What Exactly Are the Common Characteristics Between Humans and Bananas?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Abiogenesis ISN'T a theory. I JUST got done telling you that. Accepting Abiogenesis as true is a COMPLETELY different can of worms than accepting Evolution as true. How did you miss that whole reasoning?

I, ME, THIS PERSON has been the only one providing links.

Links to posts that have provided links that speak to your issue:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That isn't counting the numerous amounts of posts that have piggybacked off of that information to try to explain to you.

stumason
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I wholeheartedly "believe" in evolution because there is overwhelming evidence to support the theory. It's not a matter of "faith" though, before anyone tries to twist the use of the word "believe". Faith requires you to believe no matter what.
However, if someone came out at a later date with a new theory, supported by empirical evidence then I would give it consideration also.

OK, we are getting somewhere.

I don't think I was implying faith, but there are people who do have faith in science, just as there are people who have faith in Intelligent Design.

I do believe that Intelligent Design is possible and plausible, but as I indicated, I am not a young earther. I also believe that selective breeding is very possible.

But you know as well as I do that "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence". While that is part of the discussion, it certainly isn't the whole argument from me. I think time in the trenches makes people so wary that they assume the other side must be a young earther. That's a straw man that people have declared onto me. I don't care about abiogenesis, to me it's not important enough to even discuss, but there are some people who will still believe in abiogenesis because that's what they have always known.

No, I don't believe the earth is flat, either.

WarminIndy

But you know as well as I do that "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence".

Absence of evidence, or the failure to observe evidence that favors a hypothesis, is evidence against that hypothesis. This is because we are significantly more likely to not see evidence for a hypothesis when it is false than to not see it when it's true - some assertions demand that the universe be screaming with supporting evidence, so when that evidence is not actually observed, it counts against it. The idea is often summarised as "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

Not only is there absolutely no evidence for intelligent design or an intelligent designer but every single testable claim made by ID has been show to be wrong.

WarminIndy

stumason
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I wholeheartedly "believe" in evolution because there is overwhelming evidence to support the theory. It's not a matter of "faith" though, before anyone tries to twist the use of the word "believe". Faith requires you to believe no matter what.
However, if someone came out at a later date with a new theory, supported by empirical evidence then I would give it consideration also.

OK, we are getting somewhere.

I don't think I was implying faith, but there are people who do have faith in science, just as there are people who have faith in Intelligent Design.

I do believe that Intelligent Design is possible and plausible, but as I indicated, I am not a young earther. I also believe that selective breeding is very possible.

But you know as well as I do that "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence". While that is part of the discussion, it certainly isn't the whole argument from me. I think time in the trenches makes people so wary that they assume the other side must be a young earther. That's a straw man that people have declared onto me. I don't care about abiogenesis, to me it's not important enough to even discuss, but there are some people who will still believe in abiogenesis because that's what they have always known.

No, I don't believe the earth is flat, either.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2]

Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869. However, earlier thinkers have written works that promoted agnostic points of view. These thinkers include Sanjaya Belatthaputta, a 5th-century BCE Indian philosopher who expressed agnosticism about any afterlife,[4][5][6] Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher was agnostic about the gods.[7] The Nasadiya Sukta in the Rigveda is agnostic about the origin of the universe.[8][9][10]

Since the time that Huxley coined the term, many other thinkers have extensively written about agnosticism.

I'd be willing to bet that just about everyone who is debating with you follows beliefs similar to these. I know I do. I am a vocal agnostic. Though keep in mind, just because we don't believe absolutely in something, doesn't mean we cannot have an opinion on what we think is the most true. Usually that opinion is formed through logical reasoning and the application of probability.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Fair enough - I don't think I did make the assumption you were some "young earther" but if I did or it came across as such, then I apologise.

What exactly is it you believe then? If you could clear that up, we might be able to make some progress with regards to "bridging the gap".

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Spot on - I am not religious in the slightest but I also don't completely reject the notion of a "god, for the simple reason I have seen no evidence he doesn't exist just like I have seen none that he does.

