Ok, so this afternoon before naptime, my almost-three-year-old brings me a book from his bookshelf. He's got about two-hundred books, and probably eighty-percent of those are books my brothers gave to him when they moved into their new bedrooms and no longer wanted them. The book he picked out today was not a pre-shcooler book. It was a book that my little brother had gotten from our aunt seven or eight years ago about dinosaurs and the bible. My son is in a dinosaur kick right now, so we flipped through the pages, and I made up a cute little story. However... I happened to notice some of what it said, so after he was asleep I went back and read it....
I have to know, do people really BELIEVE this stuff??? It started out ok, talking about how scientists don't really know much about dinosaurs, and explaining how they put fossil records together. Then it made the "big statement" about how dinosaurs and man lived together. For a book that was touting itself by saying it was supposed to HELP kids reconcile the Bible and what they learn in school, I thought that was a pretty big leap. That wasn't half of it though, soon it started getting REALLY weird. It started talking about how there were dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden, and then said that somehow Noah got them on the Ark. Apparently they realized they were beginning to stretch the limits of physical possibility, but then said that he managed this because God only brought him baby dinosaurs, and not ever KIND, just the kinds God had made. Apparently, they were allowing for evalution to have created many more species than God had originally created, yet somehow all that happened before Noah. Anyway, so Noah takes all the zebras, and mastadons, and dinosaurs on the Arc, and all the other Dinosaurs (except the ones who live in the ocean) are wiped out with all the bad people. They then say that this is supported by science because obviously all the dinosaur fossils could only have gotten covered quickly if there was some big flood. Then dinosaurs come off the ark, and somehow are basically killed off around the time when all the "dragon" myths stop - 1500 A.D. or so. It then goes back and says that this might be because God let humans start killing animals after the flood, and let animals start killing eachother for food.
This seriously confuses me, because since most of our dino fossils were covered in the flood, are they saying that T-Rex really ate plants before that??? Anyway, I also can't figure out why Able would ever have gotten the idea of "sacrificing" some of his sheep if people didn't eat meat before the flood. Also, wasn't there something mentioned to Noah about taking in two of every animal, and then some extra of the ones used for food?
My question is though, do people really BELIEVE this? I consider myself Christian (a rather lose interpretation I've been told, but I kinda figured Christ was the important part of being Christian) but this totally throws me for a loop. Before this, I had always heard serious bible fundamentalists say that dinosaur bones were a trick that satin used to try to lure people into disbelief. I thought THAT was a ridiculously convenient explanation, but compared to the book today, it seems down right logical.
Has anyone else ever heard this dinosaur/bible theory? Has anyone tried to explain it to their kids? Just curious.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Heard it? Yes.
Had any reason to explain it to my kids? Um, no . . .
Not sure a three-year-old could understand any substantive explanation. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
satin... hehehe
I've heard it. I grew up with it. It bugged the heck out of me when my relatives would say "Dinosaurs died in the flood." I'd think, No, they didn't.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Well, I wasn't going to explain it to him now... and luckily my brother who got the book wasn't the reading type, but seriously I mean, what would you do if your kid got that as a gift?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I approve books my kids get as gifts. Before they are given, preferably; certainly before they are read.
ESPECIALLY if they have any religious content.
If my kid were given such a book, it would be returned to the giver, and a request that no religion-related books be given to my children by said giver would be, ah, requested. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: have to know, do people really BELIEVE this stuff???
Yes, they do. Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
In fact, this has been discussed here recently .
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Ok, that thread about how old the earth is, I was more seriously concerned about the dino question. As I said, I'd hear the "Satin planted them" theory before, and like I said, THAT theory, while i don't buy into it, at least doesn't have conflicting logic. I was wondering if anyone else believe in the whole "dinos on the ark" sort of thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Doesn't seem to jive very much.
My cousin, who is homeschooling her kids to keep them away from evil public schools, every year at Thanksgiving gives us the "Carbon dating is a bunch of crap" speech, and tells us all this stuff that doesn't really hold up to logical scrutiny. I'm willing to believe that the earth is younger than 5 billion years. I'm not as willing to believe it's younger than 10,000.
Just curious by the way, if the flood killed all the dinosaurs, all the LAND dinosaurs anyway, what happened to the aquatic dinosaurs?
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
On the whole I have to agree with Bill Hicks on the subject of dinosaurs in the bible. Considering all the evidence it is at the very least extremely unlikely that dinosaurs lived alongside humans.
Enlightened Comedian: "What about all the fossils. How did they get there?" Gullible Religious Person: "Well... God put them there, to test our faith." EC: "I believe God put you here to test my faith."
"Doesn't that bother anyone here? The idea that God is f***ing with our heads?" You'd arrive at the pearly gates and St. Peter ask you some questions to determine whether you're fit to enter the heavenly kingdom. St. Peter: "Did you believe in dinosaurs?" Recently Deceased Person: "Well, yeah..." St. Peter: "Wrong answer. That was one of God's easiest jokes. Giant lizards, ha..." As the recently departed falls down in the direction of his new subterranean abode we hear him scream: "It seemed so plausible..."
Oh yes, Lyrhawn, all the aquatic dinosaurs survived the major extinction event and most of them evolved into species that roam the oceans still. Such as the dreadful spindly killer fish. The one exception there would be the Loch Ness monster, which was actually a land-dweller until Jesus came across him, pulled a thorn out of his foot and sent him to live in a lake in Scotland to improve the local economy.
Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :
All 5 of my children were given books and videos that I personally would have preferred they not received. However, as long as the material was not heaped with violence or contained sexually inappropriate material, I allowed them to read/watch that material.
Dr. James Dobbs, (Focus on the family, religious program), had a great idea that I still believe even now.
When your child receives or obtains certain material that is contrary to your beliefs. Stop and talk about the material. Leave them with an open mind and explain how and why you believe 'X.'
The fact is, your children will always receive knowlege that is contrary to YOUR personal beliefs. The point is to simply teach them what you believe and that one day, they will have to take all that information and define their own belief system.
I taught the creation theories and the evolution theories to my children. I also taught them how both theories could be possible if both sides weren't so dogmatic and if THEY weren't so dogmatic!
In the end, my kids aren't dogmatically defending either position but try to educate themselves when questionable data arises. They're not being narrow minded and often we disagree on issues. However, this makes for great family conversations! (Note, nearly all my children (minus one) are adults now. The one who isn't an adult is an advanced educational child).
More information and contridicting information isn't bad for a child. Teaching a child to learn (not just memorize/or indoctrinate) will give them tools for the rest of their lives. They need to learn to dissern for themselves, even at an early age.
Just tell your child, well, this is what they, (the writer(s) of the book), and this is what mommy and daddy believe. Let their imagination and creative side grow.
And if you're religious or a God believer. The bible says "train a child in the way he ought to go, and when he is old, he will not stray..." (it said when he is OLD .. not all the stuff inbetween.. hahaha)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
This is a great opportunity to educate your children about all the crackpots in the world Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I also taught them how both theories could be possible if both sides weren't so dogmatic and if THEY weren't so dogmatic!
One of the great evils of modern journalism -- and I'm speaking here as a former journalist -- is the propagation of the lie that you get closer to the truth by giving equal time to two diametrically opposed theories or opinions.
I'm not saying that dogma is a good thing. But I don't think it's healthy to teach your children that they need to give "equal time" to theories that are clearly inferior to others, either.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: It started talking about how there were dinosaurs and not ever KIND, just the kinds God had made.
???????
quote: Apparently, they were allowing for evalution to have created many more species than God had originally created, yet somehow all that happened before Noah.
Arrrgh! Wait, so this book allows for evolution, but still insists that God created stuff. But only certain things. So god was creating, AND evolution was happening all on its own? Oh, wow. What a perfectly confusing book for children to be exposed to.
quote: Anyway, so Noah takes all the zebras, and mastadons, and dinosaurs on the Arc, and all the other Dinosaurs (except the ones who live in the ocean) are wiped out with all the bad people.
!!!!
(By the way, I never understood why God would only preserve two of every kind of animal, when animals aren't capable of sinning.)
quote: They then say that this is supported by science because obviously all the dinosaur fossils could only have gotten covered quickly if there was some big flood.
I hate that argument. Who ever said that all the dinosaur fossils got covered quickly? And why do these people persist in believing that all fossils date to exactly the same time? Or maybe there were like hundreds and hundreds of Great Floods....
quote: Then dinosaurs come off the ark, and somehow are basically killed off around the time when all the "dragon" myths stop - 1500 A.D. or so.
Oh, you have got to be kidding me.
quote: It then goes back and says that this might be because God let humans start killing animals after the flood, and let animals start killing eachother for food.
Okay...I am so very confused right now.
quote: are they saying that T-Rex really ate plants before that???
Yes. Apparently God gave T. Rex the really scary, sharp teeth so he could cut his celery with ease.
quote:My question is though, do people really BELIEVE this?
Yes!! They do! That's the remarkable part. What's wrong with just believing that God is "in charge" of what we perceive as evolution? I mean, there is so much evidence for evolution, it's awfully hard to deny that it exists. When I was religious, I never had any problems with just believing that God was controlling it all according to His plan. It really made things simpler.
quote:I had always heard serious bible fundamentalists say that dinosaur bones were a trick that satin used to try to lure people into disbelief.
Yeah, I've heard that one, too. Or that Eeeevil Scientists made them all up and pretended to dig them out of the ground so they could push the concept of evil-lution on children.
Also, I hate when satin tricks me. It's usually such a nice, trustworthy fabric, too.
quote: Has anyone else ever heard this dinosaur/bible theory? Has anyone tried to explain it to their kids? Just curious.
I've never heard this one before. I am interested to know what religious folks tell their kids, though. Kids always love dinosaurs - I know I did when I was little! So did my sister, actually. She used to want to be a paleontologist. I don't recall my mom ever telling us anything about God and dinosaurs. I think we just never wondered about the whole flood/dinosaur thing.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Roseauthor, good for you. If I had kids, that's exactly what I'd do - and I'm an atheist, by the way. I just say that because I don't think I've seen you around before, so you may not be aware of that. I think it's important for children to know that they can and should choose what THEY believe for themselves. Of course, they are only capable of making that decision really intelligently past a certain age, but it should be a choice they get to make based on information they've gathered and studied, not based on what everybody else believes.
Tom, I've never heard that quote before, but I disagree. I think it's fine for children to be taught that some people believe in creation and God or gods, and some people believe in no god at all, and then to give them the tools to learn what they believe on their own. Whether you consider a particular theory to be inferior (and we probably agree on what an inferior theory is) probably doesn't have much bearing on what other families consider inferior. As long as they allow their kids to truly make that decision on their own, I see no harm.
It may not be possible to fully withdraw your own feelings on the god/no god issue when raising kids - I don't know, and thankfully, I'll never have to know - so most children who are allowed to make philosophical decisions for themselves will probalby choose their parents' beliefs. But they should be allowed to choose all the same.
