Ok just look at this....

nesf · 28-03-2008 10:58pm

Zillah wrote: »

I think this one is pretty black and white.

You object because it's logically untrue but really it's harmless. These idiots will raise equally idiotic kids you can't do much to stop that and nor should you. I disapprove of this very strongly and I'd openly say it to them and if their kids asked me I'd tell them the truth. I don't think I've the right to say they can't teach their kids that though.

eoin5 · 28-03-2008 11:17pm

nesf wrote: »

You object because it's logically untrue but really it's harmless. These idiots will raise equally idiotic kids you can't do much to stop that and nor should you. I disapprove of this very strongly and I'd openly say it to them and if their kids asked me I'd tell them the truth. I don't think I've the right to say they can't teach their kids that though.

Its not harmless. This sort of thing steers kids into the gap between trusting their parents and trusting reality and some kids will start to stonewall anything that goes against what their parents say. It makes for very closed-minded individuals.

Sangre · 28-03-2008 11:54pm

nesf wrote: »

You object because it's logically untrue but really it's harmless.

Educating someone with false information is pretty much synonymous with not educating them at all. If you're going to tell someone 2+2=9 then I'd rather you didn't tell them at all. I hardly think either is 'harmless'. I guess I'm a bit old fashioned in thinking children should receive a proper education. Personally I'd prefer someone is told nothing rather than a falsehood because once they do approach the topic on their own they can approach it on their own.

Zillah · 28-03-2008 11:56pm

nesf wrote: »

I disapprove of this very strongly and I'd openly say it to them and if their kids asked me I'd tell them the truth. I don't think I've the right to say they can't teach their kids that though.

Zillah wrote: »

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".

Are you even paying attention?

son.of.jimi · 29-03-2008 2:01am

"Posted by ADAMD164"

"I think this is on topic - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080327/...oSmXQZXXADW7oF

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

ok i would consider that girls case as being manslaughter and it seems to me that her parents were obviuosly confused as to what to do or what to trust/believe in...

"The girl's mother, Leilani Neumann, said that she and her family believe in the Bible and that healing comes from God, but that they do not belong to an organized religion or faith, are not fanatics and have nothing against doctors."

I mean if you have nothing against doctors then uh.... BRING THE SICK CHILD TO ONE!!!

Don't start praying if you know that there are people who will action the problem straight away who have spent years of study using SCIENCE to find cures to our diseases!

Q: Does Creationism have a "biblically correct" explanation for any disease?

adamd164 · 29-03-2008 2:14am

son.of.jimi wrote: »

I mean if you have nothing against doctors then uh.... BRING THE SICK CHILD TO ONE!!!

Don't start praying if you know that there are people who will action the problem straight away who have spent years of study using SCIENCE to find cures to our diseases!

Seems obvious, doesn't it? What's scary is that the police have taken no action with regards to her other children. They have to be considered in danger.

son.of.jimi wrote: »

Q: Does Creationism have a "biblically correct" explanation for any disease?

You mean the evolution of new diseases? Many would just ignore the point because of their "faith"; but some of the better-read would attempt to establish a dichotomy between so-called micro-evolution (changes in gene frequencies) and macro-evolution (formation of new species). They claim to accept the former but not the latter. In reality, it's impossible to do so given the evidence, but heck, evidence has never stood in their way!

nesf · 29-03-2008 12:37pm

Zillah wrote: »

Are you even paying attention?

Not really, this doesn't interest me that much.

I just genuinely think it's harmless. It's untrue, idiotic etc but it's not like they're telling them to lynch evolution pundits or anything.

iUseVi · 29-03-2008 1:27pm

nesf wrote: »

Not really, this doesn't interest me that much.

I just genuinely think it's harmless. It's untrue, idiotic etc but it's not like they're telling them to lynch evolution pundits or anything.

Its certainly not harmless. They may not be telling them to lynch evolution pundits, but they will certainly be telling them things like:

"evolution is the devils work...stay away from anyone who tells you its true."
"Anyone who says the earth is more than 6000 years is lying, probably some sort of evil conspiracy involving black helicopters etc."

