Posts by Viviane

4

October 4/5 2014 - Armageddon date!

by abbasgreta in

my mother has waived her shunning of me as she is seriously ill. her elders have classed the situation as a 'dire family circumstance' and.

all restrictions have been lifted.

some crazy hypocritical reasonings on the elder's part but who cares?

Viviane

JWs are the master of "Free beer tomorrow" to keep people hanging on.

59

Want to make Money $ with a Web Site?

by sarahsmile in

has anyone had success with a high traffic website or blog ?.

it might take a team of people to accomplish.. ads pay and people count, lots and lots of people.

does jehovahs-witness.net make money every time someone looks at the web site?

Here's the reality. Simon maintains a site people want to look at. That costs time and money. Ads are a way to recoup the overhead. If enough people want to look, so much so that he's making money on this rather than just covering expenses, so what?

5

Do you have Chromecast?

by Iamallcool in

jw
friends

if you do have chromecast, are there any cool apps that you like?

i was wondering can i get text messages on chromecast?.

Viviane

I do, i use itnfor Netflix and streaming from a browser, mostly. I also have an Amazon fire TV. It works great.

32

Science and Philosephy.- God

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

jw
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.. .

Viviane

The phrase i said "sub-atomic matter including the original elements," was a list. I was listing the two for the purpose of over-emphasis. I was not trying to say that sub-atomic matter is made up of elements. I should have put a comma between them or just typed elements first to keep from mis-leading.

As I said, it was wrong.

Thats a seperate topic from the original statement within the post I said that nothing was false which only referenced the scientific quotes I used with that single post.

It's extremely relevant. You keep making claims and keep being wrong (and admitting it) and yet try to claim you've not said anything false. At the very least it speaks volumes about your understanding what you're writing.

I did, all of the elements in the human body can be found in stars whether they are small stars, large stars, or supernovae. I previously said "Everything that makes up the human body can be found in a star." You denied it, please tell me which elements viviane, I must be overlooking them.

But that wasn't your claim. Again, this goes directly to whether or not you understand what you are writing.

Your specific claim was, in fact "And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body", not simply that they can be found in stars. So, the claim that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in the human body is untrue. Stars don't create hydrogen. They are MADE from hydrogen. Hydrogen can be dispersed from stars exploding, but the hydrogen was the thing that formed the star in the first place.

11

How many anointed disciples were in the 1st Lord's Meal?

by hardtobeme in

according to the bible, none... all 12 partook of the emblems.

jesus told them to partake even thought they were not anointed with holy spirit yet.

they were anointed at pentecost.... and judas was present too according to luke 22:21.. watchtower says that luke's chronological order is wrong.

Viviane

Because the gospels disagree with each other on several things (the tomb, the last supper, etc.), Christians, including JWs, are forced to to an interesting thing. Not only do they declare each gospel right AND wrong, they synthesize them to create a 4th narrative not found in any of the books!

If we see people doing that today, why are we surpised at all it happened back then? Basically, making it up as you go...

47

The Illusion of Superiority

by Coded Logic in

after reading dozens and dozens of posts and hundreds of comments, it seems to me that a great many people on this forum think that since they figured out ttatt, they must therefore be a highly intelligent and incredibly rational individual.

let me take a moment to congratulate everyone.

its a big step to figure this out - i know.. that said, it doesn't make you a genius!

Viviane

Sorry to say this but you have made a sweeping generalisation about how arrogant some seem then you come across as arrogant yourself.

Well worded, sir. I know I often come across as a critical bitch. That's because I am. I just try not to be critical outside of my level of knowledge.

32

Science and Philosephy.- God

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

jw
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.. .

Viviane

You were talking about the very beginning before matter and molecules existed and I was talking about matter and molecules after they initially came into existence after the big bang and after helium and hydrogen were around before stars up until now...

Wrong again on two counts. I wasn't talking about pre-Big Bang (since no one knows what was before) and helium didn't appear until after the first starts. Helium is formed in nuclear fusion inside of stars.

