An open challenge to evolutionists.

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Considering the things you don't believe in, what do you mean exactly when you say that you are "religious"?

Start here and then ask again:
religion | Definition & List of Religions

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You believe we are a human collective. We are not. That is your belief and it is not based on science.

This makes no sense.

We are a bunch of humans. It's perfectly fine to use the word "we" to refer to human accomplishments that were a group effort on a societal scale.

It's like you are purposefully looking for words to argue irrelevant semantics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This makes no sense.

We are a bunch of humans. It's perfectly fine to use the word "we" to refer to human accomplishments that were a group effort on a societal scale.

It's like you are purposefully looking for words to argue irrelevant semantics.

But we are not a collective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Start here and then ask again:
religion | Definition & List of Religions

No, I'm asking you.

YOU used the word to express your beliefs or state of mind. I assume you have an idea in your head about what exactly you mean by it.

Why do you respond with a link? Am I supposed to go hunting on that page what you mean by it? Am I supposed to guess what you mean by it in context of that definition?

Why can't you just tell me?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I'm asking you.

YOU used the word to express your beliefs or state of mind. I assume you have an idea in your head about what exactly you mean by it.

Why do you respond with a link? Am I supposed to go hunting on that page what you mean by it? Am I supposed to guess what you mean by it in context of that definition?

Why can't you just tell me?

As religious I am a humanist and naturalist.

I believe with faith against all reason and evidence that all humans are scared and with worth and dignity.

 

[oldbadger]

Any date between God started the Big Bang and evolution is God's work - to last Thursday works as an assumption. And there is no way to decide between them because both works in the end.

To last Thursday?
Nope.
Let's just get some agreements going here. When do you think the ice age ended? This interests me because as the ice receded so the sea rose and cut off Britain from Europe. That's not very far back in time, but it's a start. So what would your esti.ate be....... 15000yrs? 20,000 yes?
I look forward to your reply.

 

[oldbadger]

No, we can't. Use observe humans!

Ah!
You have no clues, it seems.
What qualifications did you achieve in primary and secondary education, canI ask?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But we are not a collective.

We are. We are all humans.
Together, we form the set of all humans. The collective.

 

[oldbadger]

Thread forms evolved from non-standard threads. In 1841, Joseph Whitworth,
created a standard which became the still used BSW (British Standard Whitworth).
In 1864, what became SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) Standard was
introduced. Metric (IS0) threads became standardized in 1947.

I'd cover more of the history, but it's so fascinating that it would derail the thread.

That looks like you're a creationist, Revolting.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To last Thursday?
Nope.
Let's just get some agreements going here. When do you think the ice age ended? This interests me because as the ice receded so the sea rose and cut off Britain from Europe. That's not very far back in time, but it's a start. So what would your esti.ate be....... 15000yrs? 20,000 yes?
I look forward to your reply.

I am a naturalist as religious, so I believe in the Big Bang.
But there are other beliefs including young Earth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As religious I am a humanist and naturalist.

I believe with faith against all reason and evidence that all humans are scared and with worth and dignity.

Neither humanism nore naturalism regards humans as "sacred" though.
Humanism is a philosophical worldview for sure, but it's not a "religious" worldview.
No rituals etc are associated with it.


Going over your post, it seems to me a that a LOT of discussions between you and others are actually more often then not triggered by you using terms in different ways then most people use them. It's like you have your own niche definitions that nobody else uses and thereby sow quite a bit of confusion.

I know of no humanist / naturalist who considers humanism / naturalism to be a (or their) religion, for example.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We are. We are all humans.
Together, we form the set of all humans. The collective.

But it is not a set other than in your brain. Sets are cognitive artifacts and you have to check if they match the objective empirical evidence as per your method. The set doesn't match the evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, I can't because the universe as such is not alive.
But I can ask other humans for their views and then form my own.
We as humans are individuals, who in part relies on groups, but some things we can do as individuals.

We are not herd animals, not solitaire nor communal like ants. We are individuals, who rely on groups in part.
So I don't need your individuality as for your world-view and you don't need mine.

Well done

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Neither humanism nore naturalism regards humans as "sacred" though.
Humanism is a philosophical worldview for sure, but it's not a "religious" worldview.
No rituals etc are associated with it.


Going over your post, it seems to me a that a LOT of discussions between you and others are actually more often then not triggered by you using terms in different ways then most people use them. It's like you have your own niche definitions that nobody else uses and thereby sow quite a bit of confusion.

I know of no humanist / naturalist who considers humanism / naturalism to be a (or their) religion, for example.

Unitarian Universalist Association

It is in there.

 

[Revoltingest]

That looks like you're a creationist, Revolting.

I wonder how many posters will take your comment seriously.
It's happened before that someone thought I was a creationist.
An atheist creationist, eh.
Go figure.

 

[ChristineM]

Ahem, I'm not so sure. You don't get chemistry until you have chemical bonds. And you don't get those if the temperature is above about 5000K, because atoms have enough thermal energy to break them the moment they form.

So there isn't really any chemistry in stars, which is where most of the (non-dark) matter of the universe finds itself. After the Big Bang there were not even any atoms until the Recombination Epoch, about 370,000 year after the Big Bang itself. And after that, the formation of molecules, giant structures and metals (i.e. chemistry) required still more cooling.

But below about 5000K, you are right that you start to get chemistry, and by the time you get to 500K or below it is running rampant. However when you get down to about 100K it becomes so slow that not much chemical change takes place, though matter is by that time in the form of chemical compounds.

P.S. There is a huge number of expressions in statistical thermodynamics and physical chemistry that contain variants of exp(-ε/kT), in which ε is the energy difference between two states, T is temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant. If ε >> kT atoms and molecules have enough energy to move freely between the states, if ε <<kT they can't move between them at all, and if ε ~ kT they can a bit but not freely.

I said chemical, not chemical reaction but...

Ok. Omit suns (which are made from chemicals) from my list which use a nuclear reaction to be a sun, both fueled by the results of chemical reaction hydrogen > helium, and I turn create the elements that bond in chemical reaction.

 

[ChristineM]

I wonder how many posters will take your comment seriously.
It's happened before that someone thought I was a creationist.
An atheist creationist, eh.
Go figure.

You often display the same stubbornness ;-)

 

[Revoltingest]

You often display the same stubbornness ;-)

Thanx!

 

[ChristineM]

Thanx!

Actually i should have said "characteristic" rather than "same"

 

[exchemist]

I said chemical, not chemical reaction but...

Ok. Omit suns (which are made from chemicals) from my list which use a nuclear reaction to be a sun, both fueled by the results of chemical reaction hydrogen > helium, and I turn create the elements that bond in chemical reaction.

No that's not a chemical reaction. It is a nuclear reaction.

You need physics to model that: chemistry can't help you there.

Chemistry is all about the bonding brought about by electrons. What you have in stars involves nuclear binding, i.e. between protons and neutrons.