View Full Version : Did you know?
Did you know?
From 1880 to 1896, the price level in the U.S. economy fell by 23 percent. Because this event was unanticipated, it led to a major redistribution of wealth. Most farmers in the western part of the country were debtors. Their creditors were the bankers in the east. When the price level fell, it caused the real value of these debts to rise, which enriched the banks at the expense of the farmers.
According to populist politicians of the time, the solution to the farmers' problem was the free coinage of silver. During this period, the United States was operating with a gold standard. The quantity of gold determined the money supply and, thereby, the price level. The free-silver advocates wanted silver, as well as gold, to be used as money. If adopted, this proposal would have increased the money supply, pushed up the price level, and reduced the real burdern of the farmers' debts.
The debate over silver was heated, and it was central to the politics of the 1890s.
L. Frank Baum, author of the book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, was a midwestern journalist. When he sat down to write a story for children, he made the characters represent protagonists in the major political battle of his time.
Dorothy: Traditional American Values
Toto: Prohibitionist Party, aslo called the Teetotalers
Scarecrow: Farmers
Tin Woodsman: Industrial workers
Cowardly lion: William Jennings Bryan [Democrat candidate for president in 1896]
Munchkins: Citizens of the east
Wicked witch of the east: Grover Cleveland
Wicked witch of the west: William McKinley
Wizard: Marcus Alonzo Hanna, chairman of the Republican Party
Oz: Abbreviation for ounce of gold
Yellow brick road: gold standard.
:D
(from Principles of Macroeconomics, page 251 to 252)
Also, did you know that in China, no-one actually eats 'Chinese' food.
Did you know? <snip snip snip >
TV at Christmas will never be the same again :( ;)
Theodoric
20-10-2003, 20:14
Did you know?
From 1880 to 1896, the price level in the U.S. economy fell by 23 percent. Because this event was unanticipated, it led to a major redistribution of wealth. Most farmers in the western part of the country were debtors. Their creditors were the bankers in the east. When the price level fell, it caused the real value of these debts to rise, which enriched the banks at the expense of the farmers.
According to populist politicians of the time, the solution to the farmers' problem was the free coinage of silver. During this period, the United States was operating with a gold standard. The quantity of gold determined the money supply and, thereby, the price level. The free-silver advocates wanted silver, as well as gold, to be used as money. If adopted, this proposal would have increased the money supply, pushed up the price level, and reduced the real burdern of the farmers' debts.
The debate over silver was heated, and it was central to the politics of the 1890s.
L. Frank Baum, author of the book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, was a midwestern journalist. When he sat down to write a story for children, he made the characters represent protagonists in the major political battle of his time.
Dorothy: Traditional American Values
Toto: Prohibitionist Party, aslo called the Teetotalers
Scarecrow: Farmers
Tin Woodsman: Industrial workers
Cowardly lion: William Jennings Bryan [Democrat candidate for president in 1896]
Munchkins: Citizens of the east
Wicked witch of the east: Grover Cleveland
Wicked witch of the west: William McKinley
Wizard: Marcus Alonzo Hanna, chairman of the Republican Party
Oz: Abbreviation for ounce of gold
Yellow brick road: gold standard.
:D
(from Principles of Macroeconomics, page 251 to 252)
And did you know that William Jennings Bryan who, in his famous speech of 1896 said, "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." was the prosecuter in the equally famous 1926 Scopes Trial where, although he won the case, he was comprehensively trounced by the defence lawyer Clarence Darrow. Unfortunately, depite the efforts of people like Darrow, Creationism is again raising its sinister head in the USA.
What is wrong with Creationism? I believe in it.
Also, did you know that in China, no-one actually eats 'Chinese' food.:rofl:
aliferste
20-10-2003, 21:27
Also, did you know that in China, no-one actually eats 'Chinese' food.
I went out for a "proper" chinese meal a while ago. We had to book as a group as they dont usually serve it in restaurants. Lovely :)
I went out for a "proper" chinese meal a while ago. We had to book as a group as they dont usually serve it in restaurants. Lovely :)What was different about it?
Creationism is again raising its sinister head in the USA.
Why is it sinister?
Why is it sinister?
Because it challenges orthodoxy. The modern orthodoxy is scientific atheism (or at the very least a kind of scientific woolly agnosticism). Times have changed but people haven't. In the middle ages, challenges to orthodoxy were dealt with by the Inquisition. Today, people who dare to take a minority view are castigated by an intellectual 'elite'.
'Tis the way of the world.
