Pudd Needs A Crash Course

[blackpudd1n]

For starters, Genesis says there was no rain and a mist or springs welling up watered everything.

 

The bible itself here contradicts itself wrt the simple water cycle. Mist rising is a state of evaporation and disparate atmospheric and surface temperatures you should find answers at a dummy level by googling these phrases

 

How evaporation works (google this)

 

What causes springs (google this)

 

Is part of the water cycle. There are no waters of the deep. There are perceptions of underground rivers but these are not hollows with virtual rivers.

 

Moistures seeps down with gravity. A well is dug displacing soil and the moisture in the soil now can accumulate as water as the moisture no longer has to displace soil

 

How wells work (google this)

 

This well water can force its way up when sinking a borehole due to pressure until it achieves equilibrium, then a pump is needed to bring it up to the surface. This is called hydrology.

 

The water cycle had to have always existed since water was around in vast quantities.

 

Your friend is right as far as all the water being in the atmosphere as that is how the flat earthers thought shit worked back then, there are illustrations of this.

 

The problem with your friend, she has no scientific acumen and to suggest stuff worked differently 6000 years ago one has to ignore all the geological evidence, see my thread challenging the YEC nonsense. I gave four examples of disparate areas of science which all refute not only a YEC but refutes this claim in Genesis regarding the water.

 

You do not even have to understand Carbon dating but there are oodles of info out there.

 

In simple terms, carbon dating is based on isotopes that have half lives. This is basic physics. Space is full of radiation and elements absorb radiation. We are made up of carbon mostly and all elements have a half life. Think of cutting an orange in half, throw away a half halve the half and continue ad infinitum. Eventually you no longer can halve anything as your knife will be thicker than what you are trying to cut.

 

When a animal dies, it stops absorbing a certain radiation. Thus is a fossil or skeleton is unearthed, measuring a certain carbon isotope in the bones (which are calcium and carbon) based on a standard of known half life, the age can be calculated. There is a cut off point to using C14 dating.

 

Likewise in rocks, there are other elements that absorb radiation and these are dated using other isotopes but the principle is the same. Hence dating dino fossils, they are not dated with C14 as they are so old that the remaining half life isotope cannot be detected/measured. The strata in which the fossil is found is dated and an approximation as far as age is determined for the fossil.

 

Spent nuclear fuels have to be sealed in lead and steel and concrete and then buried to prevent radiation escaping and harming humans. The half lives of these isotopes are thousands if not millions of years and will be many eons till that spent fuel is no longer a threat to life. It is all the same principle.

 

That is dumbed down to the very basics. Read up on it and know a bit more, my dumbed down version should be adequate to explain to scientific illiterate folk. This is HS Physics with Chemistry and if you did not learn that then there is no foundation to teach the complexity. Hell even I battle grasping the complex explanations.

 

Then you can move onto rainbows and how they are formed. It is all there on the web. Then ask why do we get rainbows from crystals and oil slicks. did god embed his promise not to flood the earth again in oil (yet to be discovered) and glass (yet to be discovered or basically silicone) or plexiglass or anything else that renders a rainbow. It is all to do with refraction and dispersion of light.

 

When you see a falls, with light right you will see rainbows but it is not raining, the why is the same as when it rains.

 

The babble comes from the ME. How many waterfalls are there in the ME. I tried searching once and got zero hits (to prove point with a fundy)

 

Physical laws cannot be altered w/o ramifications. Physical laws are fixed.

 

Once a YEC starts to grasp this basic science they then start making shit up and looking for any other possible explanation to keep the YEC claims true. They then make fools of themselves trying to refute science with a junior school science level understanding. They will find one instance where dating was wrong and it is scientists that made the corrections NOT FUCKING RETARD CREATIONISTS.

 

The idea is that if one mistake can be made, how many other mistakes, and then they put their heads up their ass again.

 

In the end they will appeal to majik or make shit up. Just know the bible better than them and hold them to that pathetic fallible standard.