Ummm what did I say about hydrogen that was scientifically wrong?. We obviously were not on the same page in time of the universe. I never said that the first particles to come into existence right at the big bang didn't add complexity. I have been speaking from a post-bang perspective the whole time, nice try though.

That's exactly what you've been saying. Pretending anyone ever said anything about pre-Big Bang until you literally just decided to throw it in is either a monmumental lack of understanding of anything you've talked about or outright dishonesty. As you said, nice try, though. (And you said plenty wrong about hydrogen. If you want to know what, just re-read my posts).

A misread into my statement.

I literally quoted you. A misread was literally impossible. You were wrong, end of story.

I was refering to the scientific claims within that one post up until that point and that still holds true.

It is very true you havemade several false statement and admitted them yet, perversely, somehow claim you still know what you are talking about, all evidence to the contrary.

Which elements in our body aren't released from stars? I'm eager to learn so please enlighten me. See what I did there, with light in enlighten, in a science/philosophy thread about stars hehe.

Google and wikipedia would be an excellent first step. Coursera has some fantastic classes.

I have been using the word information to mean the smallest building blocks of matter.

OK. Explain how that is information. What does that mean and why, what are the implications?

I felt I made it clear that two objects could be considered where one can be viewed as more complex MEANING "intricate" in capabilities or appearance than the other and yet they are identical on an atomic scale and atomically are not more complex or INTRICATE than the other in composition.

But they aren't identical on atomic scale. Your analogy contains a self-nullifying contradcition. Either they are identical or they aren't. Which is it? Either way you just admitted that complexity exist, you just don't want to admit it.

There, I more clearly defined it and gave two "senses" in which "complexity" can be applied.

Not at all. One was a contradiction to itself and the other said "it exists but not really, sort of, but no.". You've still not said what it is.

However is that more intricate appearing snowflake more complex in atomic composition yes or no? If you say "no," as you should, then there is a simple example where something is more complex in one sense, but isn't more complex in another sense.

Why should I say no? Why does atomic composition enter into it? How do you know one is not more complex on an atomic scale (BTW, that questions admits there is complexity on an atomic scale, did you realise that?), how you know one is not either more or less complex on both scales?

You've still not given a definition by which one can measure intricacy (nice attempt to bait and switch, BTW) OR complexity, you've not defined why atomic structures enter into it once we are past the atomic scale, not said how you could ever show things are equal on an atomic scale and you've introduced a contradiction into your attempt at a definition (things are not the same in complexity but they are the same).

As it stands, you are all over the place and no closer to an answer. You've asserted a position and are telling people what they should say, but giving arguments full of holes and contradictions. You've all your work ahead of you.

The atoms complexity is not affected.

Things exist at larger scale than the atomic. In any event, some atoms are more complex than others.

This thread is titled "science and philosophy" so its expected to contain abstract ideas and applications.

Then you should expect your ideas to be scrutinized to the highest degree.

I also, now due to your close criticism of my statements (which i respect and appreciate), have been trying to make sure not to state anything scientifically false and I don't believe I have in the last two posts I made previously unless you can teach me what elements that compose the human body are not emitted by stars when I said, "And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body."

Literally 10 seconds with google will show you.

If i'm not wrong on that then everything else I said over the previous two posts falls under philosophy-perspective, and opinion :)

All opinion is not equal. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. And you were wrong on that.

32

Science and Philosephy.- God

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

jw
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.. .

Viviane

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

No, I didn't. I just felt it was important to remember because...

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

... they HAVE existed since AFTER the Big Bang. Prior to atomic formation there were just particles. Then atoms, then stars, molecules, etc... so on andso forth. By your very own offered evidence the universe started out with less complex form and now we have, according to you, MORE complex forms. I just wanted to retain your admission of you not understanding what you wrote several times over so that, when you once again didn't understand what you wrote, we would your own words showing you're not really grasping what you write.