I'm surprised this topic has come round again so soon! How did we get from The Wizard of Oz to Creation? :spin:
What I find to be 'sinister' is you are not allowed to promote creationism on the BBC, yet you can paint the town red with stories of evolution.
homealone
20-10-2003, 23:11
Because it challenges orthodoxy. The modern orthodoxy is scientific atheism (or at the very least a kind of scientific woolly agnosticism). Times have changed but people haven't. In the middle ages, challenges to orthodoxy were dealt with by the Inquisition. Today, people who dare to take a minority view are castigated by an intellectual 'elite'.
'Tis the way of the world.
I'm surprised this topic has come round again so soon! How did we get from The Wizard of Oz to Creation? :spin:
I'm sure if Galileo had seen the Wizard of Oz, he would have asked the same question - we are only observers, it would seem commenting on our observations is sometimes dangerous? :shrug:
What I find to be 'sinister' is you are not allowed to promote creationism on the BBC, yet you can paint the town red with stories of evolution.
That is why we don't watch the Baathist Broadcasting Corporation.
Do you guys get Fox News? :D
That is why we don't watch the Baathist Broadcasting Corporation.
Do you guys get Fox News? :D
Not sure, but I find Rupert Murdoch to be even more odious, so I wouldn't if I had the choice...
He was cool in The Simpsons ;)
I'm sure if Galileo had seen the Wizard of Oz, he would have asked the same question - we are only observers, it would seem commenting on our observations is sometimes dangerous? :shrug:
Drawing inferences from observations is always a risky business. But that is what the theory of evolution is - a set of inferences. It has never been possible to demonstrate in the laboratory. It is based on evidence, much of it very ancient indeed, from which untestable conclusions are drawn (due to the conveniently long timescales the theory calls for). Creation is also a set of inferences that cannot be tested in a laboratory. It is possible to arrange the same set of evidence so that it supports the concept of 'intelligent design' in the universe. However, among the academics that set the agenda, humanism is the overwhelming majority view and any explanation that relies at any point on the activities of a higher intelligence is considered unacceptable.
Theodoric
21-10-2003, 20:21
What is wrong with Creationism? I believe in it.
Which version? The 'world literally created in 6 days in September 4004 BC' version or the more sophisticated 'Intelligent Design' version?
Which version? The 'world literally created in 6 days in September 4004 BC' version or the more sophisticated 'Intelligent Design' version?
Personally I go with the 6 days bit, and I go with the 'young earth' idea but I wouldn't care to nail my flag to the '4004BC' part. I don't think the Earth is old but I'm not well versed enough to back up Bishop Usher's calculations of the date of creation.
Incidentally, you'll find plenty of 'intelligent design' proponents that also accept the idea of a young earth.
Theodoric
21-10-2003, 20:33
Why is it sinister?
I'll retract the word 'sinister' and replace it with the words 'very worrying'. Why very worrying? Because lots of people in the USA and a number over here (eg that school in, I think, Gateshead) are trying to push their religious beliefs into school and university teaching. And when they've won that particular battle, what will be next on their list of things to change by forceful means; our moral behaviour, perhaps?
Creationists will never be persuaded by reason. All Creationist science seems to consist of is looking for inconsistencies in conventional science.
I don't think the Earth is old but I'm not well versed enough to back up Bishop Usher's calculations of the date of creation.
What about all the geological evidence that puts the age of the Earth at several billion years old?
What about all the geological evidence that puts the age of the Earth at several billion years old?
'Ancient geology' relies on Lyle's uniformitarian principles ... i.e. that the geological processes we observe today have continued at a steady, slow pace for millennia. This idea was pretty much unchallengeable until the eruption of Mount St Helens in the USA in the early 1980s. The eruption laid down geological layers in all ways identical to those that, it is supposed, take 'millions' or even 'billions' of years to develop. If we had not witnessed the eruption ourselves, we would have concluded the aftermath was the result of millennia of development, when in fact it was almost literally a few hours work for one angry volcano.
Another plank of geological age theories is dating methods like thermoluminesence, which measures levels of certain radioatcive particles in rock (not dissimilar to radio-carbon dating in archaeology). The problem with this is that immersing rocks in water can cause dates to appear vastly older than they should. And of course, young earth enthusiasts also tend to believe in a catastrophic global flood, which would neatly explain things ...
I could go on, but I'm trying to edit a friend's wedding video at the mo' !
