LegendBegins said
The same applies to you then, and you have no right to claim I'm wrong. However, I don't need to read the others to know the truth. It's as if I knew the sky was blue and you wanted me to read a new theory of how it was green. Although, your statement of science is totally incorrect, and I'm sorry that you think that way. It's just not right.
Considering that you thought that Ken Ham won, that you honestly believe that "god" is a better answer than "I don't know", it is with absolute certainty that one could say that you don't care about actual science, you only care about this false idea that you have in your head. Because without the ability to admit "I don't know", science does not exist. That very statement is the one thing upon which all else hinges in terms of science.
On the other hand, philosophy hinges on the statement "I don't believe (idea)", which is something you have never once said in regards to what you place yourself upon. If you don't find a philosophy of self, then you do not have a platform to see the world with which would allow you to truly find a philosophy of anything else.
Your analogy is also wrong. You're claiming that a crow is a raven. It may be easy to mistake, and you may be able to create an argument for your case for a short while, but it's not long until your claim begins to fall apart. You may even be able to convince people who don't have any prior knowledge. But at some point you're not going to be able to keep saying it.
As for what I'm doing, I'm tossing rocks into a river in the hopes that I'll kill a shark. There are move effective ways, but this does the least damage to the environment and ecosystem.