 

Yes, I learned no science, and only very basic geography in high school because I put the ear muffs on whenever something disputed the bible. I was well and truly indoctrinated. Your thread on the subject of creationism was one that I was going to have a deeper look at again, I just wanted to try dealing with what I had thrown at me yesterday and my own questions about it first. I'm basically trying to debrief a little, and prepare for next time. Especially as now this lady is determined for me to meet her brother who raised someone from the dead through the laying on of hands.

 

Another concern I had was that I didn't want to get wound up in their faulty logic, reasoning and arguments. And the only way I can do that is to really nut out these questions, I reckon. I didn't like feeling flustered by my half-knowledge, or inability to be able to articulate all the minor details.

 

I kept saying to this lady yesterday, "but where did all that water come from?" As far as I am concerned, "it was in the atmosphere" was not a good enough explanation. Is there physically enough water to flood the entire earth to that extent? I find that a belief really hard to swallow, though I used to believe it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not physically possible to flood the ENTIRE earth to that extent, right?

[BrotherJosh]

Especially as now this lady is determined for me to meet her brother who raised someone from the dead through the laying on of hands.

 

I'm being a little silly, at this point. Could be the Evan Williams Single Barrel. Either way, we don't live in Harry Potter magic land. You can't just "lay hands on someone" and they are brought back to life. It's impossible, outside of crash carts. We don't live in a land of magic, unicorns and wishful thinking. This is reality not some magical fairy tale land. I'm not saying you, Pudd, believe this, just pointing out that many of these people believe in outlandish things that have no bearing on reality.

[blackpudd1n]

Thanks for the examples, NeverAgainV, but I wanted to question this one:

 

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

 

Wouldn't a christian argue that these plants only became poisonous after the Fall, before which everything was good to eat? I think I remember an apologist argument along those lines.

[blackpudd1n]

Fair enough. Could you give me a simple explanation though for how scientists view a theory? I'm still trying to head my head around the concept, and I didn't explain the difference too well yesterday in my own words. Would I be right in thinking that a scientific theory is more like a paradigm that has withstood numerous tests?

 

I'm sure Marmot will respond, as well. A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists first establish a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested and experimented with via experiments, observations, measuring etc...once a hypothesis is verified it becomes a theory. Theories are testable and falsifiable, meaning it can be refuted. Well known theories are gravity, evolution, and relativity. The "coolness" of any theory is that it can be refined. Meaning, while it may be "essentially" or basically, true it can still be refined beyond the basic observations. For example, the original Origin of the Species, as written by Darwin, while not perfect or complete, explains a great deal. Evolution has grown leaps and bounds beyond what Darwin could imagine, he would be delighted by our findings today. For example, Darwin didn't have the resource of fossils at the time he wrote his revolutionary book. Today, we have entire fields dedicated towards finding fossils, legitimate scientific fields, something he predicated, and was right about. The essentials is that it is testable and can make observations.

 

So it's like a theory is something that either gets scrapped or constantly improved or refined with new testing and new methods as they come to light?

[blackpudd1n]

Especially as now this lady is determined for me to meet her brother who raised someone from the dead through the laying on of hands.

 

I'm being a little silly, at this point. Could be the Evan Williams Single Barrel. Either way, we don't live in Harry Potter magic land. You can't just "lay hands on someone" and they are brought back to life. It's impossible, outside of crash carts. We don't live in a land of magic, unicorns and wishful thinking. This is reality not some magical fairy tale land. I'm not saying you, Pudd, believe this, just pointing out that many of these people believe in outlandish things that have no bearing on reality.

 

yeah, I figured in future that when some said something like that, I'd tell them I'd touched a pink unicorn, and ask them if they believed me. And if they didn't, why, and therefore why I should just believe their outlandish claim on their word. I figured that would be the best approach with something like that.

