"You know that's impossible right?" Explaining to kids the comments of creationists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And creationists disagree.

That doesn't mean that viewpoint is worthy of respect or deference of any sort. It's not something you agree to disagree over.

So you teach your kids to disrespect any viewpoint that differs from yours? I just thought we were way past this.

No, I teach my children not to treat all opinions as equal. Opinions based on fact are generally better. One doesn't have to be disrespectful to the people who hold other views, but I am not going to tell my kid that they should give equal weight to everything theory they hear.

Then we will have to politely agree to disagree. That's what I about America.

No, see, we're over in Afghanistan fighting a war started by people like you. So, there's really nothing polite about my disagreement. I think you are dangerous for America.

NP here. No, you're the close-minded one. According to your line of thinking *any opinion* that differs from yours is undeserving of respect.

Where does it end? With how I vote, or with the color of my garage? The Santa Claus and Holocaust points are stupid straw men. No adult believes in Santa Claus. And Holocaust deniers have no "proof."

Yuck. I too thought we were past this.

Signed,
My family marched against the Iraq War ... and we teach our kids evolution ... and we teach our kids to respect honest differences in belief

I'm rather disturbed that you don't see the difference between people disagreeing who to vote for, and believing in "creationism" over evolution.

There is no "right" answer of who would be the best president, or mayor, etc. You can make some objective arguments, but it eventually comes down to opinion.

Sorry, but there is a right and wrong answer as to whether evolution occurred. A person can certainly think that it did not occur. An overwhelming amount of evidence would say that person is wrong. It's not an opinion. And please, before you use the word "theory", look up what a scientific theory actually means.

So wait: you (or possibly another PP on your side) made a point about Afghanistan, and then you jump all over someone for responding? You are a jerk.

You're the one who doesn't get the concept of competing "theories." As a researcher, I know what "theory" means. Specifically, if you have a "theory," but I can't be bothered to learn it (i.e., I can't be bothered to read your books or visit your museum), then I have no standing. I'd be laughed out of a conference for commenting on a paper I haven't read.

In other words, you're as ignorant about the creationists as they are about evolution. Again, you're jerk.

There is a right and wrong about TOLERANCE. Especially if the creationists aren't hurting anyone (and no, "keeping their kids in ignorance" doesn't rise to this measure).

First of all, there are many people responding on the "side" of evolution and I was not the PP who talked about Afghanistan, so you tamp down your outrage a few notches.

I am a bleeding heart, far left liberal, but I have to shake my head when people start screaming "TOLERANCE!" when they don't really know what that concept means. Tolerance means that folks have equal rights. Sure, it means that people can believe anything they want. I recognize the humanity of all people. I think all people deserve compassion and kindness.

Now, how this equates to the idea that I need to "tolerate" an idea that is patently false (and yes, I am well aware of what the "creationists" use as their "evidence", and I'm not sure why you insist to assume otherwise) is just very strange to me. Do they have the right to believe it? Sure. But I don't have to give their ideas equal weight to one that has volumes and volumes of scientific evidence behind it. If that makes me a "jerk" , well, I can live with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a form believer in respecting other people, particularly in public (in private, though, is another matter). BUt in this case, I am really bothered by the idea that the idea of creationism and the idea of evolution are equal beliefs.

A VERY SMALL number of people "believe in" creationism.

THe larger world follows the scientific method. There is no equal in that.

Creating false equivalencies is I think one of our biggest dangers - on the one hand this, on the other hand that - when there are 1000 hands on one side and only 1 hand on the other side doesn't even come close to presenting the real case.

I am also bothered by the poster above you who typed Christians believe. I am Christian, and in no way do I believe in Creationism. And neither does the Catholic Church (despite their many other flaws), and that represents the largest number of Christians world wide.

THANK YOU. Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this thread exploded.

Considering that something like 45% of American's believe in creationism (including my DH's entire extended family including his ex-wife and therefore my stepson), I personally take a more "we have to respect all beliefs" attitude. Even if I don't see any merit in creationism. But that is what I need to do, to keep the peace.

I think it's pretty well established that there are many stupid people in this country. Just because a minority believe something that is factually incorrect doesn't mean that belief has to be respected.

The earth is flat and I can prove it to a scientific certainty. Oh, wait. . . . .

I think I'm so witty that people need to see my posts twice. Oh, wait . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a form believer in respecting other people, particularly in public (in private, though, is another matter). BUt in this case, I am really bothered by the idea that the idea of creationism and the idea of evolution are equal beliefs.

A VERY SMALL number of people "believe in" creationism.

THe larger world follows the scientific method. There is no equal in that.

Creating false equivalencies is I think one of our biggest dangers - on the one hand this, on the other hand that - when there are 1000 hands on one side and only 1 hand on the other side doesn't even come close to presenting the real case.

I am also bothered by the poster above you who typed Christians believe. I am Christian, and in no way do I believe in Creationism. And neither does the Catholic Church (despite their many other flaws), and that represents the largest number of Christians world wide.

THANK YOU. Exactly.

Thank from another poster. There's a lot of ignorance about "what Christians believe" and yet many people, like that PP, think it's fair game to ascribe anything wacky. Which, frankly, is bigotry like others have said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this thread exploded.

Considering that something like 45% of American's believe in creationism (including my DH's entire extended family including his ex-wife and therefore my stepson), I personally take a more "we have to respect all beliefs" attitude. Even if I don't see any merit in creationism. But that is what I need to do, to keep the peace.