THEO - The school in Gateshead gets a bad press, but you need to look behind the sensational headlines. They're teaching Creation as an alternative explanation to Evolution, which frankly is a lot more honest than teaching Evolution without even acknowledging that alternative ideas exist.
You know, I must actually get round to reading the Wizard of Oz.
The film cuts it short.
Oh sod it, I'm going to comment on the evolution thing :D
Something that worried me was a museum in the southern states where they tried to link people who believe in evolution with Nazi's by stating that Hitler believed in evolution.
Another thing is some of the "facts" religious groups are telling their followers to justify things such as the "water cannopy" that fell and contributed to the flood.
According to JWs it was explained to me thus:
You need heat to keep things up, that's how a hot air baloon works, and the cannopy was kept above the earth by the thermosphere which has a temperature of 3000F
So I explained why a hot air balloon works, and that the thermosphere is actually only about 25C
Oh and what stops this cannopy of water from boiling off into space (apparently no one had asked that before)
homealone
21-10-2003, 21:26
Drawing inferences from observations is always a risky business. But that is what the theory of evolution is - a set of inferences. It has never been possible to demonstrate in the laboratory. It is based on evidence, much of it very ancient indeed, from which untestable conclusions are drawn (due to the conveniently long timescales the theory calls for). Creation is also a set of inferences that cannot be tested in a laboratory. It is possible to arrange the same set of evidence so that it supports the concept of 'intelligent design' in the universe. However, among the academics that set the agenda, humanism is the overwhelming majority view and any explanation that relies at any point on the activities of a higher intelligence is considered unacceptable.
thats why I like your posts, towny, for me they inspire much "internal debate" - & there is nothing wrong with that;)
I hadn't heard of the "intelligent design" theory - off to look it up now - thanks:)
EDIT so far have read some stuff by Dr Hugh Ross - very interesting stuff
You know, I must actually get round to reading the Wizard of Oz.
The film cuts it short.
Oh sod it, I'm going to comment on the evolution thing :D
Something that worried me was a museum in the southern states where they tried to link people who believe in evolution with Nazi's by stating that Hitler believed in evolution.
Another thing is some of the "facts" religious groups are telling their followers to justify things such as the "water cannopy" that fell and contributed to the flood.
According to JWs it was explained to me thus:
So I explained why a hot air balloon works, and that the thermosphere is actually only about 25C
Oh and what stops this cannopy of water from boiling off into space (apparently no one had asked that before)
Well, there's your problem ... 1/ take Bible Belt 'religious groups' with a pinch of salt; 2/ take JWs with an entire saltmine. It is one of the characteristics of a cult like the Watchtower that everything has to have an officially sanctioned and plausible-sounding answer.
I don't claim to have all the answers, but I have seen enough 'alternative' interpretation to Evolution to cause me to question it.
thats why I like your posts, towny, for me they inspire much "internal debate" - & there is nothing wrong with that;)
I hadn't heard of the "intelligent design" theory - off to look it up now - thanks:)
EDIT so far have read some stuff by Dr Hugh Ross - very interesting stuff
:blush:
why thankyou ... happy reading! Let me know if you find an interesting link, I'm always after new reading material.
homealone
21-10-2003, 21:53
You know, I must actually get round to reading the Wizard of Oz.
The film cuts it short.<snip>
me too:)
- if only to appreciate Stargate:D
I'll retract the word 'sinister' and replace it with the words 'very worrying'. Why very worrying? Because lots of people in the USA and a number over here (eg that school in, I think, Gateshead) are trying to push their religious beliefs into school and university teaching. And when they've won that particular battle, what will be next on their list of things to change by forceful means; our moral behaviour, perhaps?
You make it sound like those who believe in creationism get unfair advantages to be able to get away with those beliefs.
Just try to get on the BBC with a pro-creationism sermon and....oh I'm sorry, I forgot - you can't. The Beeb won't allow it. Looks like they (pro-evolutionists) are trying to push their non-religious views on to us.
Ah, but that's allowed though, isn't it. Just as long as those pesky Christians are kept in their place.
Ah, but that's allowed though, isn't it. Just as long as those pesky Christians are kept in their place.
Absolutly, can't have them trying to take over the world :D
It's bad enough only having 6hrs to go shopping with on a Sunday!
Personally I go with the 6 days bit, and I go with the 'young earth' idea but I wouldn't care to nail my flag to the '4004BC' part. I don't think the Earth is old but I'm not well versed enough to back up Bishop Usher's calculations of the date of creation.