I would be sorry if that seems harsh, but I'm not. Once you decide to take up the mantle of science, it's a brutal and harsh world.

Um no, in my last post I admitted to the universe being more complex in that sense.

The problem is you refuse to define what you mean by "complex" in anything other than an ever moving, ever changing sense that you re-define once you get backed into a corner. Just what exactly do you mean by complex?

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?

This isn't a fight, not even close, first of all. Secondly, you admit it, in a sense, without ever telling us what you are really meaning. It's all weasel words.

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.

Which, once again, doesn't do anything to tell us what you mean by complex. What, specifically, do you mean? "It's perspective" is a spectacularly grand example of wharrgble, nonsense, a meaningless thoughtless phrase.

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.

Which still doesn't in the slightest tell us what you mean by "complex" since, by that definition, NOTHING EVER IN THE WHOLE OF EXISTENCE could EVER be complex. You've defined it, inadverdently I think, because you clearly didn't think it through, as something that doesn't and can't exist, as a nonsensical and nonexistant thing. Yet, and here's the interesting bit, you repeatedly admit it exists!

Quoting things you clearly don't understand doesn't bolster your case, it simply shows you've not a clue about the things you talk about.

And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body.

Demonstate exactly WHY that is relevant. Define "complex", connect the dots and show me why that quote demonstates there is no complexity. Be specific. I'll give you a start... you're wrong. Someof the elements in ahuman body come from other places that exploding stars. Be sure to include in your example why that is so, also, since it is easily and clearly proven wrong.

Nothing in this post here so far is scientifically false

Clearly you must mean "nothing is false other than the several things I have recently admitted to being wrong about".

it is only my opinion that the information (sub-atomic matter including the original elements

What do you mean by "information"? Also, you have it exactly backwards. Elements include sub-atomic matter, not the other way around. That can go on the list of things you were scientifically wrong about.

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.

So things are not more complex, but they are? This is why you need to 1) get a good science education and 2) define what you mean by complex and information. You contradict yourself in one sentence.

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."

The issue is that you have been wrong wrong wrong multiple times over and yet, despite that, insist that you are somehow right while refusing to explain what you mean. I didn't acknowledge anything, I asked what you meant and you have thus far refused to say. Of course the word "complexity" can have many meanings, only a fool would deny that.

Which makes me wonder why you will not say in what sense you mean it.

20

144,000 New Light update

by goingthruthemotions in

i updated the list of partakers to 2013 (see below)...if i was to predict as to what new light might be coming down the borg poop shoot may be.

i would predict that they need to do something about the 144,000 being a literal number.. for two reasons:.

1. the number of partakers is increasing every year.

Viviane

Am I to believe the special pioneers and missionaries and TO's get that kind of cost of living over 10 years?

FYI, that's actually 21 years.

32

Science and Philosephy.- God

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

jw
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.. .

Viviane

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.

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.

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.

This that have complex structure (like hydrogen atoms) exists today that did NOT exist in the earlier universe. The universe is more complex. You're admitting it and refusing to admit that you are.

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).

What does that have to do with complexity? Are you suggesting life is NOT more complex that particles that exist independantly of each other? That stars are have equal complexity to a hydrogen atom or an electron? I would have to question how you are defining complexity. You already tried to make some vague claims about information and, when questioned on it, never re-visited the topic.

What do you mean by complexity and information?

This is what I was getting at, subjective views of complexity. I agree that an iphone is more complex than a payphone.

So the universe is more complex than in the past.

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.

Why? Give a specific example. Are you suggesting thata multi-cellular organism is equally complex to a single cell? That a single cell organism is equally as complex as a dihydrogen monoxid molecule? That a neon atom is equally as complex as an electron? Give an example and be specific.

Quoting Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't even come close to addressing your comments. It's not even on topic. Just for fun, here is another OT NDT quote: "Just an FYI: "Thursday the 12th" is just as rare as "Friday the 13th"."