[BrotherJosh]

So it's like a theory is something that either gets scrapped or constantly improved or refined with new testing and new methods as they come to light?

 

Ehhh...I wouldn't say a theory get's scrapped. Mostly, scientific theories are facts. They are falsifiable, but still accepted as fact. Classical physics is a "fact" but it needs refinement, in that it doesn't explain all of physics. However, toss a bowling ball against another bowling ball and it explains a great deal.

[blackpudd1n]

So it's like a theory is something that either gets scrapped or constantly improved or refined with new testing and new methods as they come to light?

 

Ehhh...I wouldn't say a theory get's scrapped. Mostly, scientific theories are facts. They are falsifiable, but still accepted as fact. Classical physics is a "fact" but it needs refinement, in that it doesn't explain all of physics. However, toss a bowling ball against another bowling ball and it explains a great deal.

 

Then what do you mean by falsifiable?

[BrotherJosh]

Then what do you mean by falsifiable?

 

New evidence can contradict a theory and make it false. So far, nothing has contradicted Evolution. Greater scientific discoveries have added to our collective knowledge. If something is falsifiable, it means it can be proven to be untrue. I can say, "I have a pink unicorn in my garage", you can respond, "what is the evidence for this unicorn?" At which, if I happened to be a Christian, or religious could respond thusly, "My Unicorn can only be taken on faith, and faith alone". So, scientific theories are regarded as fact, they are falsifiable, in that, they can be proven wrong by direct observations, or science. Christianity is the Hydra of Greek Mythology in that, it adapts to the needs of every generation.

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Falsifiable

 

Here's a great example of a non-falsifiable claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

[NeverAgainV]

Thanks for the examples, NeverAgainV, but I wanted to question this one:

 

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

 

Wouldn't a christian argue that these plants only became poisonous after the Fall, before which everything was good to eat? I think I remember an apologist argument along those lines.

Yes, probably. But I am not sure if this quote is before or after the fall in the bible.

 

Sounds like these folks you are dealing with will be hard ones to crack if ever. I guess because I am not a scientific type...(I'm totally the creative breed), for me it was better to focus on the smaller stuff that is just

plain ole obvious. But I know some folks can argue & debate forever, they just can't imagine what they have believed for so long has cracks in it, inconsistencies, errors.

If I can help in any way let me know. & good luck!

[BrotherJosh]

"Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true" - Carl Sagan

[blackpudd1n]

Thanks for the examples, NeverAgainV, but I wanted to question this one:

 

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

 

Wouldn't a christian argue that these plants only became poisonous after the Fall, before which everything was good to eat? I think I remember an apologist argument along those lines.

Yes, probably. But I am not sure if this quote is before or after the fall in the bible.

 

Sounds like these folks you are dealing with will be hard ones to crack if ever. I guess because I am not a scientific type...(I'm totally the creative breed), for me it was better to focus on the smaller stuff that is just

plain ole obvious. But I know some folks can argue & debate forever, they just can't imagine what they have believed for so long has cracks in it, inconsistencies, errors.

If I can help in any way let me know. & good luck!

 

To be honest, while it is a response that I vaguely remember a pastor using, it would have been one that I would have used if someone had thrown that very verse at me in my fundy days. Arguments about human suffering and illness never worked with me- I'd just point to Adam and Eve as the reason. Hence why I doubt I'd ever bother with using such arguments myself. If they can directly link it back to Adam and Eve, forget it. if it didn't work with me, why would it work with someone else? It might, but I wouldn't bother trying it. The thing about this lady, though, was that she was adamant that there was more evidence to support creationism than evolution. Like, wow.

[Guest Valk0010]

Thanks for the examples, NeverAgainV, but I wanted to question this one:

 

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

 

Wouldn't a christian argue that these plants only became poisonous after the Fall, before which everything was good to eat? I think I remember an apologist argument along those lines.

Yes, probably. But I am not sure if this quote is before or after the fall in the bible.