This is a really interesting video of a talk Richard Dawkins gave in September, I believe. It's long, and probably offensive to some of the folks here (although I happen to adore Mr. Dawkins). However, if you let the whole video load without playing it, and then fast-forward to 52:39, you will hear an interesting question that's asked by a young woman about coping with the feelings of anger she experienced in coming to terms with the idea that she was told what to believe by her parents. Watch all the way to the end of Mr. Dawkins's response and you will hear a very telling reaction from the audience. I believe that illustrates pretty well the importance of allowing children to make their own choices about their beliefs.
If you watch the question and answer following the one described above, you'll hear a question about the age of fossils from a student of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, and Mr. Dawkins's response. Pretty funny.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As long as they allow their kids to truly make that decision on their own, I see no harm.
Is there no harm in allowing a child to decide whether poison kills on his or her own, without taking your word for it?
There are some things which are too important to hope kids will just "pick up," and one of them is a toolkit for properly evaluating the validity and worth of ideas. There ARE bad "toolkits" out there, and it's a parent's responsibility to make sure kids don't latch onto one of those instead.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
I agree that there are bad toolkits, and that it's a parent's responsibility to make sure they don't get caught up in something harmful, but comparing religion vs. atheism to a kid choosing whether or not to drink poison seems a little maudlin to me.
Maybe you and I aren't looking at the same issue here. Are you referring only to the totally ridiculous dinosaur book issue, or to Roseauthor's post about telling children about creation and evolution and allowing them to learn on their own? I'm referring to the latter. I think you may be referring to extreme examples like the book in question, but I was referring to making general philosophical decisions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm actually referring to the latter, as well. Even when making general philosophical decisions, some toolkits work better than others. Creationism isn't just the product of a bad toolkit; it's a symptom of a miserably bad toolkit. In other words, it's impossible to reach a creationist conclusion with a healthy toolkit. So if you're going to teach your kids about Creationism, teach them about Creationism the same way you'd teach them about herpes: what it is, what causes it, and how to avoid it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You're very adroit in your usage of metaphor, TomDavidson. I would simply object to your unsupported claim that creationism is produced using a "bad toolkit." In fact it is produced using a more complete toolkit, and accounts for all the known facts better than any other theory.
Those of you who are so sure that evolutionism and uniformitarianism have it right about the antiquity of the dinosaurs, have yet to show your "toolkit" can really properly deal with the fact that most dinosaur fossils are found in fossil "graveyards" involving millions of specimens, all dashed together indisputably by the action of water. Each one of these fossil graveyards, of course, are dismissed as the result of "local" flooding. But no, they are so sure there was no global flood, they just blithely accept their lame excuses, and expect everyone else to.
And then, even worse (if it were possible) is the fact that T-Rex fossils have been found with soft tissue still preserved within them. Since evolutionists/uniformitarians have been assuring us that the T-Rex and all the last of the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, this means we are expected to believe that soft tissues have been preserved in these dinosaur bones for 65 million years. Are you really sure about this? Come on, already! Which instruments in your "toolkit" are you using to deal with these discoveries? Do you have a blindfold in your toolkit?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm actually referring to the latter, as well. Even when making general philosophical decisions, some toolkits work better than others. Creationism isn't just the product of a bad toolkit; it's a symptom of a miserably bad toolkit. In other words, it's impossible to reach a creationist conclusion with a healthy toolkit. So if you're going to teach your kids about Creationism, teach them about Creationism the same way you'd teach them about herpes: what it is, what causes it, and how to avoid it.
Ahh, you're talking creationism versus evolution. I was meaning "is there a God" versus "there is no God." My fault for crossing the wires there. I happen to agree with you, then.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I would simply object to your unsupported claim that creationism is produced using a "bad toolkit." In fact it is produced using a more complete toolkit, and accounts for all the known facts better than any other theory.
Wow, I completely, wholly disagree with that statement, but that's or another thread.
quote:Those of you who are so sure that evolutionism and uniformitarianism have it right about the antiquity of the dinosaurs, have yet to show your "toolkit" can really properly deal with the fact that most dinosaur fossils are found in fossil "graveyards" involving millions of specimens, all dashed together indisputably by the action of water. Each one of these fossil graveyards, of course, are dismissed as the result of "local" flooding.
If it's not local flooding but global flooding, then why does the Bible tell of only one Great Flood? There are fossil beds dating to scores of widely varying dates. So why didn't God tell us that he had to destroy the earth multiple times? Why do we only hear about the one time?
Or, we could use Occam's Razor and accept that it's the result of local flooding or other water action, such as heavy mud trapping animals, or animals dying in dry riverbeds and later being covered by washes of silt when rains come back to arid places.
The simplest answer is usually the most accurate.
quote: But no, they are so sure there was no global flood, they just blithely accept their lame excuses, and expect everyone else to.
heeheehee.
quote:And then, even worse (if it were possible) is the fact that T-Rex fossils have been found with soft tissue still preserved within them. Since evolutionists/uniformitarians have been assuring us that the T-Rex and all the last of the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, this means we are expected to believe that soft tissues have been preserved in these dinosaur bones for 65 million years. Are you really sure about this? Come on, already!
I've never heard of this. Link me to a source, please.
I suppose it's just as plausible to believe that soft tissue's been preserved in non-freeze situations for three thousand years, then?
