It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
demus
reply to post by WarminIndy
so, from banana and human common characteristics to discussing sociology, philosophy and psychology?
I say why not...
WarminIndy
demus
reply to post by WarminIndy
so, from banana and human common characteristics to discussing sociology, philosophy and psychology?
I say why not...
Well we have to get past sociology, philosophy and psychology before discussing anything else.
There was a huge knee jerk reaction from people. I don't think it was justified at all. But let's move forward, shall we?
bastion
reply to post by WarminIndy
Belief doesn't come into evolution as it's evident and established beyond doubt and has yet to be disproven.
However as a Mathematician and Physicist I do hold certain beliefs over what theories I find more likely to be true when dealing with theoretical, cutting edge science (i.e Grand Universal Theories) but I acknowledge they're purely a belief and what I would like to be true has no bearing on what the truth actually is; so put no weight behind my beliefs.
For example I wouldn't study a particular area in great detail unless I had a hunch, belief or gut instinct that it would turn out to be true, but that has no impact on whether it actually is true or not.
Before a scientist can explore these kind of subject areas they need to first identify their beliefs in order to make sure they are not designing experiments or theories that only serve to confirm them, instead of conducting objective research.edit on 28-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)edit on 28-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)
GetHyped
WarminIndy
demus
reply to post by WarminIndy
so, from banana and human common characteristics to discussing sociology, philosophy and psychology?
I say why not...
Well we have to get past sociology, philosophy and psychology before discussing anything else.
There was a huge knee jerk reaction from people. I don't think it was justified at all. But let's move forward, shall we?
You were the one who started dismissing scientific claims and making your own ignorant claims about the natural world. Don't try and wiggle out of it by making it out that everyone else got the wrong end of the stick.
WarminIndy
bastion
reply to post by WarminIndy
Belief doesn't come into evolution as it's evident and established beyond doubt and has yet to be disproven.
However as a Mathematician and Physicist I do hold certain beliefs over what theories I find more likely to be true when dealing with theoretical, cutting edge science (i.e Grand Universal Theories) but I acknowledge they're purely a belief and what I would like to be true has no bearing on what the truth actually is; so put no weight behind my beliefs.
For example I wouldn't study a particular area in great detail unless I had a hunch, belief or gut instinct that it would turn out to be true, but that has no impact on whether it actually is true or not.
Before a scientist can explore these kind of subject areas they need to first identify their beliefs in order to make sure they are not designing experiments or theories that only serve to confirm them, instead of conducting objective research.edit on 28-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)edit on 28-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)
I hope you understand though that within the scientific community, there is a divergent view and what is perceived as true and not possible that isn't based on actual observations or experiments, and when those "Scientific theories" are presented to the general public, people believe it is true, because they don't want the alternative.
If you read the first line of my post, remember that I said that when Ken Ham said it, I didn't know where he got that information was, that's why I looked it up.
But it is ok for me to question things offered, I must be like you and not simply grasp everything coming from "the scientific community". Which is exactly what happened, without the scientific community addressing this phenomenon or responsibility. People believe that you, as a scientist, holds authority, so therefore they won't ask questions of you, and when they do, they have to be subjected to behavior as I was on this thread. But it doesn't matter, my mind is my own and I have the right to think about anything and question everything.
I don't know about String Theory or Quantum Physics, but that's a huge debate among scientists. Some people would believe you, because you are an "Authority". So given your requirements for your own skepticism about things, it should be also my right to be skeptical. You cannot say you have the right to be skeptical about certain scientific theories and then say someone else does not have the right to be skeptical. If you go through the endless threads about the subject, you would see that very thing.
I don't hold you as an authority, but that's my right not to. I can appreciate that you know about science, but I also have the right to question those things you propose. I am sure there were many things your professors have said that you questioned also.
But if you go back through every thread in which you have been starred in, did you say in the majority of those posts that it was simply how you personally believed things based on your own research, and did you allow others to take your word as Gospel truth and permit bashing of other people for their own skeptical beliefs?
flyingfish
WarminIndy
flyingfish
Whatevaz....
I have Multiple Sclerosis and have had cancer. So I know the value of scientific research. I also know that scientific research is very disputed.
I don't have time to listen to every scientific theory.
But all of you scientists on here arguing with me about bananas, when is the cure for Multiple Sclerosis going to come? I've heard it for 14 years, we will have a cure in our lifetime.
Don't think for a minute that I have not heard it all when it comes to scientific theories.
I don't have time to listen to every scientific theory.
Arguing with me doesn't solve the problems. When I asked for the common characteristics, all I got was a lot of "you don't understand science". Tell me, when is the cure coming?
WarminIndy
reply to post by bastion
I hope you realize that some people who starred you in the last post aren't really interested in hard science, but the pop science you talked about?
But I digress, where are the peer reviews of the human/banana connection so that I may read them?
helldiver
WarminIndy
reply to post by bastion
I hope you realize that some people who starred you in the last post aren't really interested in hard science, but the pop science you talked about?
But I digress, where are the peer reviews of the human/banana connection so that I may read them?
ATGC
Educate yourself.
demus
OP, you made some claims that many people here on ATS would agree with.
the problem is that it tend to get lost in bitter - sweet mix of science, philosophy, spirituality and biology.
talk less - say more-
WarminIndy
reply to post by peter vlar
May I ask then, why are people always talking about needing to see peer-reviewed papers? You mean Steve Jones wasn't peer reviewed for this?
But no, I have not heard it all, but enough to know that I have the right to be skeptical about every scientific theory put out there. It's not like I haven't read about the research for MS and drug therapies. Making the comparisons between MS research and research for other things, we get a lot of research tossed at us. Once you get past the idea that scientific research doesn't have all the answers, then why believe anything just because the scientific community agrees on things, when they don't on agree on everything?
After 14 years, can you at least understand why I choose to remain skeptical about things? This banana/human connection is going to be one of those things. But let me ask this, how many MS patients were told that Stem Cell Therapy would be their cure? How many MS patients were told they needed to drink more milk? And how many MS patients thought they should fly to Poland to have surgery for the veins in their neck, because a Polish scientist found that some MS patients have collapsed veins?
I am for what works. But research is money, and a lot of money is invested into all kinds of illnesses. But then it gets down to this "have faith, one day scientists are going to find a cure". Have faith? I am asked to have faith in science when scientists tell me that faith has nothing to do with it? Then tell me that I need to believe the banana/human connection because some guy said it's true?
In the meantime, money is invested every year. These scientists on here can tell you that themselves. Big money on research to tell us bananas and humans are connected...but then no peer review to back it up? I choose to remain skeptical, because you guys demand peer review and then say there is none for this one, and you are casual about that?
It's peoples lives we are dealing with, and MS patients like every other patient of any illness are told to have faith, but the scientists say don't have faith. Then get upset with us because we are skeptical. Give me a reason not to be skeptical, ok. There's no cure for cancer, MS, Parkinson's or anything else, but have faith because it will happen. Then tell me not to have faith because the scientist doesn't have faith. Do you see the conundrum?
chr0naut
reply to post by WarminIndy
With bananas, the original genetic strains have become exitinct and so all bananas are reproduced asexually through human intevention. With human beings, cumulative damage to the male Y chomosome is likely to make the chromosome inviable within the next 15,000 years and so the human race is likely to have to survive by asexual assited reproduction.
There is much banana like about humans.