sunny23

Joined

• started 10 topics
• posted 218 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by sunny23

• 
  32

  Science and Philosephy.- God

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.

  the rest is history.

  i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sunny23

  But that example was utterly wrong. Every example you've given to demonstrate how well you understand conservation of evergy has show that you absolutely do NOT.

  I already admitted to that example not being an adequate portrayal of that Law, it was my mistake, you skipped that part apparently.

  Things that have complex structure (like hydrogen atoms) exists today that did NOT exist in the earlier universe.

  hydrogen atoms are the simplest of all elements and have existed since right after the big bang estimated 14billion years ago...

  The universe is more complex. You're admitting it and refusing to admit that you are.

  Um no, in my last post I admitted to the universe being more complex in that sense. How can I admit it and refuse to admit it after I verbally admitted how I could see the universe being more complex in the sense of converting its elements into planets? It's like you are picking a fight?

  A math professor might say that "a car engine is complex," and a mechanic might say "no, it's not, but calculus is complex." It's perspective. My perspective is that everything in the universe is simple in the sense that it all came from a few original elements and once it formed the rest of the heavier elements over time billions of years ago, it has since only rearranged them and will continue to do so according to the three quotes I posted in my last post. And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body. "Approximately 73% of the mass of the visible universe is in the form of hydrogen. Helium makes up about 25% of the mass, and everything else represents only 2%." Also, "All the stars in the universe, including the Sun, are nuclear furnaces fueled by fusion. Through fusion, stars are responsible for forming all the naturally occurring elements heavier than hydrogen and helium."

  Nothing in this post here so far is scientifically false, it is only my opinion that the information (sub-atomic matter including the original elements) I have been mentioning, has not become more complex itself, it has only rearranged. Look at apes and humans. Humans are more complex wouldn't you agree? I would say yes, except on a microscopic level I would say NO. We share 98.8% DNA with them and even that 1.2% DNA we don't share is still made up of the same subatomic particles but in a different arrangement. Thus on a sub atomic level we are not more complex than apes, just rearranged. You could even bring it a step closer and say that your thinking abilities are more complex than your twin sister with Downs Syndrome and yet she is the same as you biologically aside from a small gene sequencing disruption. When it comes to the sub atomic level you are not more complex than her. Perspective has been the crux of our convo apparently. Complexity can be applied in more than one way as you acknowledged by asking me, "I would have to question how you are defining complexity."
• 
  32

  Science and Philosephy.- God

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.

  the rest is history.

  i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sunny23

  Show one example of a galaxy that disintegrated

  I was researching black holes the other week and stumbled on something mentioning a massive black hole being observed to dismantel the small galaxy it was in but I can't find it anymore. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "disintegrate." I apologize.

  That's not at all what the law of conservation of energy says. If that were true, the total amount of stars would be zero at at given time.

  I know what the law is and I was only using the rate of formation and destruction of stars as a possible macroscopic view of the universe exhibiting the laws of conservation of energy which means that no energy is ever lost, it is only transferred elsewhere. However I acknowledge that as a bad example considering I am finding sources that say that more stars are forming than dying... "These rates also imply that per year about four solar masses of interstellar gas are converted to stars, the team said. About ten billion years into its life, the Milky Way galaxy has now converted about 90 percent of its initial gas content into stars. Star death is intricately tied to star creation because it provides the raw material --- elements strewn into interstellar space --- as well as the energy in the form of shock waves that prompts cool gas clouds to condense and form stars."-NASA

  Based on the above and following quote I could see how the universe could be seen subjectively more complex in the sense that it has convertedit's initial simple elements like hydrogen and helium into heavier elements that form eventually into planets like earth leading to other biological events, yielding planets that didn't previously exist, and life on earth.

