Ok just look at this....

Mena

Dades wrote: »

In reality there were only two idiots in that video, and a group of impressionable children unlucky enough to have been born to other idiots.

Fully agreed. Damn, I think I'm becomming a militant evolutionist, watching that had my blood boiling. Hopefully these poor kids will have the opportunity to question this drivel and make up their own minds in the future...

death1234567

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

But wouldn't you react with anger if the video showed them teaching the kids the $cientology story (Xenu etc)? And if they were getting the kids to repeat over and over, 'Xenu is our overlord and master', before they were old enough to see it was nonsense?

Hey! Repeat after me "Xenu is good, Xenu is great, we surrender our will as of this date"

Na Na Na Na Na XENU, Na Na Na Na Na XENU, XENU,XENU, BATMAN...I mean XENU.

Dades

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And you have the gall to call Christians intolerant and hypocrites?

I for one am intolerant of child abuse, and proud of it.

Anyone watch the "Creation v Evolution"* documentary on Wed night? Twas on one of the Irish channels. Had all the usual suspects, Dawkins, AIG people, Ken Hamm. It was surprisingly aggressive toward the "Christian science". It even has a narrator whose tone turned sinister whenever talking about Christian schooling, which I thought was a bit cheesy and unnecessary. I mean thats a creationist tactic itself! I prefer the scientist and petri dish approach.

But seriously - dinosaurs had sharp teeth and claws to open the tougher fruits in the Garden of Eden?

* I think that was the name

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Anyone watch the "Creation v Evolution"* documentary on Wed night?

Yep, was about to go to bed when I saw a post by df (?) about it; "Creation vs Darwin" afair.

Dades wrote: »

It even has a narrator whose tone turned sinister whenever talking about Christian schooling, which I thought was a bit cheesy and unnecessary. I mean thats a creationist tactic itself! I prefer the scientist and petri dish approach.

It's certainly more honest to approaching people with a petri dish and a microscope in the hope that you can appeal to their better nature, but unfortunately, there's a certain sad logic to fighting fire with fire. Hence the rather successful full point and laugh treatment that Dawkins and company have been at since last week's "Expelled" PR disaster!

JimiTime

nerin wrote: »

correct me if im wrong jimitime, but i think what he means zillah is he believes a deity created the world,but not in a "magic fairy dust" way, as in the world was created and stuff evolved, but that was the plan. or something. ive explained it before on the christianity forum but didnt really get anywhere

Afraid not nerin:) Truth is, I don't know the method used. I am opposed to these people believing they are being 'Zealous', by peddling stuff they obviously know little about to impressionable children. As a Christian, I think these folks cause more harm than good, not only to their children, but christianity as a whole.

Zillah

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And you have the gall to call Christians intolerant and hypocrites?

Intolerance isn't neccessarily a bad thing. For example, I'm intolerant of people lying to children.

Yes, I'd like them to shut up. They're lying to children.


Are you not intolerant of people lying to children?

nesf

Zillah wrote: »

=Yes, I'd like them to shut up. They're lying to children.

So if I tell my son that the sun is a big ball of fire in the sky you'd like to shut me up? Or if I tell him Santa exists? Etc.

Zombrex

nesf wrote: »

So if I tell my son that the sun is a big ball of fire in the sky you'd like to shut me up? Or if I tell him Santa exists? Etc.

Or if you tell them that John next door is a child molester, or that their mother is a whore .... because all lies are the same ...

I think it was pretty clear what Zillah meant

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What a disturbing thread. All of you who disagree with the tour guides want to shut them up,

Is this a good time to use that joke about the whole debate between the stork theory of child reproduction and the sex theory?

Brian, what these guys are saying are clearly lies. Wanting them to be held responsible for this is not hypocrisy.

iUseVi

This is clearly child abuse.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

This is clearly child abuse.

Not sure I would go that far, but it is certainly irresponsible parenting. But judging by the parents they seem as clueless and ignorant as the children.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

Not sure I would go that far, but it is certainly irresponsible parenting. But judging by the parents they seem as clueless and ignorant as the children.

Yeah I hesitated before going that far. But there comes a point when parents can go too far. I have direct experience of this creationist BS, and it really does cause harm. It perhaps will manifest itself subtly, but it poisons the mind.

This issue goes much wider than just creationism imho. Do parents cause harm teaching religious doctrine? Certainly. However what gives me the right to interfere? What gives the right for anyone to interfere? Gah, its really frustrating theres no simple solution for this!

The parents really think they are teaching the children the truth. Theres no doubt about that. We just happen to know they are wrong. I think its our job/duty to show the parents the error of there ways. The children are entirely innocent bystanders.

kelly1

son.of.jimi wrote: »

Now i'm really trying to find the basic logic in how you can do this to kids....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUeoem1gR3s

Very sad indeed. Creationists just create an unnecessary conflict between science and religion.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

The parents really think they are teaching the children the truth. Theres no doubt about that. We just happen to know they are wrong. I think its our job/duty to show the parents the error of there ways. The children are entirely innocent bystanders.

I suppose it comes down to the wider issue of home schooling, do parents have the right to f**k up their children's education.

Popinjay

5uspect wrote: »

Is this a good time to use that joke about the whole debate between the stork theory of child reproduction and the sex theory?

Brian, what these guys are saying are clearly lies. Wanting them to be held responsible for this is not hypocrisy.