WarminIndy
I also believe that selective breeding is very possible.

Selective breeding is a bit more than 'possible'. It is quite evident, supported by millennia of practical application and all one needs to prove this point is to take a look at the family dog (canis familiaris).

stumason
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Fair enough

- I don't think I did make the assumption you were some "young earther" but if I did or it came across as such, then I apologise.

What exactly is it you believe then? If you could clear that up, we might be able to make some progress with regards to "bridging the gap".

This is what I do believe, and it may be very different than what most people think about Orthodox Christianity, I believe in God, but not God as in an old man in the sky, but as a higher intelligence of some thing far greater than my limited understand can grasp.

I believe that this higher intelligence could have done exactly the simple thing as "speak" and that speaking could mean that the processes of evolution could have been precipitated by that. After all, voice is an audible energy. But as a believer in the Bible, but not one who believes everything is literal, because certainly not all of it is literal, there are things that I am willing to accept. As we know, audible energy is still a vibration and energy does transfer.

My thinking is this, why could this higher intelligence not have precipitated this energy? Nothing rules that out from science, so it is my hypothesis. I do know that the word for day does not mean 24 hour time spans, the original word was eons. So the age of the universe can also possibly be 10,000,000,000 years. I don't know.

So this is what I believe. Whether or not that is acceptable to others doesn't really matter in the big picture because we all have things we personally hold.

BTW, for the critics who don't know me, I am Dyslexic and sometimes my wording and thought patterns reflect that, so give me a break for that. Is that a reasonable request?

reply to post by WarminIndy

What you were saying was "the rest of us like beating you up because you don't think like we do". Give me a reason to think like you do,

Don't put words into my mouth, you obviously missed my point.
If you want to learn how to think like me, you must be critical.
Critical thinking means following evidence rather than beliefs, critical thinking is based on the inputs and process never on the conclusion, it must be defined as a way of thinking, not by the outcome.

other than "science tells us how to think and we are now robots because we can no longer think on our own and must uphold the credo that science has all the answers for us and we don't have to question science even when scientists can't even agree".

You've got it wrong, in science you question everything, it tells us to judge theories against reality.
It does not explicitly tell us not to judge them, when using the scientific method you question the theory that you are putting forward.
Science does not tell us how to think, the scientific method tells us how to reason well, critical thinking tells us how to spot when we (or others) are reasoning badly.

Repeat mantra, repeat mantra, repeat mantra until it becomes a part of your life.

Is the opposite of the scientific method, garbage in/garbage out or the closely related "echo chamber". You seek out opinions that match your own which can reinforce your own biases and prevent you from using critical thinking.

Are you a scientist, flying fish? What exactly is your field of scientific expertise?

Chemistry.

flyingfish
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

What you were saying was "the rest of us like beating you up because you don't think like we do". Give me a reason to think like you do,

Don't put words into my mouth, you obviously missed my point.
If you want to learn how to think like me, you must be critical.
Critical thinking means following evidence rather than beliefs, critical thinking is based on the inputs and process never on the conclusion, it must be defined as a way of thinking, not by the outcome.

other than "science tells us how to think and we are now robots because we can no longer think on our own and must uphold the credo that science has all the answers for us and we don't have to question science even when scientists can't even agree".

You've got it wrong, in science you question everything, it tells us to judge theories against reality.
It does not explicitly tell us not to judge them, when using the scientific method you question the theory that you are putting forward.
Science does not tell us how to think, the scientific method tells us how to reason well, critical thinking tells us how to spot when we (or others) are reasoning badly.

Repeat mantra, repeat mantra, repeat mantra until it becomes a part of your life.

Is the opposite of the scientific method, garbage in/garbage out or the closely related "echo chamber". You seek out opinions that match your own which can reinforce your own biases and prevent you from using critical thinking.

Are you a scientist, flying fish? What exactly is your field of scientific expertise?

Chemistry.

Good, you have an understanding of chemistry. Wonderful.

