Rant on Theories, Laws & Misconceptions Options

[Supersprynt]

I hesitated creating a thread regarding this but this is really the best medium in which many people can talk openly about something w/o much consequence. Plus I'm big on freedom of speech and so here it goes.

Friday night I go and see Damon Wayans stand up. Second time I saw him, and he was pretty funny the first time. This time he wasn't nearly as funny. Mainly because he started attacking anything that wasn't Christian. Oh boy. So he goes on to say that evolution is the stupidest thing he's ever heard and goes about mocking how its ridiculous something just formed and one day hopped out of the water and another day got legs and another day jumped up into a tree and then finally said "I got to get a job" as a human.

Hilarious. Oh wait, its not. In fact I was flabberghasted and the level of sheer stupidity emanating from this mans mouth. Evolution is the stupidest thing he's heard? Did he think it happened in 6 days? He then continued to say that atheism is on the rise and its basically got to be stopped and how its horrible not to believe in anything.

By now your thinking, where is he going with this? My dilemma which is actually eating at me is how many of you think that evolution isn't real? How many people think that evolution happened overnight; and how many people are under the impression that evolution is just a hypothesis, nothing more than a guess; how many people think atheism is evil? Im genuinely curious.

If I dont get any responses to this I'll chalk it up to I wrote too much, you got tired, fell asleep and drooled on your keyboard. I also want to say that if you do decide to respond, you do it in an intelligent, RESPECTFUL manner. I'm not looking for this to get closed because religion is a very very touchy subject. This is primarily for those who have an open mind, and willing to engage in intelligent conversation.

Thanks.

[carb0n_f1b3r]

man i love you guys...i havent been on this site in soooo long..good topic.

ok so before we all get our panties in a bind lets go over some basics..

science/religion=fact?
lets see


Main Entry:
fact
Pronunciation:
\ˈfakt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date:
15th century

1: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b: crime <accessory after the fact> archaic : action
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact: in truth
(courtesy of M-W.com)

so what does this mean?...A fact is an occurrence that is objective (or provable with out bias)

ok, now.. what is a science fact?

In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts. Some scholars in the philosophy of science question whether scientific facts are truly objective or are always "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others as well pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires some presupposition about the facts themselves.[citation needed] In the field of science studies, "scientific facts" are generally seen as entities which exist within complex social structures of trust, accreditation, institutions, and individual practices.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science)

hmm... so why such an emphasis (or special attention paid to a certain aspect of a subject) on presupposition (or to have bias prior to actually knowing)

Its all because of another little term called intellectual honesty(or rigour)... its not that cheat sheet you cram in your pocket before a test

An attempted short definition of intellectual rigour might be that no suspicion of double standard be allowed: uniform principles should be applied. This is a test of consistency, over cases, and to individuals or institutions (including the speaker, the speaker's country and so on). Consistency can be at odds here with a forgiving attitude, adaptability, and the need to take precedent with a pinch of salt.... In relation to itellectual Honesty; Intellectual rigour is an important part, though not the whole, of intellectual honesty — which means keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence. For the latter, one should be questioning one's own assumptions, not merely applying them relentlessly if precisely. It is possible to doubt whether complete intellectual honesty exists — on the grounds that no one can entirely master his or her own presuppositions — without doubting that certain kinds of intellectual rigour are potentially available. The distinction certainly matters greatly in debate, if one wishes to say that an argument is flawed in its premises.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty)

ok..lets see what this says
"definition of intellectual rigour might be that no suspicion of double standard be allowed: uniform principles should be applied. This is a test of consistency, over cases, and to individuals or institutions

just read the bold..easy enough..a test of consistency over cases people or institutions

and the next part about rigour

keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence. For the latter, one should be questioning one's own assumptions, not merely applying them relentlessly if precisely

in other words keeping your beliefs about what you know in proportion to your evidence and continually questioning those assumptions about what you think you know, not just trying to make them apply in every case..

and finally the last bit..

It is possible to doubt whether complete intellectual honesty exists — on the grounds that no one can entirely master his or her own presuppositions — without doubting that certain kinds of intellectual rigour are potentially available. The distinction certainly matters greatly in debate (a debate as we seem to be in now), if one wishes to say that an argument is flawed in its premises

no one can be completely unbiased...

science is no fact...it was never meant to be a fact.. going through and picking off every little misconception (or misunderstanding) in this thread but it seemed to be useless pearls casted(or a waste of time) but if someone can understand this concept its worth while to me\

and now its [font=Arial Black][size=4][color=#FF0000]RELIGIONS TURN...

your beliefs... its surprising how many times people become so emotional when this kind of thing shows up because in another conversation with a different setting people can become really objective with religion(or a non-emotional conversation religion especially during study..) when they feel as if someone is disgracing God in some way though the urge to defend what you know to be true is intense, but judaeo-christian philosophy has the same kind of safe guard as science blind faith is not faith but an emotional response to love. the bible does not teach blind faith as necessary for anything also do not put God in a bottle hes God... if he wanted to through some dinosaur bones in the ground he can by what ever method he wants to.. if God is God he could have made the earth 4.5 billion years old when he created it ... maybe to communicate some how or who knows just realize that you do not... (Job)

dont just read but study HEBREWS

its like the we get all upset with each other for the same reasons religious people feel as if science some how dishonors what they have time tested to be true or a fact then take up in defense of God eventually to the point of trying to assume his throne....(see vid)

in doing so hurting the opportunities to win over hearts and some of the brightest minds on the face of the planet

im not done ill be back!