 

Sounds like these folks you are dealing with will be hard ones to crack if ever. I guess because I am not a scientific type...(I'm totally the creative breed), for me it was better to focus on the smaller stuff that is just

plain ole obvious. But I know some folks can argue & debate forever, they just can't imagine what they have believed for so long has cracks in it, inconsistencies, errors.

If I can help in any way let me know. & good luck!

 

To be honest, while it is a response that I vaguely remember a pastor using, it would have been one that I would have used if someone had thrown that very verse at me in my fundy days. Arguments about human suffering and illness never worked with me- I'd just point to Adam and Eve as the reason. Hence why I doubt I'd ever bother with using such arguments myself. If they can directly link it back to Adam and Eve, forget it. if it didn't work with me, why would it work with someone else? It might, but I wouldn't bother trying it. The thing about this lady, though, was that she was adamant that there was more evidence to support creationism than evolution. Like, wow.

Well if you someone brings up adam and eve as the cause of sin, I would tell them, guess either god is omniscient and really neglect and stupid or not omniscient and still neglect.

[blackpudd1n]

I'm going to have to come back to falsifiability and non-falsifiability later. Starting to go brain-dead need to do some cleaning. Boy this is such a stretch of the mind. I also found Ouro's thread on asking for evidence for creationism- going to have a better look at that later.

[LivingLife]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not physically possible to flood the ENTIRE earth to that extent, right?

 

Nope not enough water. Throw her the Antarctic ice cores, know the difference between Greenland glacier cores and buried WWII planes and the Antarctic cores. (Precipitation levels)

 

Ice floats and melts in water dammit, how then can there be 400 -780 THOUSAND years of cores?

 

Ergo fludd never happened.

 

And no, there is not enough water to cover the planet EVEN IF ALL THE FUCKING ICE EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD MELTED.

 

Ice expands as it freezes, that is why it floats. ONLY LAND BOUND ICE will raise sea levels and calcs show a rise in about 50-100m of sea levels. Even if the NP melted, the increase from that alone would not increase the sea level too much.

 

If there was a water mantle, the sun's heat would not penetrate and everything would freeze. There would be no photosynthesis. Ergo teh Babble is BS.

 

This is a huge topic to fully arm yourself, climatology also comes into play, what causes the Ozone holes in the NP and SP. Ozone is formed by UV bombarding to change O₂ to O₃ In a SH summer, there is 6 mo sunlight so the hole closes, with 6 mo night, no sun means the hole expands. Neither the NP or SP get sun directly from above like at the Equator that is why there is ice all year round and why Ozone is more abundant at the equator. Ozone is what keeps the harmful UV out so we so not have to use factor 5000 sunblock if we want to go outside (picture a full body face pack) The ozone holes never fully close.

 

Altitude also comes into play here, the higher up you go, the more lethal the sun becomes. I can spend more time in the sun at the coast than I can at home 5000' above sea level.

 

Pudd there is no short-cut to learning this stuff. I am giving pointers and expect you to research. The info is long reads, much harder than babble shite. Fundies do not understand science so the babble "explains" it to them in terms they can grasp.

 

The bible defies all phsyical laws and only an appeal to majik makes it work.

 

Take time a learn this at an achievable pace. It is not hard but a lot of info. Fundiewarz are a waste of time and energy. So long as their shit stays out of schools, we are OK.

 

BTW I was not shouting at you. CAPS for (angry) emphasis.

[Ouroboros]

-Carbon dating

Carbon dating is just one out of a huge amount of dating methods, for starters. Most of the time, a scientist will not just rely on carbon dating, but try to find at least one or two other methods to apply. And also, carbon dating can't be use on anything older than 50,000 years. It won't work.