You may think that I am just being overly dramatic, but I really am not. I have had far too much first hand experience with these fundies. The crap they spout is not limited to creationism. They can really really screw with a persons mind. Especially if they of below average intelligence and/or are children. They know that if they can grab a child's mind when they are young, theres a good chance they'll stay that way.

Galvasean · 29-03-2008 1:39pm

adamd164 wrote: »

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.

But, surely God gave us medicine to cure diseases?
Reminds me of the old fable of the man on his roof during a flood who refused to let people rescue him. When he eventually drowned he asked God "Why didn't you save me?" God said, "What the heck to you think those rescue workers were for!?!?!"

nesf · 29-03-2008 3:33pm

iUseVi wrote: »

Its certainly not harmless. They may not be telling them to lynch evolution pundits, but they will certainly be telling them things like:

"evolution is the devils work...stay away from anyone who tells you its true."
"Anyone who says the earth is more than 6000 years is lying, probably some sort of evil conspiracy involving black helicopters etc."

You may think that I am just being overly dramatic, but I really am not. I have had far too much first hand experience with these fundies. The crap they spout is not limited to creationism. They can really really screw with a persons mind. Especially if they of below average intelligence and/or are children. They know that if they can grab a child's mind when they are young, theres a good chance they'll stay that way.

Sure, but all I'm talking about is the right for these kinds of tours to happen. I don't agree with them but I can't see them being banned as being justifiable.

iUseVi · 29-03-2008 3:48pm

nesf wrote: »

Sure, but all I'm talking about is the right for these kinds of tours to happen. I don't agree with them but I can't see them being banned as being justifiable.

Whether they could be justifiably banned? That's a tough call. I don't think I could argue strongly enough for that case. Free speech should triumph I suspect. Dammit.:p

nesf · 29-03-2008 4:26pm

iUseVi wrote: »

Whether they could be justifiably banned? That's a tough call. I don't think I could argue strongly enough for that case. Free speech should triumph I suspect. Dammit.:p

And I'm the one who's for restricting free speech more usually...

Galvasean · 30-03-2008 11:40pm

Just taught Id share this, its kind of on topic.

Nerin · 30-03-2008 11:55pm

but they're both standing still, Rex cant see em

;)

Overheal · 31-03-2008 2:23am

Carbon Dating and Jeff Goldblum for the win!

Galvasean · 31-03-2008 12:21pm

nerin wrote: »

but they're both standing still, Rex cant see em ;)

I bet he can smell them

But yeah that Jurassic park thing was BS

BrianCalgary · 31-03-2008 4:03pm

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.

But you cant prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are lies. Science has screwed up royally in the past. I was taught in Junior High that we were moving into another ice age. So I was lied to by science.

Going by what you and Zillah would wish we should shut up: Mormons, Buddhists, Hindu's, Jews, Christians and Muslims to name a few because they teach other than evolution, which you fervently believe.

PS Robin; I do apologise for using the term 'all'.

OK-Cancel-Apply · 31-03-2008 4:18pm

You can't prove outright that the toothfairy isn't real, or that Thor is a lie, but I'm sure not one person here would have it taught to their kids as truth.

With science, you are teaching kids, "To the best of our knowledge, this is how we understand the world to be, and here why we think so". Although many religious people would like to say otherwise, science is not just another faith. Science updates itself with new information, dogma does not. A Bible printed in 2008 will still tell you the earth is flat.

Nerin · 31-03-2008 4:35pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

But you cant prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are lies. Science has screwed up royally in the past. I was taught in Junior High that we were moving into another ice age. So I was lied to by science.

Going by what you and Zillah would wish we should shut up: Mormons, Buddhists, Hindu's, Jews, Christians and Muslims to name a few because they teach other than evolution, which you fervently believe.

PS Robin; I do apologise for using the term 'all'.

Brian, we both know that religion (as well as science) has screwed up royally. this is an invalid point. by your own argument you are saying not to believe science because it was wrong in the past. so why should anyone believe any religion, as they've all been wrong.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

You can't prove outright that the toothfairy isn't real, or that Thor is a lie, but I'm sure not one person here would have it taught to their kids as truth.

