I made a mistake in apologizing for everything instead of providing any evidence to back up my claims, and I suppose if I did the basic research instead of posting the hateful things I wouldn't have posted them in the first place.
It's not necessary to be an expert on a subject to comment on it. I don't know enough to get into the really technical aspects of the theory of evolution, but I do know enough about google to find the information necessary to debate.
If someone says something I am pretty sure can't be true, and I google it, and I find a reputable source (like a dictionary) that disproves it, that's a small part of doing the research before you post.
Even if it is really quick, lazy research. It's still better than not having an idea of what to say before you say it.
One of my earlier points was to be astounded by the fact that I am such a layman with very little real knowledge about this subject, but I still come to the debate better prepared than the YEC people because I at least google something if I do not understand it.
I don't know why people don't do that, it takes 2 seconds and spares everyone a lot of headache.
All I ask is that when people post in a debate about evidence for creationism, they bring to the table something besides:
- Their opinion
- References to an opinion-based book lacking any proofs (Bibles)
- "I don't know"
- "Magic"
Even if you believe wholeheartedly in your opinion, the Bible, legitimately don't know, and you believe in magic, you still need to bring something besides your unfounded belief to a debate about evidence, like..... evidence.
There is evidence out there. The conclusions based on that evidence are, IMO, erroneous and misinterpretations of data. For example, some talk about evidence for a global flood, but common sense tells us that such a flood would have wiped out 99.999% of all land species and all freshwater species, causing a collapse in the ecosystem and the extinction of countless species which were found to exist BEFORE and AFTER this supposed flood, that should have been wiped out by that flood, which were not on this supposed ark, which could not all fit on this supposed ark.
The science also tells us that this was not a global flood, because such flooding is impossible even if all the icecaps melted, because there's still not enough water on this planet to flood the entire earth, or else it would have flooded the entire earth after the volcanic phase of the planet when global temperatures were much higher. And even then, there was dry land, because there's not enough water to do it.
The only way any of this happens is through magic. Now, it's fine to believe in all that, but that's not a scientific or logical explanation for things. It's not fine to consider it science and teach it as such.
Science is about what we can know and what we can disprove. Beliefs in magic that seem to deliberately invent reasons why logic cannot disprove it, aren't scientific because those who employ such beliefs have no standard of proof which can disprove it.
Even if I snapped my fingers in front of their eyes, they could claim it's not real, and it's just magic designed to fool them.
Such thinking is irrational and absurd and does not belong in a debate about science. Might as well say "What if everything isn't really real? There, you can't prove anything anymore" which is a nihilistic argument best saved for those who are too self-absorbed to ever admit they are wrong.
The Noah's Ark in Turkey thing. I didn't know much about it. It was in a newspaper, and I guess it was one of those tabloids that exaggerate everything. If I did the basic research I guess I would have known it was a hoax.
Here is a scientific prediction:
Every single thing you will ever read about Noah's Ark will be proven to be a myth or a hoax or an exaggeration, because the supposed event never happened.
And this is scientific, because it can be disproved. As soon as you prove Noah's Ark is a real thing which could have happened.
The day they find the "real" Noah's ark and every kind of testing is done on it to prove its authenticity comes back positive, and they prove where the flood waters came from and where they went, and they logically prove that so many animals could have been cared for and fit in the ark properly, all of my objections to the story are proven to be solvable, then guess what, my scientific prediction about Noah's Ark being a fairy tale will be proved wrong.
Thus, it is a valid scientific prediction.
I am capable of supporting this prediction because I have observed the lengths religious wackos go to in order to falsify data to prove their faith is real, which is absurd. No one should be more interested in disproving these hoaxes than religious people, because if they CAN'T DO IT, then they might have just proven the existence of a real thing from their holy book, and that will add a lot of credibility to their arguments. But many of them don't want to subject these "discoveries" to rigorous testing which might disprove their claims, because they know it is a hoax, and it isn't real, and if another hoax regarding their mythology becomes news, more people might flock from the church because it is engaging in the evil act of lying to people for money (tithes).
I wasn't trying to prove creationism. I guess if anything I was trying to prove how stupid I am, or how weak willed I am to fool for people's ideas simply by what they say without any evidence
It's not healthy to beat yourself up on the internet. I have been informed of things, and it's not necessary for you to harm yourself, and I don't think it is wise for you to publicly demonize yourself, because it can be mistaken for trolling.
You'll only hurt your own feelings if you keep doing it. I don't think you should. If you're willing to take my advice on anything at all, take my advice here:
Stop. Hurting. Yourself.
Where do I begin to help understand how evolution works, and if I know enough of how the mechanisms work, how would I put it in a way that someone who thinks the only source of true science and history is the Bible? Would reading a copy of the Origin of Species be a good place to start? There was a link posted earlier in this thread about evolution misconceptions, would that be a good place to start? Should I spend some time reading through Wikipedia? If they still dismiss everything I say as nonsense should I just ignore what they say about science and history?
Origin of Species is a good starting point, but the theories of evolution and natural selection have evolved, pardon the pun, since then.
Read up on the latest understanding of the theory, is my advice. Wikipedia isn't the best source because people can edit it, and the edits remain until someone spots the false info and puts it back to the way it was.
That said, it's also a good place to start for a lay person. If you're really and truly interested to know, one of the other posters here can give you a better link to go read.
If this is a wrong place to ask that question or if I missed out on something then I'm sorry, but I guess my apologies don't count anymore.
No, I mistook your constant apologizing for something different than what it was. I felt you were trolling the topic, but I've been told things which offer a different explanation, which I can accept.
I still think you should be careful about publicly belittling yourself. It can be mistaken for trolling and it will only harm yourself, and possibly encourage others to criticize you, because they don't understand what's going on.
Take my advice, don't do that anymore if you can help it.