  "Practically all of these heavy elements were formed in generations of stars: stars that lived, burned their fuel into heavier elements, died and shed their heavy, enriched elements back into the cosmos, and were incorporated into the next generations of stars and — when the heavier elements became abundant enough — rocky planets." http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/05/why-did-the-universe-start-off-with-hydrogen-helium-and-not-much-else/

  However from a microscopic view of the entire universe, the materials needed to create everything have existed from the beginning and have since been converted into different arrangements over time without loss or gain(theoretically). Everything that makes up the human body can be found in a star. We might be more complex subjectively than a star in the sense that we have consciousness for example, but one could take the view that we are just a rearrangement of materials. This is what I was getting at, subjective views of complexity. I agree that an iphone is more complex than a payphone. When looking only through a microscope though, the perspective changes. I feel I was concerned more about the microview of things and you were taking the macroview.

  “Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”
  ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
• 
  32

  Science and Philosephy.- God

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.

  the rest is history.

  i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sunny23

  Viviane, I am not trying to woo anybody and aside from the scientific laws I posted about conservation, everything else was just speculative questions to spark response. Also I think there might be misunderstanding when using the word "complex." Concerning the universe, I would use the word "complex" to describe the level of information density or essentially the amount of atoms/molecules within the universe. So I took your statement and Coded's statement to imply that the universe is constantly increasing it's contents of matter/energy. Conservation of energy apparently is accepted as fact within our earth but is only theory in the universe which I JUST learned, and is why I kept pointing out scientific law along with physical cosmology observations of stars being formed at a rate equal to their destruction (within the Milky Way), and the disentigration of galaxies, however other factors inculding acceleration of expansion leads some to theorize that the universe does NOT conserve energy. From my last post I admitted to putting my foot in my mouth when trying to insert room for a "God" where scientific unknowns exist. From my research just now it can not be proven that energy is lost and it can not be proven that new matter is coming into existence at a rate greater than old matter is disappearing in the universe. I apologize for making assumptions that earthly laws definitively apply to the universe. I'll stick to debating religious doctrines and philosophies instead of cosmologies from now on :/
• 
  2596

  The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

  by cofty in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

  we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

  they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sunny23

  In reference to bohms great analogy: Riddle me this Psacramento.
• 
  32

  Science and Philosephy.- God

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.

  the rest is history.

  i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sunny23

  What does that have to do with the formation atoms, stars, planets and life?

  Was trying to say that with formation there is equal destruction. There have been literally entire galaxies that have disintegrated. Stars form and others burn out. Some stars are devoured by black holes and spit out as gamma rays that hit the earth. Therefore the universe isn't becoming more complex, its doing the same thing it has always done since the beginning. You tried to use formation of stars to dismiss this.

  Light is 100% physical, not technically.

  You are right, i was wrong, it is visible, has energy, momentum, and gravitational field but no mass.

  I really don't believe a God exists, was trying to see what opinions and various speculations I could draw from assuming YES to your three questions, "That God is physical? No special powers? Can be destroyed?"

  I was trying to use dark matter the same way that theists have used the unknown details of Gravity to imply a God, however on further thought its no different. We see the effects of gravity everyday and just because we don't know exactly how it works doesn''t imply divine intervention and the same holds true of dark matter even though for some reason at first I thought it to be different somehow. Using the current unknowns and implying them to another even more unknown thing like a god is bad form and what Dinesh D'Souza was using. Ok so I jabbered here without thinking first, sorry, musta been hungry or something.
• 
  15

  WHO would Jesus Christ DIS-FELLOWSHIP? A look at the problem of DF-ing

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  loving and forgiving are a huge component of jesus' message to his disciples.. in answer to the question as to how many times forgiveness should be offered to an offender, jesus gave the reply, "seventy (times) seven.

  " (variously interpreted as either 77 times or a multiple of 70 times 7).. an example is given of a man who owed a considerable sum of money whose debt was forgiven.

  this man failed to forgive a much smaller debt owed to him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sunny23

  This time perhaps they just wanted to save on ink and paper

  Save 1/3 of one side of one page of text and put in several pages of color images in the back? I think conserving a miniscule amount of text was not even thought of.
• 
  32

  Science and Philosephy.- God

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.

  the rest is history.

  i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sunny23

  The formation of atoms, molecules, stars, planets, heavier elements, life.

