problem is that because you never respond to the information I present, I skim some of your posts and hardly read them.

Yes, on looking back I can see that you were going on about whatever, but never made a statement about the Milky Way having a centre.

Mazzy wrote:The point being Morny, redshift measurements mean absolutely nothing, as per my post above!

Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have produced no evidence of quantization in excess of what is expected due to galaxy clustering, and consequently most cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to the distribution of galaxies across voids and filaments.

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote:Look Morny, I think the problem is that because you never respond to the information I present, I skim some of your posts and hardly read them.

Yes, on looking back I can see that you were going on about whatever, but never made a statement about the Milky Way having a centre.

Got it. Taking the time to understand whatever I was "going on about" seems like a waste of time. I hear that a lot.

A previous post of mine went "on about" the very tentative nature of Temple Smoller from top physicists. Maybe you skimmed that also? See http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p157139.

Mazzy wrote:The point being Morny, redshift measurements mean absolutely nothing, as per my post above!

Even your redshift quantization data seems questionable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization:

Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have produced no evidence of quantization in excess of what is expected due to galaxy clustering, and consequently most cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to the distribution of galaxies across voids and filaments.

It doesn't matter if you can quote other work that speak to the bluster of the majority. The work I posted demonstrates scientists have no clue what they are talking about. It is that simple and if you believe what they say then you have faith and good for you. The myth of using redshift to define the universe is also based on the age of universe which is just anyother myhtical wishlist they wish they knew.

Ther eason why there is so much published that goes agains Big Bang and what is used to support it is that many well credentialled scientists don't believe such a far fetched dogma.

All the above material points out serious specific problems with what you have been espousing. Address those specific problems with specific counter-evidence, before so confidently claiming you have toppled modern cosmology.

1over137 wrote:I will get back to you in a week maybe. Bosses are coming to work and then we have team building. Until then, have nice week.

Mazzy wrote:It doesn't matter if you can quote other work that speak to the bluster of the majority. [...] I don't much care what a bunch of scientists have to say about other researchers that falsify their own work.

neo-x wrote:For once I agree with Morny. Mazzy your copy pasting of professional anecdotes really don't prove anything. We know there are problems to be solved but that does not mean everything else we know is just arbitrary as well.

To be honest with you, I have no trouble with Milky way being the center of the universe, the problem I have is with the reasons you are try to achieve that conclusion. Glactocentracity proves nothing, and also has zero weight in the theology department.

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote:It doesn't matter if you can quote other work that speak to the bluster of the majority. [...] I don't much care what a bunch of scientists have to say about other researchers that falsify their own work.

I agree, which is why I rely on evidence.

In 1973, Tifft reported redshift clustering/periodicity. In the 1990's a few other researchers reported similar possible redshift anomalies.

_After_ those reports, starting at the end of the 1990's, the number of measured galaxy redshifts increased by several orders of magnitude. With the vastly larger and higher quality data, new redshift studies no longer found those redshift anomalies you endlessly bring up. One study even found selection bias in those earlier studies that _did_ find redshift anomalies.

So were all the investigators after the end of the 1990's lying? Biased against God creating a Milky Way centric universe? Using flawed statistics? Stupid? Or my new personal favorite, "going on about whatever"?

Mazzy wrote:

neo-x wrote:For once I agree with Morny. Mazzy your copy pasting of professional anecdotes really don't prove anything. We know there are problems to be solved but that does not mean everything else we know is just arbitrary as well.

To be honest with you, I have no trouble with Milky way being the center of the universe, the problem I have is with the reasons you are try to achieve that conclusion. Glactocentracity proves nothing, and also has zero weight in the theology department.

Again I restate, your belief in Big Bang can be no more than a basis of faith. There are too many things wrong with the theory and I have posted some of them. These contradictions are not simply creationist antics, they are profound concerns that bring BB and the understanding of redshift into question.

Big Bang is the best they have to offer. Therefore it does not matter when contradictions or straight out falsifications come to light. Just like TOE, scientists wave their hands and think "Oh well, BB must be true, so we'll work it out one day".

Good for you and Morny if you both have faith in BB. I hear you both clearly. I have faith in the Milky Way being the centre of the universe and having been restored to our favoured position. Your problem would be you can't prove your faith any more than I can mine. Even Hubble was disturbed with his own observations and their indication that we are central within the universe, so I don't blame you for your faith. Just don't call it 'science', as if you have an irrefuteable claim because you most certainly do not. Neither does majority opinion have any validity given majority opinion did not profess an accelerating universe a mere 15 years ago.

Here is yet another, of a plethora, that contradicts the current status quo.

Our Sun demonstrates redshift, yet is not expanding away from us. There have been many flavours of the month that have tried to offer complicated rhetoric to resolve the dilemma, to no avail to date.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1960MNRAS.121..421H

In discussing 'science and religion' one needs to take care what one is basing their faith on, and if indeed the 'empirical' evidence of the day, has any credibility to argue any case from.

One cannot argue what is observed. What is observed is galaxies all around us that continue to shine and do not appear to be disappearing with distance (let alone faster than the speed of light) as prophesisied by the intelligencia.

neo-x wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

neo-x wrote:For once I agree with Morny. Mazzy your copy pasting of professional anecdotes really don't prove anything. We know there are problems to be solved but that does not mean everything else we know is just arbitrary as well.

To be honest with you, I have no trouble with Milky way being the center of the universe, the problem I have is with the reasons you are try to achieve that conclusion. Glactocentracity proves nothing, and also has zero weight in the theology department.

Again I restate, your belief in Big Bang can be no more than a basis of faith. There are too many things wrong with the theory and I have posted some of them. These contradictions are not simply creationist antics, they are profound concerns that bring BB and the understanding of redshift into question.

Big Bang is the best they have to offer. Therefore it does not matter when contradictions or straight out falsifications come to light. Just like TOE, scientists wave their hands and think "Oh well, BB must be true, so we'll work it out one day".

Good for you and Morny if you both have faith in BB. I hear you both clearly. I have faith in the Milky Way being the centre of the universe and having been restored to our favoured position. Your problem would be you can't prove your faith any more than I can mine. Even Hubble was disturbed with his own observations and their indication that we are central within the universe, so I don't blame you for your faith. Just don't call it 'science', as if you have an irrefuteable claim because you most certainly do not. Neither does majority opinion have any validity given majority opinion did not profess an accelerating universe a mere 15 years ago.

Here is yet another, of a plethora, that contradicts the current status quo.

Our Sun demonstrates redshift, yet is not expanding away from us. There have been many flavours of the month that have tried to offer complicated rhetoric to resolve the dilemma, to no avail to date.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1960MNRAS.121..421H

In discussing 'science and religion' one needs to take care what one is basing their faith on, and if indeed the 'empirical' evidence of the day, has any credibility to argue any case from.

One cannot argue what is observed. What is observed is galaxies all around us that continue to shine and do not appear to be disappearing with distance (let alone faster than the speed of light) as prophesisied by the intelligencia.

You are quoting a journal that was published nearly 6 decades ago? Do you know how much has changed since then?

Galaxies are moving faster and further away, dimming the further they go. Your lack of admittance of such facts are troubling. And it is now my firm conclusion that you are not up to date with the research. And probably do not know the subject matter as is understood.

I think you should study modern cosmology.

neo-x wrote:As usual there's nothing of any value in this. Carry on. I tried to show you but you are more interested in your own beliefs rather than science.