Likewise
I'll retract the word 'sinister' and replace it with the words 'very worrying'. Why very worrying? Because lots of people in the USA and a number over here (eg that school in, I think, Gateshead) are trying to push their religious beliefs into school and university teaching. And when they've won that particular battle, what will be next on their list of things to change by forceful means; our moral behaviour, perhaps?
Why should evolution, the theory of people that follow the religion of atheism, be taught in schools but not Creation? Why do YOU want to force YOUR false beliefs onto US?
Like it or not, a lot of Americans are Christians. Who are YOU to say that in a community where 95% of the people are Christians it is wrong to teach Creation in school?
Why should evolution, the theory of people that follow the religion of atheism, be taught in schools but not Creation? Why do YOU want to force YOUR false beliefs onto US?
Like it or not, a lot of Americans are Christians. Who are YOU to say that in a community where 95% of the people are Christians it is wrong to teach Creation in school?
Don't you have the church/state divide which is what prevents creationism being taught in schools?
There are many people who consider themselves christians who also believe in evolution
Why should evolution, the theory of people that follow the religion of atheism, be taught in schools but not Creation? Why do YOU want to force YOUR false beliefs onto US?
Like it or not, a lot of Americans are Christians. Who are YOU to say that in a community where 95% of the people are Christians it is wrong to teach Creation in school?
I don't often say this to one of Jerrek's posts but AMEN TO THAT!
Don't you have the church/state divide which is what prevents creationism being taught in schools?
Education is not a federal government jurisdiction.
Education is not a federal government jurisdiction.
Really? you learn something new everyday :)
I've got to say, I really don't remember being taught evolution at school.
I don't think it's part of the sylibus
homealone
21-10-2003, 23:01
Why should evolution, the theory of people that follow the religion of atheism, be taught in schools but not Creation? Why do YOU want to force YOUR false beliefs onto US?
Like it or not, a lot of Americans are Christians. Who are YOU to say that in a community where 95% of the people are Christians it is wrong to teach Creation in school?
I agree that what we teach our children, should be balanced, unbiased, etc
- so teach Creation & Evolution - and let them make their own minds up? - imo there can't be "false" beliefs - only informed ones - you have that, lots of other people are still catching up - me too, if I am honest?
No. I want to teach MY children Creation. I don't want to teach them evolution until they are older when they can understand. What gives YOU the right to tell me what I should teach my children, and what the school I am paying for should teach my children?
No. I want to teach MY children Creation. I don't want to teach them evolution until they are older when they can understand. What gives YOU the right to tell me what I should teach my children, and what the school I am paying for should teach my children?
Woah calm down!
I don't think Homealone was ordering you to teach your kids both, I think it was a suggestion (one I feel is sensible)
Well, I don't, and there are lots of people that feel the same way. We don't want the government to dictate what we can and can't teach in our schools. Government may recommend certain outlines, but it should be up to the school to govern itself.
If a school in a Christian community wants to institute prayer each morning and devotions, and teach Creation, then who is anyone else that doesn't go to that school to tell us how we should do things?
I'm sick and tired of the government telling me what we can and can't teach in schools. I applaud the Arkansas state government's decision to scrap evolution from the books and teach Creation instead. They will still teach evolution, but it will be taught the way it should be: that it is only a theory full of holes that has never been proven.
{FU}Fubar
21-10-2003, 23:14
lol fter reading this thread i have come to a conclusion, Your ALL nuts :D
does it really matter between creationism and evolution ? im sure they both fall hand in hand anyway , some thing was created and somthing has evolved simple as , weather its your OWN views why does it matter ? Each to their owm i say :)
<snip> that it is only a theory full of holes that has never been proven.
And do they teach creationism as fact or as a belief which also is full of holes and has never been proven?
Ah, but that's allowed though, isn't it. Just as long as those pesky Christians are kept in their place.
How many wars have been started and fought over religion? How many wars have been started and fought over science?
While you and anyone else are free to practice your own religion, if I had a choice it would be religion that gets thrown out the window and a pro-science agenda adopted all round.
How is Creation full of holes? It is based on one assumption: That God exists. There are no holes.
And it is true that it has never been proven, and will probably never be proven until after death.
I believe it is taught as a belief. It is impossible to teach anything as fact if you weren't there to observe it.
I shall certainly be teaching my daughter creationism and I'd want her school to include it as well. As a parent we want what's best for our children and I believe creationism is the better option, although I don't have a problem with her being taught evolutional theories.
