Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

6000 year old earth theory taught to kids - is it right?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Here we see young earth creationists quite clearly teaching/instructing/conditioning very young children about
how science is bad and dinosaurs ate vegetables 6000 years ago.

Is this right?
Can the clips in the museum where adults are forcefully imposing their (erroneous) opinions on kids be construed as in any way healthy?
To my mind its one of the most disturbing things I've seen in a while.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
Here we see young earth creationists quite clearly teaching/instructing/conditioning very young children about
how science is bad and dinosaurs ate vegetables 6000 years ago.
Can the clips in the museum where adults are forcefully imposing their (erroneous) opinions on kids be construed as in any way healthy?


The sub-text here is that a great number of Americans subcribe to a very conservative Christian way of thinking. I once had the experience of being handed the 6000 year Bishop Usher line of hooey as I was handling a 10,000 year old paleo-indian projectile point. That really irked me, as it seemed to denigrate the beauty and technology inherent in this stone.

While I could not I challenge his 'dust on the moon' arguments with any real finesse, I offered to put him in touch with a well known geologist who could address all of his doubts about the scientific paradigm.

He declined.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Bill Hicks tackles the issue.


*mild language* by Hicks standards



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
it makes me giggle that people actually believe this dirt.

.......................................hopefully those children drown or atleast dont mate giving this trash a new generation to spread through.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Ya on one side you got those that say the world and mankind are only 6000 yrs old, yet in museums all over the world, are artifacts dating 20+ thousand years ago.

Its not teaching a world age theory, its teaching the "status quo comfy zone" theory.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Its a pretty persistent meme indeed.

You just need a more powerful meme to out compete it.

I think the Museum should adopt the ATS motto and actively "Deny Ignorance".

This should not go unchallenged by the curators of the museum.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
The 6000 year old theory is based on the calcultations of Bishop Usher, who used the geneologies of the bible to calculae the age of the earth and even the exact date of o cteation. The problem is that using the these calculations, he did not tate into consideration the thef fact tha many generations had been left out, and therefore, coutd not be condisidered accurate. Thw werh ia ovcioualy ovee 6000 yrs old, just based on geological evidenced. Theae idiiots make me sick!



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
young minds should be able to form their own opinions. Teaching the creation theory is no more correct than teaching evoltion either. My point is, Christians should have the right to have the creation idea to be considered just as athiests should be able to have evolution considered. How could one argue that one side is ultimately more deserving of having their agenda taught in school? Whichever one you choose, you are flying in the face of MANY MANY people on one side or the other. a compromise is called for. Make a whole seperate subject that introduces kids and young adults to all the theories available on this, or don't teach any of them at all.
BTW: i believe in evolution mostly. I don't for a second believe that the earth was made in 7 days 6000 years ago, but i also believe that i did not come from a monkey...so go figure. i think my child deserves the credibility to make up his own mind, and i would not like one issue to get more creedence than the other, it's up to him what he will believe, teach him both theories i say, then one day after he has a grasp of both of those, i'll explain to him my idea of something alltogether different and yet the same from both of those.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Enigma Publius]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I would say it is wrong because then these kids, who grow up to be adults, falsely tie their Christian beliefs and belief in God to the idea of a 6000 year old Earth. To some of these wackos, if you could 100% prove that evolution occured and man came from apes, that would mean there is no God (which is balogna, however that is spelled...). Is a 6000 year old earth more important than your belief in God? To some of these people, yes, which is of course quite ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Enigma Publius
 


Your artificial boundary of christians on one side and atheists on the other is just that. Many Christians accept the big bang theory and evolutionary processes as the creation.
Science and the scientific method is fact based and taught in public schools without benefit of religious interpretation. Biblical interpretations are purely religious and should be taught in church or religious schools. This anti-evolution teaching is a common practice in the Islamic madrassas.
There should be no religion in public schools.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Enigma Publius
 


Your artificial boundary of christians on one side and atheists on the other is just that. Many Christians accept the big bang theory and evolutionary processes as the creation.
Science and the scientific method is fact based and taught in public schools without benefit of religious interpretation. Biblical interpretations are purely religious and should be taught in church or religious schools. This anti-evolution teaching is a common practice in the Islamic madrassas.
There should be no religion in public schools.

true, i was generalizing, i realize that. But i would imagine you woiuld be hard pressed to find a believer of the 6000 year old theory that isn't a christian, and from experience, more than 50 % of believers in evolution are not Christian, would that be safe to say? I mean, how do you believe in a theory that flies directly in the face of your religion? It's easy if you welcome ignorance and can fool yourself into thinking that it is somehow just a minor thing, but get real. there is no missing link that was ever found, so actually the theory of us coming from apes is just as unlikely i believe as the 6000 year old theory. i don't believe either one is totally correct, but i believe they shoul be taught because my child should know what he is working with when dealing with people.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
This is another example of teaching from a Corrupted Bible. There are two gods written in the Bible. One god is all loving while the other is vengeful, envious, jealous, and full of hate. That could ONLY be Satan. Satan will ask you to murder other human beings and revel in it.
And all the stories that make no sense like the 6000 year earth and that earth was created in 6 days are Satans corruption of the Bible. Satan makes himself "appear" as the true god just to confuse people.