 

I could explain carbon dating, but I'm leaving to the others to explain exactly how it works for now. (Unless you specifically ask me to crack open my anthropology books and refresh my memory so I can explain it. )

 

-The water for the flood coming from the atmosphere (and there being no rain prior to the flood)

(all numbers are estimated and approximations)

 

The highest mountain in the world is about 8,800 meters. To cover it, the whole planet must be covered with a layer of water that is 8,800 meters (you can't have 8,800 meters in Europe, and something less or more at the other side of the planet, it's a semi-round planet after all, and gravity is not localized). In other words, a layer of 8,800 meters. This means that the layer of water hanging above Earth, before it fell, must've contained ALL that water. Granted that because of it being farther out and radius is changing, the hanging water must've been (approximately) 6-7,000 meters thick. What suspended that much water in the air without falling down by gravity? There's no scientific explanation to how that is possible. In other words, the flood is NOT scientifically supported.

 

So let's say half the water was underground. Well, that means that the crust of our Earth would have been thousands of feet farther out, and still, half of the water suspended in the air, like 3,000 meters thick, still no explanation how it could be done.

 

We're not talking about some thousand meters thick clouds here, we're talking about suspended "aquariums" above ground.

 

Here's an experiment. Take a bucket of water. Throw the water up in the air. Where did it go? Why didn't it go the same way before the flood? Oh, magic? Magic is not science.

[Overcame Faith]

Pudd, I applaud your desire to learn science. It is a most worthy pursuit. But here's the thing: if what you intend to do is to engage these people on the basis of science and to be effective in that engagement, you must learn science. A crash course over a forum will not put you in a position to to dispute what they say in scientific terms. You have already said that you missed out on a science education. The way to remedy that is to get yourself a proper education in science so you can learn it. That does not necessarily mean you must go back to school. Rather, you can read on your own. From a purely debating perspective, if you make a claim based on science which is demonstrated by your opponent to be incorrect, then you have lost credibility and what you say thereafter will have no authority with your opponent.

 

Personally, I think NeverAgainV had the best suggestion for you until you educate yourself in science. When they attempt to turn to science, don't swallow the bait. It's a debating trap because, even though chances are your opponent does not know science either, they make a statement and then expect you to refute it. The way to get them is to take advantage of what you do have and what, no matter what else, they are stuck with and that is the bible. NeverAgainV gave you some very good examples of the problems the Christians are stuck with. I know they will talk about god's miracles and all the rest, but that takes them to the matter of their faith and, frankly, that is where most debates between Christians and non-Christians break down. Unless the person is already questioning their faith, chances are no matter what you do or say, they will always fall back on their faith. That is why I see no merit in debating true believer Christians and do not engage in the activity.

[Legion]

Science - the business of producing models (understanding, explanations and predictions) of nature.

 

Religion - the business of making us feel better about death.

 

Be artistic. Play this for the fundie...

 

Pudd: Have you learned a lot during the time from when you were a baby until now?

 

Fundie: Sure I have.

 

Pudd: Could we go so far as to say that this learning has transformed you into a new person?

 

Fundie: I suppose we could.

 

Pudd: As I was once a child and became an adult, I once was an amphibian and became a human being. The one is cognitive adaptation, the other is somatic. I will die as a human being and become an angel. I will die as an angel and become a god.

 

See how that may do.

[blackpudd1n]

Then what do you mean by falsifiable?

 

New evidence can contradict a theory and make it false. So far, nothing has contradicted Evolution. Greater scientific discoveries have added to our collective knowledge. If something is falsifiable, it means it can be proven to be untrue. I can say, "I have a pink unicorn in my garage", you can respond, "what is the evidence for this unicorn?" At which, if I happened to be a Christian, or religious could respond thusly, "My Unicorn can only be taken on faith, and faith alone". So, scientific theories are regarded as fact, they are falsifiable, in that, they can be proven wrong by direct observations, or science. Christianity is the Hydra of Greek Mythology in that, it adapts to the needs of every generation.