While you and anyone else are free to practice your own religion, if I had a choice it would be religion that gets thrown out the window and a pro-science agenda adopted all round.
And you are welcome to that way of thinking as long as you don't ram it down my throat.
If a school in a Christian community wants to institute prayer each morning and devotions, and teach Creation, then who is anyone else that doesn't go to that school to tell us how we should do things?
The separation of church and state perhaps, something that is deeply enshrined in the American political system.
I shall certainly be teaching my daughter creationism and I'd want her school to include it as well. As a parent we want what's best for our children and I believe creationism is the better option, although I don't have a problem with her being taught evolutional theories.
Personally, if I had a child at a school that I found out was teaching creationism they would be in a different school as soon as possible and a complaint lodged to the local education authority. If it were a private church school then fine, but any child of mine wouldn`t go their in the first place, but I would not tolerate a state school foisting this sort of religious education on my children.
Thankfully I never intend to have children.
:cool:
What is you guys' problem with the separation of church and state?! That applies to the federal government. Education is regulated by the state government, and what I said it was UP TO THE SCHOOL, not the government, to regulate itself.
IAnd you are welcome to that way of thinking as long as you don't ram it down my throat.
Wouldn`t dream of it. I`ll debate and argue with you on these matters. I will never attack you personally over your beliefs?
A bit of a tangent, have you ever seen John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness, it has an interest slant on the concepts of science vs. religion.
{FU}Fubar
21-10-2003, 23:22
What is you guys' problem with the separation of church and state?! That applies to the federal government. Education is regulated by the state government, and what I said it was UP TO THE SCHOOL, not the government, to regulate itself.
If the school regualted itself then you would see massive hyke in school fee's and tax's that's just impossble todo in this country
What is you guys' problem with the separation of church and state?! That applies to the federal government. Education is regulated by the state government, and what I said it was UP TO THE SCHOOL, not the government, to regulate itself.
It is precisely reasons like this why it shouldn`t be left in the hands of the public schools to decide what they teach.
keithwalton
21-10-2003, 23:23
there you have just said the largest hole for yourself.
An 'assumption' that is one mother of a flaw. I am not religous myself but i am open to other people's opinions. You should certainly not remove evolution for creationism as you say its flawed. when you provide an alternative thats even more ambigous and relies on belief only.
On a side note, we're here now arnt we, i'm not at all bothered by how i got here, the future is what matters to me not the past.
K
How is Creation full of holes? It is based on one assumption: That God exists. There are no holes.
I'd say the lack of any objective proof of the existence of God is a pretty wide hole in that theory. Faith is one thing, but you can't base a theory on faith.
{FU}Fubar
21-10-2003, 23:24
there you have just said the largest hole for yourself.
An 'assumption' that is one mother of a flaw. I am not religous myself but i am open to other people's opinions. You should certainly not remove evolution for creationism as you say its flawed. when you provide an alternative thats even more ambigous and relies on belief only.
On a side note, we're here now arnt we, i'm not at all bothered by how i got here, the future is what matters to me not the past.
K
Well said that Man :D
philip.j.fry
21-10-2003, 23:25
I shall certainly be teaching my daughter creationism and I'd want her school to include it as well. As a parent we want what's best for our children and I believe creationism is the better option, although I don't have a problem with her being taught evolutional theories.
Creationism is a theory also. My personal preference would be that schools stop trying to teach facts on their own and concentrate on scientific method. Then introduce creationism and evolution and allow children to examine both theories using the skills they have just learnt. Anything else is just a mild form of brain-washing :) It goes for most other things as well, teach children the skills to make their own informed opinions.
Anything else is just a mild form of brain-washing :) It goes for most other things as well, teach children the skills to make their own informed opinions.
On that way of thinking I guess that to tell a child "Don't steal that bar of chocoalte" is also brainwashing :)
{FU}Fubar
21-10-2003, 23:27
Here's an idea , how about Teaching your OWN kids About your Own Belief's then all this none sense about what they schools should teach can be then be settled :)
On that way of thinking I guess that to tell a child "Don't steal that bar of chocoalte" is also brainwashing :)
Bring the child to the conclusion that stealing is wrong, and the consiquences and you'll have done a better job :P
philip.j.fry
21-10-2003, 23:30
On that way of thinking I guess that to tell a child "Don't steal that bar of chocoalte" is also brainwashing :)
Well in a way yes, you need to show the child the effect that stealing can have and allow them to come to the conclusion that it is wrong. :D
Bring the child to the conclusion that stealing is wrong, and the consiquences and you'll have done a better job :P
So if I bring her to the conclusion that evolution is wrong, and the consequences, perhaps I'll have done a better job as well?? :D
On that way of thinking I guess that to tell a child "Don't steal that bar of chocoalte" is also brainwashing :)
Yes it is, as are all social concepts that define our behaviours.
