I find this very disturbing.
Mar 31st 2008, 2:26 pm
#16
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,715
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Originally Posted by The4BellsLondon
Is that like speed dating for archaeologists??
Yeah, they really dig it...
Mar 31st 2008, 2:28 pm
#17
half a century
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Sarf Lundun to East Van :)
Posts: 10,222
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Originally Posted by hot wasabi peas
Yeah, they really dig it...
Mar 31st 2008, 2:52 pm
#18
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: NS
Posts: 1,212
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Originally Posted by hot wasabi peas
That sure is disturbing Peas
Mar 31st 2008, 3:12 pm
#19
Sawdust making harpy
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,291
Re: I find this very disturbing.
This explains things perfectly!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I Wow god is sooooo clever!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I Wow god is sooooo clever!
Mar 31st 2008, 4:25 pm
#20
Islander
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto, woo!
Posts: 953
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Fair play to the curator for letting these weirdos do this. I think that speaks louder than any of the crap they're forcing into these kids' minds.
Mar 31st 2008, 5:15 pm
#21
Cheesey Dippin-Dunkin
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: London Outskirts
Posts: 1,161
Re: I find this very disturbing.
At a recent conference I attended in Regina I went to a workshop titled "How Old Is The Earth" and the conclusions the speaker came to was thus...(NB he is a Nuclear Chemist by trade) in response to all forms of logic???
Salt in the ocean leads to a maximum age of 62 million years...
Helium in the atmosphere leads to a maximum age of 2 million years...
Dendrochronology indicates that the most likely age is several thousand years...
The only successful model of planetary magnetic fields indicates a maximum age of 9000 years...
The lack of short-lived radioisotopes indicates a minimum age of several hundred million years, but this depends on an assumption that does no tseem reliable...
Radiometric dating is not reliable, except for the specific case of carbon-14 dating over the past 3000 years, assuming the radioactive decay rate is constant over that time period...
Does this fairly well dismiss all theories?
As a Home Educating Mom - I will be teaching the thoughts of that well know Philosopher - The King of Siam - from The King and I...(and at 4 years old I quoted this to the eldest when she asked the question where did the earth come from)
My response was simple enough...
It depends on who you believe...
If you believe men of science then earth was created from things evolving to what we know today...
If you believe men of faith then earth was was created by god in 6 days.
I think the important thing not to forget to remind and teach our children - is not necessarily what is the right or wrong answer, but for them to develop their own method of reasoning and critical thinking...and to question "evidence" of any kind which is put in front of them (news reports, news papers, commentary etc.) and for them to develop as independent thinkers and not like the tosh that these bozos are trying to promote...what we say is right and buggar the rest of the world...(pardon the expression)
I will have to watch again the clip for specifics...but some of what they say has credibility with me...(not the faith bits...but their method of reasoning such) but as I say...will report back when I've seen a few times more...
Salt in the ocean leads to a maximum age of 62 million years...
Helium in the atmosphere leads to a maximum age of 2 million years...
Dendrochronology indicates that the most likely age is several thousand years...
The only successful model of planetary magnetic fields indicates a maximum age of 9000 years...
The lack of short-lived radioisotopes indicates a minimum age of several hundred million years, but this depends on an assumption that does no tseem reliable...
Radiometric dating is not reliable, except for the specific case of carbon-14 dating over the past 3000 years, assuming the radioactive decay rate is constant over that time period...
Does this fairly well dismiss all theories?
As a Home Educating Mom - I will be teaching the thoughts of that well know Philosopher - The King of Siam - from The King and I...(and at 4 years old I quoted this to the eldest when she asked the question where did the earth come from)
My response was simple enough...
It depends on who you believe...
If you believe men of science then earth was created from things evolving to what we know today...
If you believe men of faith then earth was was created by god in 6 days.
I think the important thing not to forget to remind and teach our children - is not necessarily what is the right or wrong answer, but for them to develop their own method of reasoning and critical thinking...and to question "evidence" of any kind which is put in front of them (news reports, news papers, commentary etc.) and for them to develop as independent thinkers and not like the tosh that these bozos are trying to promote...what we say is right and buggar the rest of the world...(pardon the expression)
I will have to watch again the clip for specifics...but some of what they say has credibility with me...(not the faith bits...but their method of reasoning such) but as I say...will report back when I've seen a few times more...
Mar 31st 2008, 5:37 pm
#22
Sawdust making harpy
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,291
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Education is all about points of view, even a book is written by a person who will put their own slant on it, so if you want to get to the truth of the matter then you'll be waiting a long time.
Its the whole 3 sides to every arguement issue yours, mine and the right one.
So I suppose if I were home schooling (and I wouldn't cos they'd get away with blue murder!) my intro to the little ones in that tour would be
We know about dinosaurs, we have found bones - look here they are - we don't know too much about it though because we weren't there but this is what some people think.....