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Falsifiable

 

Here's a great example of a non-falsifiable claim. http://en.wikipedia....sell%27s_Teapot

 

Okay, so falsifiable means that a theory can be proven false, not that it is actually false, and by saying that it can be proven false doesn't necessarily mean that it has been proven false yet, right? So what happens to a theory if it is proven flase?

[blackpudd1n]

Well if you someone brings up adam and eve as the cause of sin, I would tell them, guess either god is omniscient and really neglect and stupid or not omniscient and still neglect.

 

Could you please expand on why you would say that?

[BrotherJosh]

Okay, so falsifiable means that a theory can be proven false, not that it is actually false, and by saying that it can be proven false doesn't necessarily mean that it has been proven false yet, right? So what happens to a theory if it is proven flase?

 

Correct. Hmmm, well it wouldn't be a theory anymore. But usually more information just adds to our knowledge of a theory. One of my earlier examples was evolution. It wasn't just BOOM one day we knew everything about evolution. It's been a gradual process whereby our collected knowledge has increased, lending us a greater understanding of the theory.

[blackpudd1n]

Pudd there is no short-cut to learning this stuff. I am giving pointers and expect you to research. The info is long reads, much harder than babble shite. Fundies do not understand science so the babble "explains" it to them in terms they can grasp.

 

Thanks for the info and pointers, LL. I really appreciate it. It's kind of hard to know where to start when you know so little.

 

Just a quick question- that site that refutes Answers in Genesis, is this the link for it? http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

[Legion]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I applaud whoever brought the subject of falsifiablity.

[blackpudd1n]

-Carbon dating

Carbon dating is just one out of a huge amount of dating methods, for starters. Most of the time, a scientist will not just rely on carbon dating, but try to find at least one or two other methods to apply. And also, carbon dating can't be use on anything older than 50,000 years. It won't work.

 

I could explain carbon dating, but I'm leaving to the others to explain exactly how it works for now. (Unless you specifically ask me to crack open my anthropology books and refresh my memory so I can explain it. )

 

-The water for the flood coming from the atmosphere (and there being no rain prior to the flood)

(all numbers are estimated and approximations)

 

The highest mountain in the world is about 8,800 meters. To cover it, the whole planet must be covered with a layer of water that is 8,800 meters (you can't have 8,800 meters in Europe, and something less or more at the other side of the planet, it's a semi-round planet after all, and gravity is not localized). In other words, a layer of 8,800 meters. This means that the layer of water hanging above Earth, before it fell, must've contained ALL that water. Granted that because of it being farther out and radius is changing, the hanging water must've been (approximately) 6-7,000 meters thick. What suspended that much water in the air without falling down by gravity? There's no scientific explanation to how that is possible. In other words, the flood is NOT scientifically supported.

 

So let's say half the water was underground. Well, that means that the crust of our Earth would have been thousands of feet farther out, and still, half of the water suspended in the air, like 3,000 meters thick, still no explanation how it could be done.

 

We're not talking about some thousand meters thick clouds here, we're talking about suspended "aquariums" above ground.

 

Here's an experiment. Take a bucket of water. Throw the water up in the air. Where did it go? Why didn't it go the same way before the flood? Oh, magic? Magic is not science.

 

So basically, in order to have enough water to flood the earth, we'd have like oceans hanging above us. That much water couldn't just disappear that quickly, either. And an olive tree wouldn't survive it, either.

 

I live in a flood area. We flood when the rivers and land are already saturated with water, and it's high tide, so there's nowhere for the water to go. If the whole earth flooded, there'd be no-where for the water to go either, hey. It would take forever for it to evaporate.

[blackpudd1n]

Pudd, I applaud your desire to learn science. It is a most worthy pursuit. But here's the thing: if what you intend to do is to engage these people on the basis of science and to be effective in that engagement, you must learn science. A crash course over a forum will not put you in a position to to dispute what they say in scientific terms. You have already said that you missed out on a science education. The way to remedy that is to get yourself a proper education in science so you can learn it. That does not necessarily mean you must go back to school. Rather, you can read on your own. From a purely debating perspective, if you make a claim based on science which is demonstrated by your opponent to be incorrect, then you have lost credibility and what you say thereafter will have no authority with your opponent.