With science, you are teaching kids, "To the best of our knowledge, this is how we understand the world to be, and here why we think so". Although many religious people would like to say otherwise, science is not just another faith. Science updates itself with new information, dogma does not. A Bible printed in 2008 will still tell you the earth is flat.

this i a very good point, well done.

BrianCalgary · 31-03-2008 4:54pm

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

You can't prove outright that the toothfairy isn't real, or that Thor is a lie, but I'm sure not one person here would have it taught to their kids as truth.

With science, you are teaching kids, "To the best of our knowledge, this is how we understand the world to be, and here why we think so". Although many religious people would like to say otherwise, science is not just another faith. Science updates itself with new information, dogma does not. A Bible printed in 2008 will still tell you the earth is flat.

And where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat?

And then why would you want to muzzle people who understand teh world to be something different that you do, based on their knowledge and understandings?

5uspect · 31-03-2008 5:14pm

How many times has this been explained to you, Brian?

As has been repeatedly shown in the BC&P thread (TM) next door the claims of creationists are clearly nonsense and creationists are dishonest in their claims.

For example J C was caught copying and pasting wikipedia into his posts as if it were his own work and then tried to squirm out of it. He also tries to claim qualifications in so many fields that would make him as old a Noah (and then demonstrates utter ignorance of each of them :rolleyes:). They also made up claims about the logistics of the Ark based on nothing but assuming an astronomical rate of genetic mutation so high that I should have mutated into something a little more fallen in the time I took to write this post.

It has been shown time and time again, beyond reasonable doubt, that creationism is false. Unless they can provide any (ANY!!!) evidence that is.

We cannot prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, perhaps the whole creationist movement is actually correct but they're all just unfortunate enough to be bumbling idiots completely incapable of producing a single iota of evidence. Of course that would also apply to the paranormalists and alternative medicine crowd. Its amazing how all these cranks are so desperate for their own personal miracles.

Science is self correcting, what you were taught was to the best of scientific knowledge at the time and is always subject to new evidence, religion is not. That should have been made clear to you. IT has been made clear to you numerous times here.

Science is an exercise in "screwing up" so that we can learn from our mistakes. Remember creation was once the dominant theory and was found to be a screw up and then replaced.

These nuts giving the tours have decided what the truth is a priori and then shoehorned some museum exhibits around that completely unsubstantiated idea. If they would like to provide evidence for their claims then I wouldn't have a problem with their position but they don't.

I do have the opinion that children shouldn't be taught religion as being factually true. So in this regard I would agree with you that I don't want religions teaching kids such nonsense as creationism.

P.S. I've attached a paper on Ice Age Cycles for you to read.

nesf · 31-03-2008 7:04pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

But you cant prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are lies. Science has screwed up royally in the past. I was taught in Junior High that we were moving into another ice age. So I was lied to by science.

You have hit on an important point that people need to pay more attention to. The problem with science isn't that scientists and scientifically literate people believe that it's all "true". It's that less well educated treat it as if it was true because of the crap way it is taught in many countries at primary and secondary level (and the average person's inability to delineate between probably and certain truths for the most part). I think this was partially what you were trying to get at in the above. Apologies if I'm misrepresenting you.

The problems with Young Earth Creationism are much more complex. For a start the empirical evidence is against them not for them in general. Unless you take the extreme case of rejecting empirical evidence as being false without justifiable logical grounds to do so (very bad, intellectual dishonesty makes baby Jesus cry

) or as part of some test by the Lord of our Faith (not so bad, it just becomes a completely religious issue here but it also loses any ability to rationally interact with science and definitely loses any grounds to be "taught as science") you have to at least acknowledge the weight of empirical evidence suggesting that your belief is false. It doesn't mean that it is false, just that there is no justifiable reason as of yet to claim that it is true. To make a truth claim against the prevailing evidence is a very different proposition to making a truth claim that agrees with the evidence. Neither are strictly deductively true but one has inductive support for it and one against it and ignoring inductive support against your position isn't very logical unless there's a decent body of empirical evidence that supports your position.

