how can you tell? is it because the whiteman didn't teach the teacher that taught or he didn't know? without the sun, the planet won't spin in its axis, thus their won't be time. There are trillions upon trillions of people steaming this universe. if one were to put the universe on a table, with the best microscope that is not yet invented, One would not see the earth.
according to the op, he said the sun sustains life (which is true), but should not be worshipped(very correct).

Royver:

But it is not being in orbit that sustains life now is it? else mercury, venus, mars, jupiter etc would have been overpopulated with wildlife. there are millions of planets in orbit around millions of suns and yet not one of them have been able to show a sign of life so far.


the OPs argument is flawed from the beginning. No need to argue it.

plaetton:


That is very funny. That the sun exists and has been existing for billions of years is the proof of it's self existence.
You, on the hand , who proposes prior creator for the sun, are the one who owes us proof of the entity that supposedly created the sun and stars.

like the previous guy said, the processes of star formation is very common knowledge, right to minute details. You can log into Hubble telescope and view several stars ans galaxies in various stages of formation.

Wake up the times.

I thought you were more intelligent than this The theories concerning the process of star formations remain unproven theories as the process as never been observed. What we have are mere postulations by astronomers based on several conjectures. That said let's even assume that the so called theories are correct, I am not aware any of them rules out the possibility of a first mover that initiated the process of the star formation.

PastorKun:


Have you ever heard of extremofiles If not google is your friend.

Extremophiles. What about them?

Weah96:


Extremophiles. What about them?

They prove that life can exist in other forms and under different circumstances than that which is the norm on earth. The fact that life on earth is carbon based an dependent on H2O does not mean that life must follow that rule throughout the universe.

PastorKun:


I thought you were more intelligent than this The theories concerning the process of star formations remain unproven theories as the process as never been observed. What we have are mere postulations by astronomers based on several conjectures. That said let's even assume that the so called theories are correct, I am not aware any of them rules out the possibility of a first mover that initiated the process of the star formation.

C'mon sir,
You know that what you have written above makes little sense. We do know with absolute certainty how stars are formed. It is not a theory.
We have the hubble telescope peering into deep space and showing us stars in various stages of formation.

I repeat, if you propose an extraneous maker other than the forces of gravity and accretion, then it is incumbent upon to you to show what, whom, how and why.

I continue to wonder why we are such lazy thinkers who prefer magical thinking than a careful study and appreciation of naturally occuring processes.

PastorKun:


They prove that life can exist in other forms and under different circumstances than that which is the norm on earth. The fact that life on earth is carbon based an dependent on H2O does not mean that life must follow that rule throughout the universe.

I agree with you here.

plaetton:


Direct sunlight is just one of many life giving gifts we get from the sun.
The sun also give us many different forms electromagnetic energy that heat up and maintain the earth's core.
So aside from direct sunlight, heat is necessary for chemical and biological processes in the soil, the waters, and in the atmosphere.

It is simply not conceivable that any lifeforms, no matter how biologically different , can exist without the direct or indirect benefits of the sun.

Our sun's unique configuration of electromagnetic energy gives us our biological and genetic imprint.
A different sun in a different solar system or galaxy would obviously have it's own unique and different biological and DNA from what we have on earth.

[s]So, the op is correct.

Let's all hail the Sun, from whence comes Life.[/s]

Wrong.

As to your first bolded, you have a flawed knowledge of the formation of the earth. The heat at the earth's core has nothing to do with the Sun, rather it is due to radioactive energy formed from nuclear explosions. The heat is fueled by the decaying of radioactive isotopes like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and Thorium 232 contained within the mantle. These isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward stability.

Our genetic and biological imprint as you so succinctly put it is not given to us from the sun's electromagnetic energy but rather the prevailing circumstances of our environment on planet earth. These include air, oxygen content within said air, viruses, bacteria, immune reactions etc etc etc. And yes the Sun's rays contribute(not electromagnetic energy) in the form of adapting with or without melanin and source of food as pertains to photosynthesis.

The Sun has been worshiped by many in ancient and even recent times e.g the Egyptian Sun god ra, and so is very imprtant for the survival of the human race, but it is not an all in all. It might be a god, but not The God.

gatiano:
how can you tell? is it because the whiteman didn't teach the teacher that taught or he didn't know? without the sun, the planet won't spin in its axis, thus their won't be time. There are trillions upon trillions of people steaming this universe. if one were to put the universe on a table, with the best microscope that is not yet invented, One would not see the earth.
according to the op, he said the sun sustains life (which is true), but should not be worshipped(very correct).

lol
Read more and expand your knowledge.That's all I have to say to you sir.

plaetton:


C'mon sir,
You know that what you have written above makes little sense. [s]We do know with absolute certainty how stars are formed. It is not a theory[/s].
We have the hubble telescope peering into deep space and showing us stars in various stages of formation.

I repeat, if you propose an extraneous maker other than the forces of gravity and accretion, then it is incumbent upon to you to show what, whom, how and why.

I continue to wonder why we are such lazy thinkers who prefer magical thinking than a careful study and appreciation of naturally occuring processes.

Ummmm, Yes it is a theory. No one can actually live long enough to see a star form. Read up Star Formation Theory. The hubble space telescope views different stars at different stages of formation and then scientists came up with a theory. Its a whole lot like faith, actually.

teach me. direct me to what i should read, it will be greatly appreciated.