Come on. If you want to believe in Creationism, fine. Just don't insult Tom's intelligence and mine and everybody else's on this forum, please. Your "evidence," as presented here, is flimsier than a house of cards. We're trying to have an intelligent discourse about the validity of this book and the effects of such books on children's minds. If you want to change the subject, start a new thread. I can't promise I'll waste my time by presenting salient facts to you with plenty of scientific citations to back it up, though, because you didn't bring this up to discuss - you brought it up to try to prove science wrong.
quote:"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.
Changes the way we think about the process of fossilization, not the age of fossils. I see nothing in this article, nor any other scientific article on this situation, stating that this discovery changes the way scientists think about the AGE of fossils.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Which instruments in your "toolkit" are you using to deal with these discoveries?
Ron, you don't want to play with this metaphor. Because if you do, what you'll discover is that there's only ONE tool in your toolkit, and it's called "God." And this "God" can do anything and everything, although apparently not upon request, not in a repeatable or testable way, and not when anyone's watching.
It's like having one of those cheap ten-in-one tools you can buy from WalMart, except that it dissolves upon contact with sunlight and hard surfaces.
I won't dispute the assertion that it's EASIER to carry around just the one tool. It's more elegant, and you always feel like you have the right tool for the job. If there's a question, you don't have to worry about finding the right screwdriver or the right metric socket; you can just pull out God and say "God did or will do it!"
And as long as there's somebody walking behind you with an actual toolkit who goes around fixing the things you wave "God" at, you'll never have any reason to doubt that "God" does indeed answer every question and turn every screw in the Universe.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Of course, teaching "creation theories" is not the same as teaching "creationism."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, I'm going to steal your metaphor if only because it allows me to quote my old shop professor:
"Always use the correct tool for the job."
One of my problems with creationism is that it is like using a wrench to hammer a nail - it does a lousy job of it and it damages the wrench. And the nail.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I always like Mr. Card's take on this situation/metaphor
He took, "To a hammer everything looks like a nail."
and said,
"To a hammer a screw looks like a defective nail."
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I know it's an odd tangent, but in reading the earlier half of the thread I couldn't help but be amazed that a shimmery fabric was responsible for insidiously planting new dinosaur species on the earth... (apologies if 'Satin' is an accepted spelling, but my first thought when I see it is the fabric)
and on the more present aspect of the discussion, I have to second camus' distinction between creationism and creation theories. There are creation theories out there that in no way conflict with evolutionary science and whatever dating records you choose (such as the one that I hold). About the only thing about them that could be objected to is that they work God into the whole thing which can obviously annoy atheists, but in such a way that it doesn't change anything about the scientific findings.
That said, I don't think anyone is arguing against those theories at the moment, I just hate to accidentally get lumped in with Ron
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Grimace, there are those who get wildly upset because they fear all Science is purposefully attacking their God. On the other hand there are those who get wildly upset because they fear all churches are purposefully attacking their Science.
THe problem is that in what they believe is self-defence, those two violently react by doing exactly what the other fears.
Putting God into your cosmology is not a problem. Taking logic and rational thought out of it is not a problem either. Forcing others to do the same in the name of science, logic, and rational thought is a big problem.
Putting science in your theology is not a problem. Taking faith and Biblical authority out of it is not a problem either. Forcing others to do the same in the name of science, logic, and rational thought is a big problem.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
agreed Dan (really the main reason I added that second part of my post was just so I'd feel a little more legitimate about posting the satin joke , though I also stand by what I posted)
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
"You got your God in my Science!"
"You got your Science in my God!"
Two great tastes that taste great together? You decide.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: "You got your God in my Science!"
"You got your Science in my God!"
Two great tastes that taste great together? You decide.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
<minor derail> There were no aquatic dinosaurs. Part of the definition of a dinosuar is that it was terrestrial. Theose big sea going lizards were the aquatic cousins of the dinosaurs,not dinosaurs <end derail>
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Dr. James Dobbs, (Focus on the family, religious program), had a great idea that I still believe even now.
When your child receives or obtains certain material that is contrary to your beliefs. Stop and talk about the material. Leave them with an open mind and explain how and why you believe 'X.'
The fact is, your children will always receive knowlege that is contrary to YOUR personal beliefs. The point is to simply teach them what you believe and that one day, they will have to take all that information and define their own belief system.
While I hold enormous animosity for Focus on the Family, I will say that if all religious parents followed such a mindset, the world would be a wonderful place. It pains me to see people forced to believe in something just because their parents do. It defeats the whole purpose of believing. It's defintiely fine to teach your kids what you believe and why, but to force that faith upon them seems so contrary to anything that should be done.
And at the OP, I'm with ya. I can't help reading books like that and giggling.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Grimace, there are those who get wildly upset because they fear all Science is purposefully attacking their God. On the other hand there are those who get wildly upset because they fear all churches are purposefully attacking their Science.
THe problem is that in what they believe is self-defence, those two violently react by doing exactly what the other fears.
Putting God into your cosmology is not a problem. Taking logic and rational thought out of it is not a problem either. Forcing others to do the same in the name of science, logic, and rational thought is a big problem.
Putting science in your theology is not a problem. Taking faith and Biblical authority out of it is not a problem either. Forcing others to do the same in the name of science, logic, and rational thought is a big problem.
Everybody always thinks everybody is attacking them. I never get that... You get vegetarians and carnivores, this religion vs that religion. Surely different ideas can exist side by side? In college I heard an excellect discussion about science and religion and how the two don't have to be against each other.