The bible, this was a story written a long time ago mainly about a really nice guy called Jesus who was supposed to have done and been this that and the other we don't know too much about it though because we weren't there but this is what some people think think.....
Do we see a pattern? For people and organisations to be polluting kids minds with arguements for and against A POINT OF VIEW is just plain wrong
(in my opinion!)
Its the whole 3 sides to every arguement issue yours, mine and the right one.
So I suppose if I were home schooling (and I wouldn't cos they'd get away with blue murder!) my intro to the little ones in that tour would be
We know about dinosaurs, we have found bones - look here they are - we don't know too much about it though because we weren't there but this is what some people think.....
The bible, this was a story written a long time ago mainly about a really nice guy called Jesus who was supposed to have done and been this that and the other we don't know too much about it though because we weren't there but this is what some people think think.....
Do we see a pattern? For people and organisations to be polluting kids minds with arguements for and against A POINT OF VIEW is just plain wrong
(in my opinion!)
Mar 31st 2008, 8:04 pm
#23
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: NI (back from Toronto)
Posts: 3,409
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Just showed a bit of the video to my 5 years old his comment was "that's so silly"
Mar 31st 2008, 8:14 pm
#24
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 894
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Originally Posted by Harrypottermouse
At a recent conference I attended in Regina I went to a workshop titled "How Old Is The Earth" and the conclusions the speaker came to was thus...(NB he is a Nuclear Chemist by trade) in response to all forms of logic???
Salt in the ocean leads to a maximum age of 62 million years...
Helium in the atmosphere leads to a maximum age of 2 million years...
Dendrochronology indicates that the most likely age is several thousand years...
The only successful model of planetary magnetic fields indicates a maximum age of 9000 years...
The lack of short-lived radioisotopes indicates a minimum age of several hundred million years, but this depends on an assumption that does no tseem reliable...
Radiometric dating is not reliable, except for the specific case of carbon-14 dating over the past 3000 years, assuming the radioactive decay rate is constant over that time period...
Does this fairly well dismiss all theories?
As a Home Educating Mom - I will be teaching the thoughts of that well know Philosopher - The King of Siam - from The King and I...(and at 4 years old I quoted this to the eldest when she asked the question where did the earth come from)
My response was simple enough...
It depends on who you believe...
If you believe men of science then earth was created from things evolving to what we know today...
If you believe men of faith then earth was was created by god in 6 days.
I think the important thing not to forget to remind and teach our children - is not necessarily what is the right or wrong answer, but for them to develop their own method of reasoning and critical thinking...and to question "evidence" of any kind which is put in front of them (news reports, news papers, commentary etc.) and for them to develop as independent thinkers and not like the tosh that these bozos are trying to promote...what we say is right and buggar the rest of the world...(pardon the expression)
I will have to watch again the clip for specifics...but some of what they say has credibility with me...(not the faith bits...but their method of reasoning such) but as I say...will report back when I've seen a few times more...
Salt in the ocean leads to a maximum age of 62 million years...
Helium in the atmosphere leads to a maximum age of 2 million years...
Dendrochronology indicates that the most likely age is several thousand years...
The only successful model of planetary magnetic fields indicates a maximum age of 9000 years...
The lack of short-lived radioisotopes indicates a minimum age of several hundred million years, but this depends on an assumption that does no tseem reliable...
Radiometric dating is not reliable, except for the specific case of carbon-14 dating over the past 3000 years, assuming the radioactive decay rate is constant over that time period...
Does this fairly well dismiss all theories?
As a Home Educating Mom - I will be teaching the thoughts of that well know Philosopher - The King of Siam - from The King and I...(and at 4 years old I quoted this to the eldest when she asked the question where did the earth come from)
My response was simple enough...
It depends on who you believe...
If you believe men of science then earth was created from things evolving to what we know today...
If you believe men of faith then earth was was created by god in 6 days.
I think the important thing not to forget to remind and teach our children - is not necessarily what is the right or wrong answer, but for them to develop their own method of reasoning and critical thinking...and to question "evidence" of any kind which is put in front of them (news reports, news papers, commentary etc.) and for them to develop as independent thinkers and not like the tosh that these bozos are trying to promote...what we say is right and buggar the rest of the world...(pardon the expression)
I will have to watch again the clip for specifics...but some of what they say has credibility with me...(not the faith bits...but their method of reasoning such) but as I say...will report back when I've seen a few times more...
Mar 31st 2008, 8:24 pm
#25
Cheesey Dippin-Dunkin
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: London Outskirts
Posts: 1,161
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Originally Posted by AlvicSK
And you understood this all EVEN with jetlag....respect woman
creation vs evolution
ecohysteria
the solution to our education problems
teaching junior high and high school science at home
teaching critical thinking
That was just some of the workshops and speaches from the Keynote Speaker...