I am not the analytical science thinker like you, I am a philosophical thinker. We are divergent.

So, therefore, please go on with your chemical analysis while I ask questions about philosophy.

WarminIndy

stumason
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

Show off

Let me ask this : Do all of you absolutely believe in evolution?

Don't give me "things are "acceptable", "things are "true", "things are probable". That's all soft language.

If you don't believe it is absolute and that you don't absolutely believe it, then those who don't absolutely believe are just as correct as you are.

Wouldn't you agree that is a fair statement?

Where does belief or faith come into it? Evolution either is or isn't true and given the many examples of ongoing evolution that have been witnessed since it's discovery it's proven beyond all reasonable doubt (i.e a couple of subtleties may need ironing out, but the general principle is true).

It's impossible to give a meaningful scientific response without using those words as 99.99999999999999999999999999% certainty is not 100%. When scientists use 'probably' or 'likely' they don't mean 'it's 50:50 but we like this argument better', they mean 'the arguement fits every single scenario we've yet come up with and yet to be disproven, therefore it will be a scientific fact unless something monumentus comes along and disproves it'.

As for the second part. The two statements are only equal if the evidence for both arguments is equally rigorous and stands up to scrutiny. If one argument has never been disproven and the other has been repeatedly disproven then the former is a far stronger argument.

WarminIndy

flyingfish
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

What you were saying was "the rest of us like beating you up because you don't think like we do". Give me a reason to think like you do,

Don't put words into my mouth, you obviously missed my point.
If you want to learn how to think like me, you must be critical.
Critical thinking means following evidence rather than beliefs, critical thinking is based on the inputs and process never on the conclusion, it must be defined as a way of thinking, not by the outcome.

other than "science tells us how to think and we are now robots because we can no longer think on our own and must uphold the credo that science has all the answers for us and we don't have to question science even when scientists can't even agree".

You've got it wrong, in science you question everything, it tells us to judge theories against reality.
It does not explicitly tell us not to judge them, when using the scientific method you question the theory that you are putting forward.
Science does not tell us how to think, the scientific method tells us how to reason well, critical thinking tells us how to spot when we (or others) are reasoning badly.

Repeat mantra, repeat mantra, repeat mantra until it becomes a part of your life.

Is the opposite of the scientific method, garbage in/garbage out or the closely related "echo chamber". You seek out opinions that match your own which can reinforce your own biases and prevent you from using critical thinking.

Are you a scientist, flying fish? What exactly is your field of scientific expertise?

Chemistry.

Good, you have an understanding of chemistry. Wonderful.

I am not the analytical science thinker like you, I am a philosophical thinker. We are divergent.

So, therefore, please go on with your chemical analysis while I ask questions about philosophy.

in the opening post you asked ATS to tell you about common characteristics of Banana and Humans; if you were asking the question from philosophical standpoint why didn't you tell us so?
and if so is the truth then my answer about WATER should be perfectly acceptable to you.
I get what you're trying to say about science; we shouldn't blindly follow it.
that is also why many people choose to conduct SCIENTIFIC experiment to see for themselves if a specific theory is or could be legible.
if you will deny and question everything, there is a word for that as well:

denialism

In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[4] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[5][6] A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory.[7]

bastion

WarminIndy

stumason
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

Show off

Let me ask this : Do all of you absolutely believe in evolution?

Don't give me "things are "acceptable", "things are "true", "things are probable". That's all soft language.

If you don't believe it is absolute and that you don't absolutely believe it, then those who don't absolutely believe are just as correct as you are.

Wouldn't you agree that is a fair statement?

Where does belief or faith come into it? Evolution either is or isn't true and given the many examples of ongoing evolution that have been witnessed since it's discovery it's proven beyond all reasonable doubt (i.e a couple of subtleties may need ironing out, but the general principle is true).

It's impossible to give a meaningful scientific response without using those words as 99.99999999999999999999999999% certainty is not 100%. When scientists use 'probably' or 'likely' they don't mean 'it's 50:50 but we like this argument better', they mean 'the arguement fits every single scenario we've yet come up with and yet to be disproven, therefore it will be a scientific fact unless something monumentus comes along and disproves it'.