Also, it was probably the dinosaur thing among other things that turned me into a heathen.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Ok, I guess this got a little de-railed, which was probably my fault for asking "does anyone really believe this"? As was pointed out before creationism/non-creationism was recently discussed on the 6000-year-old thread.
I cannot say I believe in the "strictest" versions of Creationism, but I do believe in God. I am one of those people that thinks that "creationism" is a very long spectrum, with plenty of room on it for everyone. I am perfectly happy believing that God created the world, and that the Description(s) (you do notice there are two contradictory accounts) in Genesis are metaphorical at best. Since I can't tell you exactly what I define the "world" or "universe" to be, it's hard for me to really have a concrete belief in how it was formed.
That being said, my question was more of how people manage to believe in theories and write books that are so full of contradictory complex arguments. At least the "dino bones are tricks" theory is simple and to the point. I don't believe it, I really don't like the idea of God using our own intelligence to trick us, but I admit I can at least entertain that as a possibility. What I cannot understand is that if you HAVE the ability to use such simple means to maintain your faith, why you have to try to go into science and meddle with stuff like that.
As far as what to do about kids goes, yes letting them get information and form their own viewpoints is important. However, if you read my summary of the book, you can see that there are very many contradicting "arguments" and facts being presented. Is it truly "ok" to let a child (presumably this was written for an 8-11 year-old) read something that twists logic like this. Most children that age do NOT have fully adult formed logical skills. I wonder seriously if the authors didn't take that into account. It is hard to believe they did not notice their logical flaws. Maybe my real concern is that some people will twist logic around wildly to try to make the impression on a child that a very convoluded theory is actually reasonable and sound. In that case, how do you protect children?
Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :
DDDaysh:
I think my post was the start of derailment. It was not my intention. Tom usually takes the offensive position of calling other faith based people's theories as 'inferior,' to deflate and insult them and it gives him his power back. Relgionist like to defend their faith by backing up their tripe.
Yes, I do believe in some of the creationist theories; however, I also believe there is room for evolutionary theory in the middle of creation theory. I don't assume either is completely right! (The key word, for you TOM, is COMPLETELY) I'm just not that dogmatic about my insanity as you. *WINK*
I'll still stand by the fact that allowing your children to experience and discuss both sides is the most we can do as parents. I'm not going to shove my dogmatic thoughts on my kids like Tom seems to think I should. I trust my adult children have been taught to teach themselves and research sources and information given. Call me funny, but I don't think that humans are so incredibly stupid that we have to halt all open mindedness to appease a select minority who believe we need to kill ALL opposing thought!
BTW: Libbie, I've been around Hatrack forum since the beginning but it's hard to keep up with who is who and their belief systems. I remember Tom because he and I have been on here and Ornery about the same time. Most of the newer members I suck at remembering.
Tom, I'll probably remain on the opposing side of you. and insults and calling any theory you disagree with as 'inferior' is just a lame attempt to control. (should I get a measuring stick out to see who is bigger?) Just a joke.. but you get my point.. Stop assuming everyone who doesn't agree with YOU is inferior.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Tom, I can totally understand why you would consider teaching your child creationism to be a stupid waste of time, and a lame journalistic exercise in giving "equal time" to unequal sides: Because you actually believe in one and not the other. You'd be lying to your child if you treated creationism with any sort of credence.
However, for another parent, for whom the truth does fall somewhere between the Biblical account and the theory constructed from sceintific evidence, teaching both models together isn't "presenting the opposing view". It's teaching the entire view that you espouse.
My child couldn't understand my view of the origins of humanity unless I explained both models, explained why it is important to me to understand both models, and then showed how both inform my view of the world. In my case, to do otherwise would be lying.
[ December 12, 2006, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom usually takes the offensive position of calling other faith based people's theories as 'inferior,' to deflate and insult them and it gives him his power back.
Let's not speculate on my motives, shall we? I call faith-based theories "inferior" because, as theories, they are definitionally inferior because they're faith-based. A theory which is based on faith IS inferior to a theory which is based on, well, almost anything else; while it's still technically a "theory" at that point, that's the most you can say on its behalf.
How you choose to live with that fact is up to you, but it's not my fault you feel threatened by it. That you subscribe to an inferior method of information-gathering does not make you my inferior, and I'm sorry you seem to think it should.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Let's not speculate on my motives, shall we?
Why not? You speculate on everyone else's.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But I'm much, much better at it. If RoseAuthor wants to speculate on my motives once she gets good at it, she's more than welcome to try. Anyone who thinks I call a faith-based theory "inferior" because it makes me feel powerful to insult people, though, is advised to pick up a remedial course in Tom's Motives before making further attempts.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
At least, you believe you are better at it. I beg to differ.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Beg away. I think the difference is demonstrable, but of course you're permitted to be wrong. *grin*
In all seriousness, I submit that there is a fundamental difference between the type of speculation in which RoseAuthor has engaged and the type of speculation in which I have engaged. If the topic's actually of interest to you, I'll explain it; if you were just being snarky, though, I won't waste your time.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In all seriousness, I submit that there is a fundamental difference between the type of speculation in which RoseAuthor has engaged and the type of speculation in which I have engaged.
True. However, I don't see how that matters much. Your attempts to analyze others is every bit as flawed.
And I'm not "just being snarky" -- your consistent misattribution of motives to others is annoying and offensive. As much so as you seem to have found it when it was done to you.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I call faith-based theories "inferior" because, as theories, they are definitionally inferior because they're faith-based.
Almost everything you believe is based on faith, Tom. We've been over this already...