As you have raised this point, indulge me a small tangent. I don`t believe in objective concepts of good and evil, they merely represent the social conventions prevelant at the time.
Take paedophila as an example, and let me point out that I do not approve of this. However, back in the time of ancient Greeks it was perfectly acceptable to have sex with young children, not it is not, but we do not consider the ancient Greeks to be uncivilised. It is merely a concept of what is right and wrong based on what is currently considered to be acceptable. My distaste for paedophilia does not come from some innate source, it is conditioned by my upbringing in a given culture.
People often talk about the "banality of evil". To some degree I see following the path of "good" as the banal option, as this demonstrates an unwillingness to act independtly outside the bounds of social peer pressure.
philip.j.fry
21-10-2003, 23:34
So if I bring her to the conclusion that evolution is wrong, and the consequences, perhaps I'll have done a better job as well?? :D
You'd need to teach her all the theories and allow her to come to her own conclusion, the consequences would be not being able to post here without being drawn into debate :)
So if I bring her to the conclusion that evolution is wrong, and the consequences, perhaps I'll have done a better job as well?? :D
Better job of sending her down the creationist track :D
Maybe you'll be lucky and have a daughter who never stops asking questions, and so creationism or evolution doesn't quite sit with her, so she'll go on with an open mind, always asking why and how, respecting other's beliefs for without respecting them, you can't learn from them.
You'd need to teach her all the theories and allow her to come to her own conclusion
For her early years I think giving her an overload like that will send her in to therapy!
No, I'll be teaching her what I feel is best. If she gets to an age where she feels it's not for her, I'll be disappointed but it's her life.
For her early years I think giving her an overload like that will send her in to therapy!
Is that not being a touch prematurely presumptive about her intellectual capabilities?
Is that not being a touch prematurely presumptive about her intellectual capabilities?
Have you ever tried to explain the Big Bang theory to a toddler?? And if she's inherited her dad's intellect, she'll be well in to her teens.... :D
Philip said "all the theories", I think she'd have to be well in to her learning years to have a competent grasp of ALL of them.
Have you ever tried to explain the Big Bang theory to a toddler??
The secret is to start small, try Einstein's theory of relativity before progressing onto his special theory :D
Course at a young age they have a full comprehension of the "rubber sheet" space/time theories
The secret is to start small, try Einstein's theory of relativity before progressing onto his special theory :D
If I thought it would do her any good, I'd probably do that very thing :)
Have you ever tried to explain the Big Bang theory to a toddler?? And if she's inherited her dad's intellect, she'll be well in to her teens.... :D
I have no desire to blow my own trumpet, as it were, but I was already versed in the basics of astronomy by the time I started infant school, and by that time I could already name many constellations and the planets in their order from the sun. I cannot remember a time in my life when things like the big bang were not taken by me to be fact. Hence I do not necessarily believe that discussing such concepts is beyond the realms of understanding for a very young child.
I have no desire to blow my own trumpet, as it were, but I was already versed in the basics of astronomy by the time I started infant school, and by that time I could already name many constellations and the planets in their order from the sun. I cannot remember a time in my life when things like the big bang were not taken by me to be fact. Hence I do not necessarily believe that discussing such concepts is beyond the realms of understanding for a very young child.
I'd have to say that's quite a feat. Quite a few of my friends have children and I don't think any of them would have that level of understanding at pre-school level.
Even if my daughter IS of that intellectual level, I'll still be teaching her creationism first, simply because it's what I believe is better for her.
The secret is to start small, try Einstein's theory of relativity before progressing onto his special theory :D
Course at a young age they have a full comprehension of the "rubber sheet" space/time theories
The special theory actually the easier one to understand as it came first, it was extended to be the general theory by the inclusion of gravitation and non-uniform motion.
You do want to confuse this child ;)
I'd have to say that in your case that's quite a feat. Quite a few of my friends have children and I don't think any of them would have that level of understanding at pre-school level.