As for the second part. The two statements are only equal if the evidence for both arguments is equally rigorous and stands up to scrutiny. If one argument has never been disproven and the other has been repeatedly disproven then the former is a far stronger argument.

edit on 28-3-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)

Well, what do you personally believe?

demus

WarminIndy

flyingfish
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

What you were saying was "the rest of us like beating you up because you don't think like we do". Give me a reason to think like you do,

Don't put words into my mouth, you obviously missed my point.
If you want to learn how to think like me, you must be critical.
Critical thinking means following evidence rather than beliefs, critical thinking is based on the inputs and process never on the conclusion, it must be defined as a way of thinking, not by the outcome.

other than "science tells us how to think and we are now robots because we can no longer think on our own and must uphold the credo that science has all the answers for us and we don't have to question science even when scientists can't even agree".

You've got it wrong, in science you question everything, it tells us to judge theories against reality.
It does not explicitly tell us not to judge them, when using the scientific method you question the theory that you are putting forward.
Science does not tell us how to think, the scientific method tells us how to reason well, critical thinking tells us how to spot when we (or others) are reasoning badly.

Repeat mantra, repeat mantra, repeat mantra until it becomes a part of your life.

Is the opposite of the scientific method, garbage in/garbage out or the closely related "echo chamber". You seek out opinions that match your own which can reinforce your own biases and prevent you from using critical thinking.

Are you a scientist, flying fish? What exactly is your field of scientific expertise?

Chemistry.

Good, you have an understanding of chemistry. Wonderful.

I am not the analytical science thinker like you, I am a philosophical thinker. We are divergent.

So, therefore, please go on with your chemical analysis while I ask questions about philosophy.

in the opening post you asked ATS to tell you about common characteristics of Banana and Humans; if you were asking the question from philosophical standpoint why didn't you tell us so?
and if so is the truth then my answer about WATER should be perfectly acceptable to you.
I get what you're trying to say about science; we shouldn't blindly follow it.
that is also why many people choose to conduct SCIENTIFIC experiment to see for themselves if a specific theory is or could be legible.
if you will deny and question everything, there is a word for that as well:

denialism

In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[4] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[5][6] A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory.[7]

Do I have to spell out everything just so you won't assume anything?

The very fact you assumed means you didn't even think to ask me, only that you were set and prepared to argue with "a Creationist". What does that say about you?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Like Humans Bananas are slippery , hard to digest and not particular good for you if not Eaten in
moderation.

WarminIndy

demus

WarminIndy

flyingfish
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

What you were saying was "the rest of us like beating you up because you don't think like we do". Give me a reason to think like you do,

Don't put words into my mouth, you obviously missed my point.
If you want to learn how to think like me, you must be critical.
Critical thinking means following evidence rather than beliefs, critical thinking is based on the inputs and process never on the conclusion, it must be defined as a way of thinking, not by the outcome.

other than "science tells us how to think and we are now robots because we can no longer think on our own and must uphold the credo that science has all the answers for us and we don't have to question science even when scientists can't even agree".

You've got it wrong, in science you question everything, it tells us to judge theories against reality.
It does not explicitly tell us not to judge them, when using the scientific method you question the theory that you are putting forward.
Science does not tell us how to think, the scientific method tells us how to reason well, critical thinking tells us how to spot when we (or others) are reasoning badly.

Repeat mantra, repeat mantra, repeat mantra until it becomes a part of your life.

Is the opposite of the scientific method, garbage in/garbage out or the closely related "echo chamber". You seek out opinions that match your own which can reinforce your own biases and prevent you from using critical thinking.

Are you a scientist, flying fish? What exactly is your field of scientific expertise?

Chemistry.

Good, you have an understanding of chemistry. Wonderful.

I am not the analytical science thinker like you, I am a philosophical thinker. We are divergent.