[edit on 15-1-2009 by Muundoggie]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muundoggie
This is another example of teaching from a Corrupted Bible. There are two gods written in the Bible. One god is all loving while the other is vengeful, envious, jealous, and full of hate. That could ONLY be Satan. Satan will ask you to murder other human beings and revel in it.

lol...whut? easy, down boy. what does old and new testament have to do with this?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Enigma Publius
 


Where do I say anything about old or new testament?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Muundoggie
 

well the most common idea behind the bible teaching two different Gods, is the evidence of how different the one told to us is in the old testament when compared to the God in the New testament, you know, no more blood sacrafice, then he says "oh go ahead and eat pork, i don't mind anymore" and blah blah blah...this really belongs in a different thread. What were YOU talking about if this was not what you were refering to? sorry to stray off topic OP.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Enigma Publius
 

The piont I was making is that the Bible is corrupted and that if one teaches from those corrupted parts then the teaching is false.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enigma Publius

true, i was generalizing, i realize that. But i would imagine you woiuld be hard pressed to find a believer of the 6000 year old theory that isn't a christian, and from experience, more than 50 % of believers in evolution are not Christian,


well yes id agree with that but thats becasue atheists christains muslims buddists and a whole bunch more understand and accept(not believe that requires little evidence and theres lots)

and as athiests are a minority everywhere then the christaian acceptors vastly outnumber us

the problem seems to be then science or religeon false dichotemy put about by the more religeously minded (by that i mean the funddie brigade) but its starting to be reflected by a handful of athiests and i dont agree with them (ive jumped on a few of those on the boards)

so yes over 50% who accept evolution are not christains but well over 50% of the worlds christains accept evolution as gods way of creation (no this isnt ID thats nonsense used to drag undercover religeon into class rooms and then start phasing more into creationism)


I mean, how do you believe in a theory that flies directly in the face of your religion?
by understanding that its not 100% the word of god but is the word of man inspired by god, and as they didnt understand science like we do god made it simple for them


It's easy if you welcome ignorance and can fool yourself into thinking that it is somehow just a minor thing, but get real. there is no missing link that was ever found,
no there are quite a few and we found them so they are not missing, infact we have so many possible missing links were struggaling to work out which is which as homonid evolution was more branched then first thought

the first missing link was found before Darwin even published and that was 100 years after Carlus linneaus classified us as apes (Darwin didnt say we were apes Linneaus a creationists scientists did, Darwins evolutionary thoery was the how that explained Linneaus's findings)


so actually the theory of us coming from apes is just as unlikely i believe as the 6000 year old theory.
ones proven and ones in the bible, hell even Behe the only credable(well kinda) person at the discovery institute accepts common decent he just thinks god poked proded and did it that way over millions of years not evolution

and your mis using the word theory, were talking scientific theory here which means it has been proven and there is no evidence that contradicts it, and so it is raised to the level of theory from hypothesis

the 6000 year old earth is an intirely unproven hypothesis (not a theory unless your using the slang usage which has no place when talking about scientific theories)


i don't believe either one is totally correct, but i believe they shoul be taught because my child should know what he is working with when dealing with people.
i disagree

we should teach children what is correct, science works and proves its self time and time again (even though you dont know it with your challenge to common descent)

not 1 shred of evidence has been found to support 6000 year old earth, but all branches of science(that deal with the natural world) have in some way shown the earth to be much older

so teaching false information in science (frankly i think lying to kids in any class is unacceptable) is simply unacceptable

should we take special time in biology class to teach that some peoiple think storks bring babaies in the night and drop them down the chimeny?

should we teach the earth may be flat becasue im sure somwhere out there theres still people that believe that (and its in the bible so why dont you?)

shall we teach them the alternate that 1+1=9 and 9+1=2 and 2+1=5

if anyone managed to produce credable evidence for ID, 6000 year old earth, Ghosts, unicorns, santa then yes it should then be looked at to be taught in school, find the evidence and it will get into school teaching its that simple ..... but hey why do it the hard way and earn the right to be there when you can just try and impose religeon ito school by law huh?








[edit on 16/1/09 by noobfun]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enigma Publius...a compromise is called for. Make a whole seperate subject that introduces kids and young adults to all the theories available on this, or don't teach any of them at all.
BTW: i believe in evolution mostly. I don't for a second believe that the earth was made in 7 days 6000 years ago, but i also believe that i did not come from a monkey...so go figure.


Couple of points:
First, there is no science to the 6000 year fable...it is a Bishop counting backwards. You may as well toss the stork into the mix as a delivery vehicle...it has an equal amount of credence.

Secondly, if you think the theory of natural selection dictates that you 'came from a monkey', you're barking up the wrong (family) tree. What it states is that man and ape descended from a common ancestor.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Enigma Publius
 


First, you have the "descended from apes" idea all wrong, but I see a post that addresss that.
The creation story can be interpreted in many ways and the Bible is all about interpretation. Think of the Creator as being smart enough to start with a big bang [Let there be light] that produced what was desired without any extra meddling. The plan was done at the instant the universe was created; everything was created to have the path lead to the results desired. Star and planets would form, life would form and evolve, and here we are -- now intelligent enough to appreciate the wonder of the universe and try to understand it with the minds we have been blessed with. The Creator wouldn't fake diosaur bones to confuse us. We are supposed to learn the truth and the Creator wouldn't lie to us. This sounds like a plan to me.
This would be the handiwork of the all knowing creator. If you subscribe to a lesser creator that had to wander around doing all sorts of creation on the fly, that is up to you. Mine is the smart one.
How about the 6,000 years? An uneducated Bishop counted the years mentioned in the stories that were oral traditions before they were written down. Note that every story might not have been told and written down. Every death might not have been recorded. Ignore the Bishop. He had good intentions but that is about all. The Creator waited 15 billion years for the cake to bake and it isn't done yet.
We don't even know how many cakes were started.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineThe Creator waited 15 billion years for the cake to bake and it isn't done yet. We don't even know how many cakes were started.


You know, that has a real nice ring to it...especially the second sentence. A star for you!






top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join