I`m sure I don`t have any need to teach you about raising your child, and I`m sure you do a sterling job so this isn`t really directed at you, but it is crucially important to nuture a child's intellect during their very early years. My mother took it upon herself to teach me to read and do maths well before I started infant school, so by the time I started infant school my reading ability was already at a junior school level. If you are willing to take the time to nuture any child in this way you will get remarkable results, so I am not intrinsically special I would say, more the fact that I had parents who were willing to make this degree of effort. Of course then you get teachers moaning that the parents are interfering in the education process, but that's another topic.
Purely out of curiosity, why do you believe that it is better to teach creationism first? I do not believe that religious belief necessary precludes a belief in evolution, so I am simply interested as to your reasoning for this.
Purely out of curiosity, why do you believe that it is better to teach creationism first? I do not believe that religious belief necessary precludes a belief in evolution, so I am simply interested as to your reasoning for this
Well perhaps I worded it wrongly - it's not a case of teaching creationism first, but I'll be impressing upon her that creation is more genuine. I've said in the past I'll be bringing her up in the Christian faith and I think creationism seems to fit in to that quite nicely ;)
You know, that's another interesting difference between religious and non-religious parents.
Religious parents tend to want their children to have the same beliefs (understandably).
Non-religious parents tend to want their children to make up their own minds, whether that's to find religion or decide it's not for them, so long as it's their own informed decision.
I'd regard that as being more 'logical' than 'interesting'....
I dunno, why wouldn't non-religious parents want their kids to also be non-religious? Why do they put more emphasis on their children making the decision rather than making it for them?
Without wishing to sound smug or arrogant (even thought I prolly will), those parents don't know what we know....
Without wishing to sound smug or arrogant (even thought I prolly will), those parents don't know what we know....
lol
So religious parents know something that non-religious ones don't, and that missing something makes non-religious parents put an emphasis on their kids thinking for themselves, or rather making a decision for themselves?
It's all about the 'Good News' - we have this thing we want to tell people (hence some people go knocking on doors to spread the word) and we obviously want what's best for our kids, and the life that goes with this properly-taught Good News is something we want our kids to experience.
It's all about the 'Good News'
Is that religious people in general or just christians?
And it doesn't explain why non-religious people would rather their kids made the decision for themselves than follow their parents' religion (or rather lack of)
As I'm not a non-religious person I guess i can't answer that ;)
The 'Good news' is about Jesus, and what He has in store for us. We know it's wonderful and of course want it for our kids.
That is why we don't watch the Baathist Broadcasting Corporation.
Do you guys get Fox News? :D
Because Rupert Murdoch's not biased is he?
Am I correct here in thinking that you are talking about The Rapture?
Because Rupert Murdoch's not biased is he?
Even The Simpsons which is made by Fox had a parody of Fox News that portrayed them as being little better than Nazi propaganda.
Am I correct here in thinking that you are talking about The Rapture?
Well yeah, but not just that.
Well yeah, but not just that.
Interesting, does that imply that you belief in the literal existence of Satan, The Devil, whatever you want to call him? The reason I ask is that as far as I know, and please do correct me if I`m wrong, The Rapture is supposed to take place prior to the establishment of the reign of the Devil on Earth as outlined in Revelations. It has been my understanding that more recent interpretations of religious texts (or some interpretations at least) did not see Satan and Hell as literal concepts, but more an isolation from God.
{FU}Fubar
22-10-2003, 00:37
just out of intrest , russ d are you Church Of England ?
Even The Simpsons which is made by Fox had a parody of Fox News that portrayed them as being little better than Nazi propaganda.
:rofl: I remember that episode!
BTW, I was being sarcastic...
BTW, I was being sarcastic...
Don`t worry, the post you were referring to made that more than clear. Give me BBC News over Fox any day.
Without wishing to sound smug or arrogant (even thought I prolly will), those parents don't know what we know....
Not necessarily. Both my parents were brought up as religious people, and my mum was fairly religious until her early twenties, and my sister and I have still been encouraged to find our own beliefs..
Grrrr, this would come up on the night i was hoping to get an early night!!!
Yes I believe in satan but not as some bloke dressed all in red with a pitchfork. My interpritation is of a purely evil personna, that which drives a man to attack a child for instance. Satan isn't something you can touch. For lack of a better phrase, Satan is a spirit, a purely evil spirit.
Actually after the rapture it's not the devil who reigns on earth but the antichrist, who is the human manifestation of pure evil (just as Jesus was the human manifestation of God), although halfway through the tribulation period it is written that antichrist will be killed by a blow to the head but will be resurrected (thereby trying to convince the world he has god-like powers) however this time he will actually be possessed by satan.
I have to say I agree about hell, I don't think it's really a place people go, it's just an existence with complete isolation from God.