There were others...
The jet lag bit was tuff...I got a bit restless a few times...but at least Simon didn't have to poke me like I did him...
It was all very interesting stuff though
Mar 31st 2008, 8:26 pm
#26
Cheesey Dippin-Dunkin
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: London Outskirts
Posts: 1,161
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Salt in the ocean leads to a maximum age of 62 million years...
Helium in the atmosphere leads to a maximum age of 2 million years...
Dendrochronology indicates that the most likely age is several thousand years...
The only successful model of planetary magnetic fields indicates a maximum age of 9000 years...
The lack of short-lived radioisotopes indicates a minimum age of several hundred million years, but this depends on an assumption that does no tseem reliable...
Radiometric dating is not reliable, except for the specific case of carbon-14 dating over the past 3000 years, assuming the radioactive decay rate is constant over that time period...
This stuff though was just the conclusionary stuff - there was a lot more debunking behind it....
Helium in the atmosphere leads to a maximum age of 2 million years...
Dendrochronology indicates that the most likely age is several thousand years...
The only successful model of planetary magnetic fields indicates a maximum age of 9000 years...
The lack of short-lived radioisotopes indicates a minimum age of several hundred million years, but this depends on an assumption that does no tseem reliable...
Radiometric dating is not reliable, except for the specific case of carbon-14 dating over the past 3000 years, assuming the radioactive decay rate is constant over that time period...
This stuff though was just the conclusionary stuff - there was a lot more debunking behind it....
Mar 31st 2008, 8:44 pm
#27
Happy in NB
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: Island View, New Brunswick
Posts: 2,020
Re: I find this very disturbing.
At least it makes us ask questions.
For hundreds of years religion tried has tried to squash science and declared people heretics for contridicting the Bible or whatever their particular book is called. How long did it take for the church to accept that saying earth moved around the sun!
This is quite a good link for details on earth dating techniques both young and old.
My feeling is that on balance I would lean towards Darwin and evolution just out of plain old common sense. and watching the rate of silt build up from the rivers that changes the coast line moving tons of soil within our tiny timeframes. I feel sorry for the kids getting fed such a weird dose of psuedo science.
For hundreds of years religion tried has tried to squash science and declared people heretics for contridicting the Bible or whatever their particular book is called. How long did it take for the church to accept that saying earth moved around the sun!
This is quite a good link for details on earth dating techniques both young and old.
My feeling is that on balance I would lean towards Darwin and evolution just out of plain old common sense. and watching the rate of silt build up from the rivers that changes the coast line moving tons of soil within our tiny timeframes. I feel sorry for the kids getting fed such a weird dose of psuedo science.
Mar 31st 2008, 10:43 pm
#28
Thinking the unthinkable.
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Posts: 2,136
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Originally Posted by Dave+Jules
At least it makes us ask questions.
For hundreds of years religion tried has tried to squash science and declared people heretics for contridicting the Bible or whatever their particular book is called. How long did it take for the church to accept that saying earth moved around the sun!
This is quite a good link for details on earth dating techniques both young and old.
My feeling is that on balance I would lean towards Darwin and evolution just out of plain old common sense. and watching the rate of silt build up from the rivers that changes the coast line moving tons of soil within our tiny timeframes. I feel sorry for the kids getting fed such a weird dose of psuedo science.
For hundreds of years religion tried has tried to squash science and declared people heretics for contridicting the Bible or whatever their particular book is called. How long did it take for the church to accept that saying earth moved around the sun!
This is quite a good link for details on earth dating techniques both young and old.
My feeling is that on balance I would lean towards Darwin and evolution just out of plain old common sense. and watching the rate of silt build up from the rivers that changes the coast line moving tons of soil within our tiny timeframes. I feel sorry for the kids getting fed such a weird dose of psuedo science.
I was going to mention common sense earlier but then again, the old truism about common sense being anything but common is especially valid when applied to all matters religious.
...and back to my earlier post: God said so. So there.
Apr 1st 2008, 12:35 am
#29
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: JAFAland, NZ
Posts: 747
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Originally Posted by Harrypottermouse
If you believe men of science then earth was created from things evolving to what we know today...
If you believe men of faith then earth was was created by god in 6 days.
If you believe men of faith then earth was was created by god in 6 days.
Apr 1st 2008, 12:45 am
#30
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: ..not on the boat I missed !
Posts: 587
Re: I find this very disturbing.
Originally Posted by Harrypottermouse
My response was simple enough...
It depends on who you believe...
If you believe men of science then earth was created from things evolving to what we know today...
If you believe men of faith then earth was was created by a man, god in 6 days.
...
It depends on who you believe...
If you believe men of science then earth was created from things evolving to what we know today...
If you believe men of faith then earth was was created by a man, god in 6 days.
...
Well men can't put up a shelf in 6 days, so I don't believe that last one