Basically, if you subscribe to empirical evidence being some way accurate representations of the truth (if not being the actual truth itself) then you have to reject the Young Earth Creationist claims. There is simply too much evidence across too many different disciplines with different methodologies and philosophies, to say the Earth is only 6,000 years old. If one single piece of evidence says something is a certain way then yes, it makes perfect sense to be extremely sceptical about it but the more pieces that build up using diverse means of gathering and testing them then the harder it is to justify much scepticism about the matter.

Note: I was raised as a Catholic so it does bias my thinking here. From my upbringing I don't believe that to be a good Christian that you have to believe that the Bible is literally true which does inform my counter-arguments here to an extent. I know it is not the same for some Evangelical denominations but for me there is nothing illogical in someone having faith in both God and empirical evidence.

bogwalrus · 31-03-2008 11:04pm

Sangre wrote: »

Educating someone with false information is pretty much synonymous with not educating them at all. If you're going to tell someone 2+2=9 then I'd rather you didn't tell them at all. I hardly think either is 'harmless'. I guess I'm a bit old fashioned in thinking children should receive a proper education. Personally I'd prefer someone is told nothing rather than a falsehood because once they do approach the topic on their own they can approach it on their own.

I believe that a child who believes in such fairy tales as santa, tooth fairy and other fantasy stories parents tell their children (like princesses and nights) helps develop the imagination and can do a lot of good for creativity in that person and maybe some other psychological benfits. Though i have never seen qualitative/quantitive study of this i know 2 girls who were told such lovely fantasy stories about fairies when they were young and they are both really fine artists (one a good poet).

There might even be bad effects in telling children the truth at such a young age,i am talking about the "so called" harmless truths now such as santa and so on. Having a kid grow up and develop very logically and not being able to believe that they could be a wizzard or a night in a fairytale land or even some wizzard kid because their parents tell them that its not true seems quite cold and restrictive. What i am saying i suppose is that a child that only sees fact and told there is only a straight line of logic is given no room to wobble and ponder what if's.

Can some of you guys agree that when you were young and innocent that some of these lies helped you have some of the most fun you have ever had? I remember i used to go off in my own world sometimes and believe i could fly and save people in far away places.

I do definitely agree that there is an age the child has to grow up and see the world the way it truly is...maybe 10 years or so. The child in my opinion would benefit greatly from having an extremely innocent existence before then.

Dave! · 31-03-2008 11:15pm

bogwalrus wrote: »

I believe that a child who believes in such fairy tales as santa, tooth fairy and other fantasy stories parents tell their children (like princesses and nights) helps develop the imagination and can do a lot of good for creativity in that person and maybe some other psychological benfits. Though i have never seen qualitative/quantitive study of this i know 2 girls who were told such lovely fantasy stories about fairies when they were young and they are all really fine artists (one a good poet).

Well I could find you about 100 people who were told about santa, etc., who DIDN'T grow up to be really fine artists...... I'm afraid it doesn't prove anything. I would suggest that childhood exposure to creative material such as books and art would be more likely to result in a creative adult than being told stories which it later emerges were false.

bogwalrus wrote: »

There might even be bad effects in telling children the truth at such a young age,i am talking about the "so called" harmless truths now such as santa and so on. Having a kid grow up and develop very logically and not being able to believe that they could be a wizzard or a night in a fairytale land or even some wizzard kid because their parents tell them that its not true seems quite cold and restrictive. What i am saying i suppose is that a child that only sees fact and told there is only a straight line of logic is given no room to wobble and ponder what if's.

I don't see why... They can read wonderful stories about ghosts and goblins and fairies and angels, and immerse themselves in them, yet not believe it to be true. You've never enjoyed a book and let your imagination wander without actually believing it to be true? I sure have. Harry Potter has sold about a trillion copies! I don't think the readers all believe it, do you?