And no, I'm not CoE. Far from it!
Actually after the rapture it's not actually the devil who reigns on earth but the antichrist,
Thank you for correct me on that, I should have remembered that after watching The Omen Trilogy and The Seventh Seal.
Anyway, I`ll let you get to bed, now. It has been fun discussing this with you.
Likewise - I'm sure it'll carry on tomorrow lol
It's always a pleasure having these discussions with you and Towny, Russ :D
How many wars have been started and fought over science?
Hitler justified much of what he did on scientific, not religious grounds. I find it amazing that the tired old 'religion causes war' argument gets trotted out so often, yet no-one stops to ponder the causes of the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.
It's always a pleasure having these discussions with you and Towny, Russ :D
Likewise ... wish I'd been around a bit more last night tho'. I got stuck editing that video until well after midnight and it's still nowhere near finished. Now sitting at my desk at work peering at the screen and wishing for some very strong coffee indeed ... :zzz:
Hitler justified much of what he did on scientific, not religious grounds. I find it amazing that the tired old 'religion causes war' argument gets trotted out so often, yet no-one stops to ponder the causes of the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.
People cause war. Religion is just a convenient excuse.
People cause war. Religion is just a convenient excuse.As is science.
Unfortunately, although as individuals, people are generally nice, as a group it can be a different story.
IMO people will start wars whatever the excuse.
Likewise ... wish I'd been around a bit more last night tho'.
Your input was missed :)
As is science.
Unfortunately, although as individuals, people are generally nice, as a group it can be a different story.
IMO people will start wars whatever the excuse.
OK. For 'religion' substitute 'beliefs'.
OK. For 'religion' substitute 'beliefs'.
I think that's fair. Some people are aggressive, power-hungry, domineering types ... and if that's the case, they will use whatever is familiar to them to justify their actions. That might be religion, it might be a scientific 'proof' that one race is naturally superior and deserves to rule.
OK. For 'religion' substitute 'beliefs'.
Yeah, I was actually agreeing with you, in a round about sort of way. But you are right, people will happily go to war over their beliefs. Look at how many times the US nearly ended up at war with the USSR because they believed communism was bad. BTW, I am not saying communism is good or bad (I personally think it is/was bad) just trying to back up the point about beliefs...
Our religious debates are so convivial these days. Where have all the trolls gone? :D
I miss the old days with pages of arguements about whether to believe Religion or Science...Even Russ and downquark1 don't seem to have their heart in it...
My heart's always in it, it just seems that the contributors this time are more tolerant, which is nice :)
Well, we did have a fairly heated thread the other week, but I think everyone took a step back after that and realised that we're all friends after all ... :)
My heart's always in it, it just seems that the contributors this time are more tolerant, which is nice :)
True, and seeing as we did have that thread the other week, maybe it is time to be nice to one another...
so, one, two, three, ... grouuuup huuuug ... :D :wavey:
I'm still intreagued as to why non-religious parents want their children to come to their own conclusions, where as religious parents want their children to have the same beliefs.
(in my experience)
so, one, two, three, ... grouuuup huuuug ...
Watch those hands :eek:
I'm still intreagued as to why non-religious parents want their children to come to their own conclusions, where as religious parents want their children to have the same beliefs.
I think it's because non-religious parents usually have little or no interest in such a faith, whereas us believers naturally see the importance.
I think it's because non-religious parents usually have little or no interest in such a faith, whereas us believers naturally see the importance.
So with non-religious people their lack of faith isn't as important to them as faith is to someone who is religious?
But that would mean non-religious parents don't care what their children believe, which from what I've seen isn't the case, they put quite a lot of importance on it.
I'm still intreagued as to why non-religious parents want their children to come to their own conclusions, where as religious parents want their children to have the same beliefs.
(in my experience)
As Russ says, (and pardon me if I go all religious at this point) my experience of God has been so breathtakingly real that I really, really want to see that other people know about it. For me, it's like seeing someone standing on a railway track while a train hurtles up behind them at high speed. In such circumstances, you don't wait to see if they work out for themselves the significance of the 'beware of trains' sign and the increasingly loud rumbling noise behind them...
So with non-religious people their lack of faith isn't as important to them as faith is to someone who is religious?
But that would mean non-religious parents don't care what their children believe, which from what I've seen isn't the case, they put quite a lot of importance on it.
It's a very good question but I'm really not the person to answer it! :)
I honestly cannot remember how I viewed such things before I was saved.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.