Additionally, what definition of "faith-based theory" are you using that says it is inferior to other theories? I strongly suspect it is not what most people mean when they say "faith-based theory". In fact, if "inferior to other theories" were really part of the definition of "faith-based theory" then no religion would want to consider their beliefs to be based on faith, because that would be saying that their beliefs are inferior to other theories, which no religion believes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My suspicion is that you are just assuming that "faith-based theories" are inferior to other theories, and calling it definitional because such a claim would be difficult, if not impossible, to support with anything other than faith.
You ever on Ornery? Check it out; I've already had this conversation over there.
Let me put it this way: a theory which is identified by its proponents as "faith-based" is explicitly admitting that most or all of its supports are based not on observable, reproducible physical evidence or logical process, but rather on the will to believe. By any useful definition of "theory," such a theory is -- and, in fact, can ONLY be -- the lowest form of theory, as it possesses at most personal validity. In other words, it's basically an axiom with delusions of grandeur.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: ...all the other Dinosaurs (except the ones who live in the ocean) are wiped out...
It is unlikely that all land-dwelling dinosaurs were wiped out by the flood. Consider that there are modern terrestrial reptiles such as iguanas and snakes that are perfectly capable of treading water for 40 days and 40 nights, and given that there must have been an abundance of floating debris to which to cling, plenty of other creatures could have survived. If you've ever visited the bottomlands of the Mississippi during spring flooding, you would have an increased understanding of the ability of animals to keep their noses above the water.
While fossilized dinosaurs have the buoyancy of a rock, we have no idea how buoyant they might have been when alive.
How deep would the water have needed to be to drown all the wicked people? Deeper than the roofs of their buildings and climbable trees. But maybe the water only needed to be deep enough to STARVE all the wicked people. 7 feet for a couple of weeks should have been enough.
The ark may have never actually floated.
Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :
Tom,
I love the fact that you decide what is a BAD 'Tool Kit!'
I love the you define what is "INFERIOR."
You make assumptions that everyone else should assume your personal definitions of what is 'inferior,' and/or a bad 'tool kit,' is insulting to the average person who does not subscribe to your position.
Here's a few facts: I'm not threatened by you or your post.
I don't assume your motives. I have witnessed years of your attacks on anyone with faith-based post. You have a habit of calling them 'inferior.' You belittle anyone who is faith-based and you attack them. You tend to have written violence in most of you post when it comes to anything relating to a 'God' issue.
Unlike most people, I'm not going to back down.
I'll still stand by the fact that ALL kids will be faced with conflicting information. The BEST we can do as parents is to talk to them and allow them to use their abilities to define their beliefs! And Equal time to all sides is part of that equation! I fear more for YOUR kids than I do for mine! At least I didn't isolate, intimidate, or brainwash my kids to my idealisms!
I'm sorry this offends you Tom, but, I'm not doing too bad raising kids so far! At least my kids aren't clones!
You insult anyone who doesn't just bow down to your preconceived idealisms. Please try to stop this attempt at manipulation of the masses. They don't really buy it!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You insult anyone who doesn't just bow down to your preconceived idealisms.
That's actually not what's going on here. He's talking about what happens when people try to pass preconceptions and axioms under the spectre of empirical study.
While you are busy acting MASSIVELY THREATENED and MASSIVELY ANGRY at his positions and character, you probably want to make sure you're not reading into things he's not doing with his position.
Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :
Sam, Whos threatened or angry? I'm still laughing. I've listened to Tom for years now! ha ha.
I know exactly what he means. I've read more post in the last few years than you can imagine! If nothing else, ... he's consistant.
By no meants does he make me feel anything other than secure! I always know what he means.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I always know what he means.
Hm. Based on the evidence in this thread, I believe a more accurate way to word that would be "I always think I know what he means." Just a thought.
I define an "inferior" toolkit for the purposes of factual inquiry to be one that is less likely to properly arrive at a complete description of observable reality, or else to require a significantly higher cost than a method of equal reliability. By these standards, a toolkit which merely asserts a theory without providing other mechanisms for validating that theory is inferior to a toolkit which provides mechanisms for validation. This is not to say that the former toolkit is incapable of coming up with answers that satisfactorily describe observable reality, especially for a given definition of "satisfactory." I myself believe that "instinct" can be a very valuable tool in emergency situations or in situations that require the processing of multiple complex variables. But you wouldn't rely on "instinct" to predict the orbit of the moon, and it's clearly fallible when it comes to things like "should I trust this person;" in most situations, "instinct" is an inferior epistemology. And so (and for similar reasons) is "faith;" in fact, I think "faith" is inferior to almost any other epistemology I can imagine in every situation I can imagine. As an emotional lever, "faith" does serve a purpose; as a method of information-gathering about the observational universe, faith is as useful as...well, as something not very useful at all. (In fact, I believe that most of the anecdotal cases I've heard in which faith functioned epistemologically at all are cases in which the actual epistemology being used was mistaken for faith by the observer.)
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I think Roseauthor's mistake is assuming that there is a value judgment inherent in Tom's use of the word "inferior," when in reality, he means it in a very clinical sense: the faith-based toolkit is "inferior" because it simply has a much lower accuracy rate in predicting things. It is not intended to make a statement about the person using such a toolkit, much as a scientist who says that a particular result shows no "significance" is referring to its statistical likelihood, rather than the personal worthiness of the graduate student who submitted the result.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dan_raven, I do not feel that anyone's science is attacking my God. I feel that some people's science is invalid science, because true science needs to include God. Do you catch the difference?