  I thought the current consensus was that all the matter in the universe we see and feel was made right at the Big Bang. Matter is not still being created, its just transforming just like they teach us in school: energy doesn’t get created or destroyed, it only transforms or conserves (conservation of energy).

  What would that mean? That God is physical? No special powers? Can be destroyed?

  Sure, light is technically physical and many used to believe light from the sun was a phenomenon (a god or super power/miracle of sorts). Humans can manipulate matter and convert neutrons to protons. Perhaps an entity like a God could manipulate matter and energy(obeying laws) to a much greater scale than humans have the time to discover. It is speculated that outside of our universe "our" laws perhaps are different or don't exist. Maybe a God could create these laws in the first place. I'm just playing devils advocate here btw :)
• 
  32

  Science and Philosephy.- God

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.

  the rest is history.

  i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sunny23

  A second point is that the universe started out simple and and has become more complex over time (2nd law of thermodynamics). God(s) would have started out complicated (if we're talking about something that is unchanging).

  How exactly has the universe become more complex over time? Do you mean to say it has become more chaotic?

  I don't think a 50/50 possibility is a good assesment of the situation. Matter and energy are known to exist. Gods are not. It would be like me saying there is a 50/50 possibility that either the mail man delivered my mail this morning or a flying unicorn delivered it. This is completely irrational. In order to say something is "possible" you either have to have a precident or something of parallel comparison. Without that, you can't know if something is possible or not. And you certainly can't assign a 50/50 variable to it. This is a classic arguement from ignorance fallacy.

  I see what you mean and I haven't thought of it that way before. Perhaps a variable shouldn't be assigned to unknowns especially when one of the two unknowns concerns a thing (God) that is unseen by science. However to offer some counter-argument to your claim of the comparison being entirely unparallel: what if God is made up of only matter/energy?
• 
  15

  WHO would Jesus Christ DIS-FELLOWSHIP? A look at the problem of DF-ing

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  loving and forgiving are a huge component of jesus' message to his disciples.. in answer to the question as to how many times forgiveness should be offered to an offender, jesus gave the reply, "seventy (times) seven.

  " (variously interpreted as either 77 times or a multiple of 70 times 7).. an example is given of a man who owed a considerable sum of money whose debt was forgiven.

  this man failed to forgive a much smaller debt owed to him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sunny23

  John 8:7-11 says "When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”“No one, sir,” she said.“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”"

  The WT org has taken the first 11 verses of John 8 entirely out of their newest 2013 bible! My mother who is still "in," was talking to me on the phone about how distressed she was about my MS brother who has been "casting stones," at my parents for their lacking meeting attendance and cruise ship gambling. It brings her to tears frequently. I quoted John 8:6-11 and she totally agreed that my brother should be more like Jesus. Then I said that I found it weird that the NWT2013 doesn't have this scripture in it anymore. Peaked her curiosity and she is looking into it hopefully. Many tried to use this scripture in defense of DF'ing and once the WT caught wind that there are some other bible translations that ommit this story of Jesus due to it's lower level of reliability, they jumped all over taking it out to enforce their mindset further!
• 
  15

  WHO would Jesus Christ DIS-FELLOWSHIP? A look at the problem of DF-ing

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  loving and forgiving are a huge component of jesus' message to his disciples.. in answer to the question as to how many times forgiveness should be offered to an offender, jesus gave the reply, "seventy (times) seven.

  " (variously interpreted as either 77 times or a multiple of 70 times 7).. an example is given of a man who owed a considerable sum of money whose debt was forgiven.

  this man failed to forgive a much smaller debt owed to him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sunny23

  But, that isn't the only thing these feckless rascals are full of, now is it?

  

  Pecans and tootsie rolls?