So, therefore, please go on with your chemical analysis while I ask questions about philosophy.

in the opening post you asked ATS to tell you about common characteristics of Banana and Humans; if you were asking the question from philosophical standpoint why didn't you tell us so?
and if so is the truth then my answer about WATER should be perfectly acceptable to you.
I get what you're trying to say about science; we shouldn't blindly follow it.
that is also why many people choose to conduct SCIENTIFIC experiment to see for themselves if a specific theory is or could be legible.
if you will deny and question everything, there is a word for that as well:

denialism

In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[4] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[5][6] A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory.[7]

Do I have to spell out everything just so you won't assume anything?

The very fact you assumed means you didn't even think to ask me, only that you were set and prepared to argue with "a Creationist". What does that say about you?

people online, as well as in real life "assume" something based on information provided.
you are welcomed to provide more information.
and I never said I think you are Creationist, I don't know who you really are.
but I assumed your posts on the topic could put you in "denialists" category.

demus

WarminIndy

demus

WarminIndy

flyingfish
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

What you were saying was "the rest of us like beating you up because you don't think like we do". Give me a reason to think like you do,

Don't put words into my mouth, you obviously missed my point.
If you want to learn how to think like me, you must be critical.
Critical thinking means following evidence rather than beliefs, critical thinking is based on the inputs and process never on the conclusion, it must be defined as a way of thinking, not by the outcome.

other than "science tells us how to think and we are now robots because we can no longer think on our own and must uphold the credo that science has all the answers for us and we don't have to question science even when scientists can't even agree".

You've got it wrong, in science you question everything, it tells us to judge theories against reality.
It does not explicitly tell us not to judge them, when using the scientific method you question the theory that you are putting forward.
Science does not tell us how to think, the scientific method tells us how to reason well, critical thinking tells us how to spot when we (or others) are reasoning badly.

Repeat mantra, repeat mantra, repeat mantra until it becomes a part of your life.

Is the opposite of the scientific method, garbage in/garbage out or the closely related "echo chamber". You seek out opinions that match your own which can reinforce your own biases and prevent you from using critical thinking.

Are you a scientist, flying fish? What exactly is your field of scientific expertise?

Chemistry.

Good, you have an understanding of chemistry. Wonderful.

I am not the analytical science thinker like you, I am a philosophical thinker. We are divergent.

So, therefore, please go on with your chemical analysis while I ask questions about philosophy.

in the opening post you asked ATS to tell you about common characteristics of Banana and Humans; if you were asking the question from philosophical standpoint why didn't you tell us so?
and if so is the truth then my answer about WATER should be perfectly acceptable to you.
I get what you're trying to say about science; we shouldn't blindly follow it.
that is also why many people choose to conduct SCIENTIFIC experiment to see for themselves if a specific theory is or could be legible.
if you will deny and question everything, there is a word for that as well:

denialism

In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[4] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[5][6] A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory.[7]

Do I have to spell out everything just so you won't assume anything?

The very fact you assumed means you didn't even think to ask me, only that you were set and prepared to argue with "a Creationist". What does that say about you?

people online, as well as in real life "assume" something based on information provided.
you are welcomed to provide more information.
and I never said I think you are Creationist, I don't know who you really are.
but I assumed your posts on the topic could put you in "denialists" category.

And now we know differently.

But your wording led other people into it, so you have to be careful that you don't lead the charge against "the injuns" or waving the torches at "Frankenstein's monster". Some people starred the other guy for calling me Ray, when I am obviously NOT Ray. But I asked if you people took pleasure in beating up Ray, people starred him for saying yes.

That is gang mentality. And were you one of those who starred that poster for saying he takes pleasure in that? If you did, then you starred the bullying. That's a huge problem with our society.

reply to post by WarminIndy

so, from banana and human common characteristics to discussing sociology, philosophy and psychology?
I say why not...

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.

a lot of human's around me seem to share a lot in common with MUSHROOMS but that is another creation story for another time

i always assumed we were closer to the bread fruit tree

animal / vegetable /minerals take you're pick