I do not attack evolutionists and uniformitarians for whatever they believe about God. It is their views of science that I attack. I contend that their science is incomplete, and their theories are formulated from selected data viewed with blinders on.
I am questioning their science, not their piety, which is not at issue.
[ December 13, 2006, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I feel that some people's science is invalid science, because true science needs to include God.
Do you accept that not everyone shares that definition of "true science," or accepts as an axiom that science must take God into account even if there is no observational evidence of His existence?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How can you question their science, and not their piety, when your question is that they have left God out of science. Piety, by definition, is their belief in God. If they don't beleive in God than how can they put it in science?
Its like the Communists leader who swore that they had free and open elections every year. Of course, there was only one person you were allowed to vote for, but since you were voting you were free--even if not voting was a state crime.
This goes back to the suggestion that you are worshipping the God of Empty Spaces. That any bit of undiscovered, unknown science you automatically put God in. Why does gravity exist? God. Where is the missing link? God. Why does electricity flow from - to +? God.
So I ask, if we put this God in all science, do you also recommend we no longer look for answers that are not specifically God? Do we no longer look for theoryies on gravity unless the theory is "Because God wants it that way." Should we just save our money and not ask why? how? when? Should we pack up our telescopes and our microscopes? Aids, germs, typhoid and cancer are all simply God's will?
Ron you are suggesting replacing objective science with God, or a debate on who's God, but then say its not about Piety?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: ...the "big statement" about how dinosaurs and man lived together.
Improbable.
That stuff under our feet, in which we grow our crops, took hundreds of millions of years to build up.
We're walking on and growing our food in dead plants and dinosaur turds. We're breathing gases produced by plants and dinosaurs. Luckily we've got the right combination.
God could have stranded a bunch of people, animals, and plants on a barren rock, surrounded by an atmosphere of randomly collected gases and then gone off to play golf...if he were in a hurry and didn't much care how the experiment turned out.
Even if you take God out of the mix, we've still got plants and animals laboriously terraforming a rock. Maybe man is just another terraformer whose purpose is to concentrate usable minerals on the surface of the rock for easy recovery the next time the mothership passes by.
Carl Sagan seemed to think that the rise of man was somehow rare and valuable in this lonely universe. But maybe we're just another lowly consuming and excreting organism, not fit for rescue from any flood or cataclysm.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Dan_raven, I do not feel that anyone's science is attacking my God. I feel that some people's science is invalid science, because true science needs to include God. Do you catch the difference?
I do not attack evolutionists and uniformitarians for whatever they believe about God. It is their views of science that I attack. I contend that their science is incomplete, and their theories are formulated from selected data viewed with blinders on.
I am questioning their science, not their piety, which is not at issue.
Have you ever studied science?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: true science needs to include God.
How about: "true devotion to God needs to include science?"
If God derives any sort of benefit from His devotees, wouldn't He benefit doubly so from His science-minded devotees?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: true science needs to include God.
How about: "true devotion to God needs to include science?"
If God derives any sort of benefit from His devotees, wouldn't He benefit doubly so from His science-minded devotees?
This man speaks the truth!
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
We must be patient however, when our science seems to conflict with our devotion to God. When this inevitably occurs, we cannot immediately conclude that the science is bad. Neither can we allow our science to detract from or diminish our devotion to God. We must have faith and hope that further investigation into both our science and our religious beliefs will ultimately resolve the conflict.
It is interesting that faith, hope, patience, and the inquisitive mind are attributes cultivated by both scientists and by the religiously devout.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It is interesting that faith, hope, patience, and the inquisitive mind are attributes cultivated by both scientists and by the religiously devout.
Well, it would be interesting if it were true, yes. I understand that they are cultivated by the devout people you know; but I think you are entirely unjustified in saying that these are a representative sample. Acknowledging the exceptions, most devout people do not encourage an inquisitive mind. And scientists do not, at least in my experience, cultivate faith and hope; why should they? (As scientists, that is. They may do so in their private capacity, of course.)
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
The words faith and hope are not limited to application within a religious context only. I doubt that scientists are indifferent as to the outcome of their investigations. Their investigations have focus and direction, which implies faith and hope, in the broader usage of the words, which was my intended meaning.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That scientists have hope for the conclusions of their investigation, is not at all the same thing as saying they cultivate hope. In fact, a scientist should, in principle, be completely indifferent to what he finds; while this is an ideal rarely achieved, it means that we do the exact opposite of cultivating hope.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Achieving any repeatable result by means of scientific investigation fosters faith or confidence in the methods used.
Achieving the desired result fosters or reinforces hope.
I guess you're making a distinction between pure science and applied science.
Hope still applies in an even broader sense to pure science: "I hope I gain greater understanding through my investigation."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:fosters faith or confidence
Confidence, yes. Faith, no. Faith is belief without evidence; but you speak precisely of using evidence. That is the opposite of faith.
quote:Achieving the desired result fosters or reinforces hope.
Completely irrelevant to the question of whether scientists cultivate hope.
quote:Hope still applies in an even broader sense to pure science: "I hope I gain greater understanding through my investigation."
I refer you right back to my previous post:
quote:That scientists have hope for the conclusions of their investigation, is not at all the same thing as saying they cultivate hope. In fact, a scientist should, in principle, be completely indifferent to what he finds; while this is an ideal rarely achieved, it means that we do the exact opposite of cultivating hope.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
"Faith is belief without evidence"
Not my definition of faith. I'd say belief without evidence is ignorance.