I think it's pretty well established that there are many stupid people in this country. Just because a minority believe something that is factually incorrect doesn't mean that belief has to be respected.

The earth is flat and I can prove it to a scientific certainty. Oh, wait. . . . .

I think I'm so witty that people need to see my posts twice. Oh, wait . . . .

You call that witty? The point is clearly over your head. Maybe you need to think about it a little more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this thread exploded.

Considering that something like 45% of American's believe in creationism (including my DH's entire extended family including his ex-wife and therefore my stepson), I personally take a more "we have to respect all beliefs" attitude. Even if I don't see any merit in creationism. But that is what I need to do, to keep the peace.

I think it's pretty well established that there are many stupid people in this country. Just because a minority believe something that is factually incorrect doesn't mean that belief has to be respected.

The earth is flat and I can prove it to a scientific certainty. Oh, wait. . . . .

I think I'm so witty that people need to see my posts twice. Oh, wait . . . .

You call that witty? The point is clearly over your head. Maybe you need to think about it a little more.

So why did you post the same exact thing twice? You're just not very bright?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering that something like 45% of American's believe in creationism (including my DH's entire extended family including his ex-wife and therefore my stepson), I personally take a more "we have to respect all beliefs" attitude. Even if I don't see any merit in creationism. But that is what I need to do, to keep the peace.

I think it's pretty well established that there are many stupid people in this country. Just because a minority believe something that is factually incorrect doesn't mean that belief has to be respected.

There have been lots of things in history that are "factually incorrect" and have either been proven wrong, doubts raised or it's been inconsequential. Remember that OJ got away with murder because the jury ignored the scientific, proven, factual evidence. And yes, we once believed the earth to be flat. Columbus didn't discover America. Some other interesting "facts" some spoken by true scientists:
"Everything that can be invented – has already been invented" (1899 Commissioner of the Patent Office).
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom," ... Robert Milken, Nobel Prize winner in physics, 1923
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," ... Lord Kelvin, President Royal Society, 1895

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went out of town this weekend. Went to a place where there was a geological formation. The plaque mentioned that it had taken 2 million years for this particular formation to come about. A woman behind us was reading the plaque out loud to her family. She then stops and tells her kids, "You know that's impossible right?"

My kids were confused and asked me why she said that.

How would you have responded? Would you have responded right then while the woman and her family were in earshot or would you have waited till they left?

Thanks.

I would have told them the truth - that some people believe the world was made in 7 days. Others - like us - take a different approach, looking to science for answers.

How often are you in situations like that anyway? Make it a learning moment, I say!

Carbon dating, when you go back many years, has never been proven. For lack of a better way to explain it (my grandparents were Harvard/Nasa scientists who explained it to me in layman's terms), there are so few carbons when you go back many many years that the possible margin or error is enormous, i.e., is it 100,000 years old? 1 million years old? 1 billion years old. Who knows - it's essentially only a theory when you go back that far because it has NEVER been verified. We have no dated documents or other dated evidence from millions of years ago with which to verify.

[Anonymous]

Just tell your kids that some people are simple

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just tell your kids that some people are simple

You were saying? Was that the end or were you interrupted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand being respectful and waiting until the woman walked away, but let's not be crazy here and act like creationism should be presented as "just people who have a different opinion". It is not valid to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old - facts are facts and science is science.

+1000. Plus I would point out to my kid out of earshot why the woman's behavior was rude. Because it was and shouldn't be seen as acceptable.

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP from page 1 that spawned a lot of this discussion. I don't think I was clear enough. Stating that some people believe in opinions but WE believe in facts is what I was trying to convey. I'm trying my damnedest to not impart my own bigotry against stupid people. I try very hard to let my kids know that other people have opinions and beliefs that are different from ours. We can disagree, hell- we can even feel sorry for them, but that doesn't make them lesser people. Even my 6 and 8 year olds are able to come to a swift conclusion that a story told a couple thousand years ago before people had a scientific understanding of the world just doesn't make sense now. Religion is what people used to explain things before they had science to help them understand the world. I also tell them that a lot of people still love the stories dearly but use them more like metaphors and mysteries. To each their own (or so I try to teach myself while teaching my kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Carbon dating, when you go back many years, has never been proven. For lack of a better way to explain it (my grandparents were Harvard/Nasa scientists who explained it to me in layman's terms), there are so few carbons when you go back many many years that the possible margin or error is enormous, i.e., is it 100,000 years old? 1 million years old? 1 billion years old. Who knows - it's essentially only a theory when you go back that far because it has NEVER been verified. We have no dated documents or other dated evidence from millions of years ago with which to verify.

The age of the earth is not estimated by carbon-14 dating. Radiometric dating is used -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Radiometric_dating.

Carbon dating will give good results for objects up to 50,000 years. It is a scientific, proven method that has been calibrated and verified, for example with old tree rings.

[Anonymous]

I would have said they are crazy religious people. Religion is about faith and rocks are about reality. Some people confuse the two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not in explaining credit creationism with any scientific validity.
I might say people believe different things. But I would also say that science shows that creationists have no scientific basis for their belief and are basically ignorant religious tools who give voice to the Marxist home run that "religion is the opiate of the masses."

Oh goody! Forget creationism. You believe in historical/dialectical materialism as the explanation for history's march! How's that working out for you?!

(Fair notice: if you come back with "Marxists don't have to follow everything Marx wrote," I'm going to come back with "believers don't all take every word in the Bible literally.")

I didn't say I was a Marxist, just that IMO he is right about this, as evidenced by the legions of religious fruitcakes swarming over our country and our politics.