You're falling into the trap of thinking that because you don't believe in crap, you're a cold, callous, uncreative person. The same sort of myth that suggests that atheists are evil and immoral because they're godless.

bogwalrus wrote: »

Can some of you guys agree that when you were young and innocent that some of these lies helped you have some of the most fun you have ever had? I remember i used to go off in my own world sometimes and believe i could fly and save people in far away places.

Not me personally... I never believed that I could fly, or that I was a wizard, or anything like that. I pretended to be a soldier or a zombie or superman, and had great fun with that. But there's a difference between pretending and believing.

Sangre · 31-03-2008 11:20pm

Do some kids actually believe fairytales are true?

bogwalrus · 31-03-2008 11:51pm

DaveMcG wrote: »

Well I could find you about 100 people who were told about santa, etc., who DIDN'T grow up to be really fine artists...... I'm afraid it doesn't prove anything. I would suggest that childhood exposure to creative material such as books and art would be more likely to result in a creative adult than being told stories which it later emerges were false.

i know it doesnt prove anything. I just mentioned the two girls cause it came to mind and it seems relative to my point. Of course creative material stimulates. But maybe if the child knew that the fantasy stories they read are false and not real would they be as stimulated.

DaveMcG wrote: »

I don't see why... They can read wonderful stories about ghosts and goblins and fairies and angels, and immerse themselves in them, yet not believe it to be true. You've never enjoyed a book and let your imagination wander without actually believing it to be true? I sure have. Harry Potter has sold about a trillion copies! I don't think the readers all believe it, do you?

But maybe because you enjoy the lord of the rings these days and harry potter is because of being nurchered at a young age in believeing in things like santa and other fantasys?? im still able to let my imagination run wild when i read a good fantasy book like disc world work but i wonder if i had grown up to believe in nothing (actually believe) then maybe my view on fantasy books would be cold and very different from now?? maybe?

DaveMcG wrote: »

You're falling into the trap of thinking that because you don't believe in crap, you're a cold, callous, uncreative person. The same sort of myth that suggests that atheists are evil and immoral because they're godless.

i am talking about a childs mind developing and whether "belief" in fantasy stories and complete innocence is what helps develop a perfectly healthy imagination and mind. just postulating now. I am not implying that lack of belief in things that are not real will cause cold callous uncreative people but that these fantasy's help develop a health imagination when brought up innocently til a certain age.

DaveMcG wrote: »

Not me personally... I never believed that I could fly, or that I was a wizard, or anything like that. I pretended to be a soldier or a zombie or superman, and had great fun with that. But there's a difference between pretending and believing.

a kid does both pretend and believe. But that only happens up until they lose their innocence.

Sangre · 01-04-2008 12:02am

you're basing all this on absolutely nothing. maybe knowing that something isn't true but 'made up' would fuel someone's imagination more?

bogwalrus · 01-04-2008 12:17am

Sangre wrote: »

you're basing all this on absolutely nothing. maybe knowing that something isn't true but 'made up' would fuel someone's imagination more?

I am basing things on what i feel at this time, and it feels imagination would be more associated with believing in fantasy than knowing things to be untrue.

I have been saying things with maybes and possibly's since i started posting.the topic in which we are discussing now, does not seem like either of us can base our opinions on anything other than what we feel.Most of what i say i would love to see study's and experiements on but there never does seem to be any so i just go with a feeling and do my best to argue "a point" not my gospel.

Its a discussion board sure,and i was just voicing an opinion to open the discussion up a bit instead of letting it stay closed like most discussion end up. I always think its good to throw in curve balls to see if it leads discussions further and to new levels. no fun in people just going yes and agreeing fully with each other. It does seem though that i have been unsuccessful

Sangre · 01-04-2008 12:33am

of course its good, i will encourage anyone to think outside the box. however that doesn't mean im not going to tell you i think you're wrong

bogwalrus · 01-04-2008 12:41am

as others have told me many many times...............:)

But be careful now sangre, as my eyes veer over to my user cp i see that it says moderator with four lovely silver stars and at any moment if i feel under pressure from your great ability to prove my theories false i will not hesitate in banning you;)

Ok just look at this....

Comments