 

Personally, I think NeverAgainV had the best suggestion for you until you educate yourself in science. When they attempt to turn to science, don't swallow the bait. It's a debating trap because, even though chances are your opponent does not know science either, they make a statement and then expect you to refute it. The way to get them is to take advantage of what you do have and what, no matter what else, they are stuck with and that is the bible. NeverAgainV gave you some very good examples of the problems the Christians are stuck with. I know they will talk about god's miracles and all the rest, but that takes them to the matter of their faith and, frankly, that is where most debates between Christians and non-Christians break down. Unless the person is already questioning their faith, chances are no matter what you do or say, they will always fall back on their faith. That is why I see no merit in debating true believer Christians and do not engage in the activity.

 

It may seem like there is no merit in debating them to you, but to me it feels dishonest to myself not to stand up for what I (don't) believe in. Not only that, but it's a good way to highlight areas of ignorance in my own knowledge to go and research.

 

I'm under no illusion that I can quickly learn this stuff on a forum. But I need help to start learning. Not only that, but with my lack of knowledge, and the amount of unreliable sources on the internet, how the hell am I to know what is a reliable site and what isn't? How am I meant to know if I'm chasing a trail of bullshit if I don't have somewhere to come back to to discuss what I am learning, or if the information I've read is outdated?

 

From my perspective, it would be likely to be a greater waste of time to wander off into the wilderness that is the internet to learn about science and possibly get misinformed along the way, then to get a bit of an idea first of what the current scientific thought is on a field through the consensus of a group of people who are actually involved in science or have got quite a bit of knowledge on the topic. If I don't know the difference between fact and fiction, or st least have somewhere to discuss it, because I don't have a bunch of friends with an interest in science in real life, then I am going to be in for a long journey indeed. Not only that, but discussion enables learning.

 

At the end of the day, even if I never win a debate with what I have learned, I have learned something for myself. I have discovered holes in my knowledge, and I'm going about closing them. When you know nothing, where the hell do you even start? You start with the first thing that you realise you know nothing about.

[NeverAgainV]

Pudd, I applaud your desire to learn science. It is a most worthy pursuit. But here's the thing: if what you intend to do is to engage these people on the basis of science and to be effective in that engagement, you must learn science. A crash course over a forum will not put you in a position to to dispute what they say in scientific terms. You have already said that you missed out on a science education. The way to remedy that is to get yourself a proper education in science so you can learn it. That does not necessarily mean you must go back to school. Rather, you can read on your own. From a purely debating perspective, if you make a claim based on science which is demonstrated by your opponent to be incorrect, then you have lost credibility and what you say thereafter will have no authority with your opponent.

 

Personally, I think NeverAgainV had the best suggestion for you until you educate yourself in science. When they attempt to turn to science, don't swallow the bait. It's a debating trap because, even though chances are your opponent does not know science either, they make a statement and then expect you to refute it. The way to get them is to take advantage of what you do have and what, no matter what else, they are stuck with and that is the bible. NeverAgainV gave you some very good examples of the problems the Christians are stuck with. I know they will talk about god's miracles and all the rest, but that takes them to the matter of their faith and, frankly, that is where most debates between Christians and non-Christians break down. Unless the person is already questioning their faith, chances are no matter what you do or say, they will always fall back on their faith. That is why I see no merit in debating true believer Christians and do not engage in the activity.

Yes OverCame Faith, in the mind of a believer, science can always be refuted with the ole..."god works in mysterious ways" or "the wisdom of man is foolishness to god.." or any obscure bible verse to deny reality.

I think showing believers the inconsistencies & absurdities in their own bible is a good start to possibly getting them to think outside of the xian box.

How could a real god have such a poor & archaic book represent it....doesn't make sense at all.