Strange

As I say, just pointless wishful thinking. "If physics were different then we wouldn't have as much cancer." But if physics were that different, we probably wouldn't exist.

Reported.

Can you explain how they are related?

Evolution by natural selection. As identified by Wallace and Darwin, and refined since then. And, to make it worse, if there were an environment rich in all the chemicals for life, it would be rapidly filled by organisms feeding on that "soup" and preventing any chance of abiogenesis.

Most objects don't have a resonance frequency. They might have several frequencies that they will absorb, or vibrate at. Or none.

Nature could be different. But it isn't this is not a flaw in physics, it is just wishful thinking. That has nothing to do with physics, though.

Dark matter only becomes significant when you look at the orbits of stars within galaxies, and galaxies within clusters. There is too little in the solar system to have any measurable effect.

In other words, you believe in god because you believe in god. And I know you are mistaken because god is a She not a He.

There are lots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil#Examples I think that if there were none, it would be a bigger problem for evolution.

That is like saying that science shouldn't use the word "field" (as in electromagnetic field) because there is no grass in it. Words have a range of meanings, not just one. Get over it.

Or poor writing.

But rational thought leads me to the conclusion that your god does not exist. So there is nothing to glorify. The same is true of all the other gods in other religions, so don't feel you are being treated unfairly.

That sounds like a good thing, rather than a sin. Why did your god make us rational if we weren't supposed to use rational thought?

No, I'm just saying you are criticising the scientific concept of "universe from nothing" by using a different meaning for "nothing". Science doesn't say that the universe could have come from "absolutely nothing at all" but from a quantum (false) vacuum state.

Yes. That is pretty much the definition of a straw man argument.

That sounds like a straw man argument: you are saying that something cannot come from your definition of nothing, even if it can from that used by the scientists. But I doubt any scientists are using your personal definition of nothingness.

This is an interesting question and probably deserves its own thread. Interestingly, this paper says "the development of various therapeutic radiation treatments over the recent decades represents another major cause for the increase in the thyroidal cancer incidence in the United States." That's a real double-edged sword. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165831/

That all seems irrelevant to the question. I was not asking about radioactive decay paths. Ah. I assumed it was a more general claim about cancer generally. I have only found one paper that suggest there might be such a link. I'm sure there are others. But it doesn't seem a huge effect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3865880/

Sorry, I see no data. Please provide a source. Or are you saying (rather like the metaphor of the Fall from the Garden of Eden) that there was no radiation in the world before then?

IF the universe were to collapse to a singularity, that would not be a black hole. A black hole is a concentration of mass in one place. If the universe were to collapse again, it would still contain a roughly uniform distribution of mass.

"Tremendously"? Got any data to support that?

If the evidence showed that the universe had really come from nothing so it was not an "assumption" would you still refuse to accept it? Many things that were once considered "absurd" turned out to be correct. (Continental drift, for example.)

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

Only the Evil Ones!