Almost regret changing my sig now. That was it for a while. I think Wolfy wanted me to changed it to Spontaneous Generation instead of Stork Theory.

See here: Section 1.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

folan

i liked the museum curator. His feeling was if these kids do this tour and even a couple start to think, well thats not right, then its worth it.

And that he used to be llike them. He just did more research and came to his own conclusions. So let it go on, and i can see these kids starting to ask more questions!

nesf

Wicknight wrote: »

Or if you tell them that John next door is a child molester, or that their mother is a whore .... because all lies are the same ...

I think it was pretty clear what Zillah meant

Meh, I think we'd all agree that some lies are ok to tell kids and some aren't. The issue is where we draw the line and this is one of those times where it isn't black and white over which is ok and which isn't.

Wicknight wrote: »

I suppose it comes down to the wider issue of home schooling, do parents have the right to f**k up their children's education.

Yeah, that's a tricky one. Does the state have a right to force a "proper" education on all children or is this a choice for parents to make? Etc.

eoin5

Apart from telling kids some total nonsense to be true its also teaching them how to deny logic and reason as creationism blatently has no legs to stand on. Most religious thought tends to fill in the gaps but creationism purports to be a valid alternative to evidence based research. I reckon most of those kids will smell a rat but its the kind of thing that for some people a shrink will have to spend time breaking down.

When it comes to the science question in the state exams it better not include a question on a veggie T-Rex.

son.of.jimi

Well i think i should post again here!!

as for my slap the bald guy comment i stand by that, if he were teaching the kids about cration without dragging them to a museum i would'nt have a problem, although i don't agree with creationism at all.

the fact is these two guys brought these kids to a museum that has everything in front of them and explains evolution to everyone who enters it's doors and yet they try to fit their "facts' of creation to the kids using the museum as a visual aid.

this is why baldy needs a slap!

Dades

Please note the Atheism & Agnosticism forum does not formally condone the slapping of bald men on the head.

Even creationists.

Galvasean

The only reason Creationists even address dinosaurs now (they didn't before) is that kids love dinosaurs and they want to reel 'em in.

Also:


>

Dades

Indeed!

Creationists must be torn on the question of showing historically accurate films such as "When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth", given the gratuitous semi-nudity.



ps This image is just screaming for a caption

Mena

Dades wrote: »

Please note the Atheism & Agnosticism forum does not formally condone the slapping of bald men on the head.

Even creationists.

I for one strongly feel the A&A forum charter needs a specific update to allow the slapping of bald headed creationists on the head :pac:

Zombrex

nesf wrote: »

Meh, I think we'd all agree that some lies are ok to tell kids and some aren't.

Certainly, but I think Zillahs (rather clear) point was that these lies are lies that aren't ok to tell to kids

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, that's a tricky one. Does the state have a right to force a "proper" education on all children or is this a choice for parents to make? Etc.

That is the issue. On the one hand you have the valid argument that a lot of parents are wack-jobs (as this video demonstrates). On the other hand you have the issue of whether society as a whole has the right to determine what is or is not the "correct" way to educate children.

Dave!

The constitution has this to say on the subject........

Article 42

1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3. 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4. The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

5. In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

son.of.jimi

Mena wrote: »

I for one strongly feel the A&A forum charter needs a specific update to allow the slapping of bald headed creationists on the head :pac:

I 2nd that motion!!!

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Indeed!

Creationists must be torn on the question of showing historically accurate films such as "When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth", given the gratuitous semi-nudity.



ps This image is just screaming for a caption

"If you noticed the lizard first, you are clearly gay."

Nerin

JimiTime wrote: »

Afraid not nerin:) Truth is, I don't know the method used. I am opposed to these people believing they are being 'Zealous', by peddling stuff they obviously know little about to impressionable children. As a Christian, I think these folks cause more harm than good, not only to their children, but christianity as a whole.

thats pretty fair imo.
i mean when you boil it all down, how can a mortal such as i understand what a deity is up to.
its all just theories.

son.of.jimi wrote: »

I 2nd that motion!!!

3rd!;)

anyhoo,my main problems with creationism(one of em anyway) was covered in the video.
Evolution is a science. ok.
They admit,they don't know everything,but are open to logical suggestions.

Creationism wants to be science, but enters the debate with a pre determined belief in whats going on. based on the bible.
fair enough,live and let live, but they are constricted by an ancient text. they find something,they make up something so it fits in with the bible and christianitys ideas.

which is silly.

Zillah

nesf wrote: »

So if I tell my son that the sun is a big ball of fire in the sky you'd like to shut me up?

Thats a fairly good way of explaining it to a child. There's a very big difference between outright falsehoods and simplifications.

Or if I tell him Santa exists? Etc.

To be honest I'd prefer you didn't. But please bear in mind there's a huge difference between "I want you to not do that" and "I think you should be forced to stop".

nesf wrote: »

Meh, I think we'd all agree that some lies are ok to tell kids and some aren't. The issue is where we draw the line and this is one of those times where it isn't black and white over which is ok and which isn't.

I think this one is pretty black and white.

adamd164

I think this is on topic - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080327/ap_on_re_us/daughter_s_death_prayer;_ylt=AuRlIOgEIjBiJcoSmXQZXXADW7oF

Now that truly should be illegal. Indoctrination is one thing: manslaughter is quite another.