Royver:

lol
Read more and expand your knowledge.That's all I have to say to you sir.

Royver:

Ummmm, Yes it is a theory. No one can actually live long enough to see a star form. Read up Star Formation Theory. The hubble space telescope views different stars at different stages of formation and then scientists came up with a theory. Its a whole lot like faith, actually.

No sir.
Science builds theories on what it already knows. Faith builds assumptions on what it doesn't know.

We do not have to travel to the sun to personally measure its circumference, diameter , distance and temperature. We extrapolate based on what we already know and measured.

For example, we named and knew the characteristics of Pluto without ever seeing it with naked eyes or even telescopes.
We did it by simply observing and measuring the gravitational perturbations around Neptune and Uranus.

Jameselias:
i execpted this question and now here it is well go saerch the formation of sun or star it is no longer a mystery to a modern man how those celestial being or objects come into existence thanks to astronomy. Thier formation and existence is a perfect example of what we could term self existence

Oga, every entity has what it believed in, till you re present or u invent something, the other assumptions and believes re personal. This what u believe and not what it is, keep ur believe and theory to ur self.
Am a geologist, I have a lot of theories about formation of almost everything, dat one concern dem, na make I pass exams, na God almighty create me and the universe shikina.
E koyeri zine

Jameselias:
it's a liar u only do not see the link brother some how some where there is a link there is a connect check out thier entire chain of food and sustainance u will see how ultimatelly it connects.

Oya explain chemsynthensis?
These animals beneath d sea beds dnt get to feed from waste products, dey just break down non organic chemicals.

plaetton:


No sir.
Science builds theories on what it already knows. Faith builds assumptions on what it doesn't know.

We do not have to travel to the sun to personally measure its circumference, diameter , distance and temperature. We extrapolate based on what we already know and measured.

For example, we named and knew the characteristics of Pluto without ever seeing it with naked eyes or even telescopes.
We did it by simply observing and measuring the gravitational perturbations around Neptune and Uranus.

lol
You sound like you were among the scientists that actually did the work.
You extrapolate knowledge. All you have about the universe is an extrapolation, no real physical evidence. No man has been to Mars and for a long time you believed that Mars was a red uninhabitable planet until Satellite pictutres showed you the canyons of Mars. then you believed that the Canyons were dead and dried up river beds according to your extrapolations until the Curiosity Rover robot brought back a sample of martian soil indicating the posibility of water.

Science of the universe, its creation and formation is mere extrapolation or faith based on the knowledge you currently have. Its just that scientists dont like to use the faith word.

On an offnote, according to your extrapolations, have you guys decided whether Pluto is a planet yet or not?

Royver:

lol
You sound like you were among the scientists that actually did the work.
You extrapolate knowledge. All you have about the universe is an extrapolation, no real physical evidence. No man has been to Mars and for a long time you believed that Mars was a red uninhabitable planet until Satellite pictutres showed you the canyons of Mars. then you believed that the Canyons were dead and dried up river beds according to your extrapolations until the Curiosity Rover robot brought back a sample of martian soil indicating the posibility of water.

Science of the universe, its creation and formation is mere extrapolation or faith based on the knowledge you currently have. Its just that scientists dont like to use the faith word.

On an offnote, according to your extrapolations, have you guys decided whether Pluto is a planet yet or not?

Lol.
With or without canyons and riverbeds, Mars for now remains an uninhabited planet with predominantly red soil. It is still correctly referred to as a red planet.

The funny thing here is that your post dovetails with what we argue , ..that science is a quest for knowledge that builds on what it knows while forever asking more questions.
Science is a question not an answer. But by asking the right questions, the answers slowly but surely present themselves.

plaetton:


Direct sunlight is just one of many life giving gifts we get from the sun.
The sun also give us many different forms electromagnetic energy that heat up and maintain the earth's core.
So aside from direct sunlight, heat is necessary for chemical and biological processes in the soil, the waters, and in the atmosphere.

It is simply not conceivable that any lifeforms, no matter how biologically different , can exist without the direct or indirect benefits of the sun.

Our sun's unique configuration of electromagnetic energy gives us our biological and genetic imprint.
A different sun in a different solar system or galaxy would obviously have it's own unique and different biological and DNA from what we have on earth.

So, the op is correct.

Let's all hail the Sun, from whence comes Life.

welcome i was even hoping to elevate them out of superstition but atlas they are hell bent on been hell bound. And When they say God is light i laugh, is the sun not light and the source of light?

Oh all u children of light stop looking at shadows but look towards the east from whence alone come't light. Why do u think u are made to worship on -sun- day. Food for thought

PastorKun:


They prove that life can exist in other forms and under different circumstances than that which is the norm on earth. The fact that life on earth is carbon based an dependent on H2O does not mean that life must follow that rule throughout the universe.

But extremophiles live on the planet Earth. They are carbon based lifeforms. What they show is that carbon based lifeforms can survive under extreme conditions, like high pressure or high temperatures. I don't see what that has to do with the entire planet being held in place by the mass of the Sun. This conversation about extremophiles wouldn't be possible without that Sun hanging over our heads.

You all should do a research on sun electromagnetic energy