I wouldn't say that the cultivation of hope is the objective of pure science, but rather the byproduct. The accumulation of understanding and knowledge through scientific means fosters hope that there is more to be learned, that we're not done yet.
I would like to get back to some fun questions:
1. Did someone create dinosaurs, and if so, why or to what end?
2. Could dinosaurs have survived cataclysmic events in the earth's history to a more modern time, and could there have been any human witnesses of living, breathing dinosaurs, and is there any historical or scientific evidence of humans and dinosaurs coexisting?
3. Can any of the many vague scriptural references to serpents and the like be linked to dinosaurs?
4. If the story of Noah and the ark can be taken as a reference to an actual event in the earth's history, what may or may not have survived such an event?
5. If the demise of dinosaurs and other creatures found in fossilized relics was by design, what was the timing of and reasoning behind that demise?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Oh, and by "evidence" I assume you mean something that either directly or indirectly emits or reflects photons, produces sound waves, or presents an assemblage of atoms perceivable to the human senses of touch, smell, or taste.
I can accept that definition.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Skill
1) Yes, they were designed in a lab, but got away and ate everyone on the island.
2) Yes. These are called Alligators Crocodiles and parrots.
3) The serpent in the Garden of Eden was really a Raptor. no wonder Eve listened to it.
4) Three things that were not on Noah's ark survived the flood. My pink unicorn named Butch, Chuck Norris, and Dippy the Umbrella.
5) Timing and reasoning? We don't need no stinking timing and reasoning. Ok. So it was due to the intergalactic ratings sweeps week.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Sweet, Dan_Raven
Chuck Norris? Did his stubbly beard trap plankton, which somehow kept him afloat? How would you explain Steven Seagal(also a dinosaur)? Where did he get that eyebrow?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Dan, point 2 is actually pretty close to accurate, although alligators and crocodiles existed before dinosaurs and are therefore not descendents. But parrots almost certainly are. Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :
A simple post:
Tom, I didn't say I ALWAYS know .. I said I know exactly what you meant. Theres a difference. HOWEVER: I did assume your intentions and I was wrong in that. I appologize.
Likewise, you assume creation scientist are INFERIOR to those you, personally, agree with. This is where I have issues.
I like a plethora of data. I don't subscribe to either dogmatically.
My point was simple. Children will ALWAYS be given a conflicting amount of information. The best we can do as a parent is to explain what we, the parents believe, (and why), and how XXXXXX believes this or how author XXXX believes this. More information isn't an evil. Brainwashing or trying to control information is an evil to someone like me.
I try to teach my children (most are adults now), to understand their source information and weigh that source.
Again, I'll appologize to Tom for assuming or misrepresenting him in ANY way. He and are and will probably remain on opposing sides of most issues. I do not wish to squelch his voice or opinions.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Okay. People who have known me for a while know of my struggle, as an atheist, to raise children in a way that may actually result in their rejecting my own world view (for those keeping track, my oldest, Nikki [14] says she an atheist; the middle child, Charlene [9], despite being much more intellectual and scientific in her way of viewing the world, tends to believe that there is something in humans that continues on beyond death and may reincarnate. My five-year-old just wants to play with his X-Box and ignore our prattling.).
Now, if someone were to give my kids a book like that for a present, I would probably encourage them not to waste their time on it, but I wouldn't forbid them to read it. I'd sum up the argument it's trying to present, and given their extensive knowledge of natural selection and history, they'd probably reject it with a laugh (or maybe read it to mock it... they've got ornery streaks in 'em).
And I would definitely have a talk with the person who gave them the book about trying to subvert their education...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Likewise, you assume creation scientist are INFERIOR to those you, personally, agree with.
I assume that self-identified creation scientists are those who start with the assumption that creation as described in their scripture of choice happened, and then look for data that fits that conclusion while seeking to explain data which does not.
As a consequence, I believe they are "inferior" to other scientists who do not do this, regardless of whether or not I agree with the theories of these other scientists.
quote:Children will ALWAYS be given a conflicting amount of information. The best we can do as a parent is to explain what we, the parents believe, (and why), and how XXXXXX believes this or how author XXXX believes this.
My concern here is the depth of that explanation. How, for example, do I explain to Sophie exactly why I think the majority of the population of this country wants to believe in a Christian God? That's a conversation I'd rather save until I've first taught her how someone can properly evaluate an epistemology.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
David, I think it's great that you're raising your kids in a way that allows them to decide for themselves what they believe. That's the part of what Roseauthor said that I was agreeing with. No matter how difficult it may be for a parent to let their child choose, it's the only humane thing to do. You can provide them with a sense of what you believe without implying that they must believe the same.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I sympathize with that, too. My fear, though, is that there are certain "toolkits" which are empirically better than others, and I DO want to make sure that my children understand how to recognize and apply those toolkits as necessary -- for exactly the same reason that I'd want my kids to grow up knowing the rules of English grammar, mathematics, and other things that we don't generally allow them to "decide for themselves."
If they use the correct toolkits to reach a conclusion I don't share, that's great. But I want to make sure, in the same way that I want to make sure they know the value of pi, that they know how and why certain toolkits are superior.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I agree with that, Tom. I am very careful to equip my children with skepticism and the basics of empirical rationalism before allowing them to make their own decisions about information, and I do constantly converse with them about the information they're exposed to. It is exhausting, frankly, to be this sort of a parent, because you've got to stay up on every aspect of your kids' lives, but it is the best way to approach the dilemma we're debating in this thread.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)