Absolutely agree with that sentiment 
BesidesâŚhas anybody in this forum ever really been ânormal?!â
I was under the distinct impression that we are here, in this fantastically, wonderfully diverse community because none of us are what the big world calls normal lol
Hhhmmm. Have any of you ever met anyone you decided was completely, 100% ânormalâ? I shudder to think! :yes:
Shucks, thanks everyone. 
Yes, there is no real normal. Weâre all whackos who think our babies can learn how to read. 
*** Just a special love note from our Admins ***
To all of our lovely forumers here at BrillKids:
I would personally like to apologize if you were looking for this topic in the past 24 hours and couldnât find it - itâs because we had to take this thread in to âforum rehabâ to sort of clean up the thread a bit. (Big thanks go to TeachingMyToddlers for being quick to let us know about this!)
As much as I would looove to be on top of all the conversations in this forum, unfortunately I am sometimes not the fastest to police our little community, which is why I hold the help of our other volunteer admins in high regard.
Just to explain what I did:
I understand that some posts on this thread veered wildly off-topic; some have been reported as offensive (even mildly) or judgemental (even mildly). For the purposes of keeping the discussion ON-TOPIC, INFORMATIVE, and UNBIASED, we have removed some posts which may give cause for others to flame.
I would be the first to say that I love a good debate. And it is towards this belief that I am bringing this thread back. However, keep in mind that I am entreating everyone who wishes to participate in this discussion to stay the course, and to please refrain from hasty generalization.
Think this whenever posting anything in our forum: Might anyone get offended by this?
If you have to think twice, just pause and move away from the keyboard. :happy: This thought may be a good thing to keep around even when youâre not in the BrillKids forum.
Just in case you found that one or more of your posts have been removed, please note that it is not our intention to hurt you or to accuse you of wrongdoing. Understand that our goal is to keep the thread on topic, palatable, and encouraging of good discussion.
Thank you very much once again for being understanding!
All the best,
Lappy
*** Just a special love note from our Admins ***
And with that, the discussion may now go on! :happy:
Hi Tamsyn,
Could you please provide an example of Young Earth evidence.
Something to think about-
See Google images-The moon has over 250 craters with diameters of 100 km or more. The Earth; due to its greater size and stronger gravitational pull, will have been struck by a SIGNIFICANTLY larger number of asteroids during the same time scale. These massive impacts have never been observed and no well-preserved craters close to 100 km exist. What does this suggest about the age of the earth?
Please note that there are more precise and direct dating methods available.
Chris.
Hello, Chris, thank you for your comment.
As far as your first question, as far as referencing young earth science, Iâm not exactly sure what you are asking for, or what side of the fence you are on. I like to know who Iâm talking to before jumping into a debate.
I am happy to address the crater issue though, because I find that topic fascinating. Can you use the number or size of craters to tell the age of a celestial body? No, you are ABSOLUTELY right! If so, the northern and southern hemispheres of Mars would be a billion years apart, as shown in the video Iâm referencing. But I will go on to say that I donât think that many of the âcratersâ in our solar system are craters at all, but the footprint of electric discharge from an age of planetary instability. The Electric Universe has a lot to say on this subject, and Iâm inclined to agree with them. However, Iâm not pretending to be a scientist myself, and my study of it is relatively new to me. Iâm not here to try to convince anyone, rather, I am introducing the concept in hopes that it may be of interest to those who want to dig further into the EU themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbsGxrEXvlI&feature=player_embedded
Hi Tamsyn
I have enjoyed researching this topic-links below.
I try not to take sides as this can result in a hardening frame of reference. In the past I have been guilty of forcing new information into my original framework and of ignoring or not looking for what doesnââŹâ˘t fit at all.
As parents we should teach our children to realise that it is ok to be wrong and encourage them to avoid drawing a conclusion. Drawing a conclusion usually means an end to thinking. Teach our children to admit their errors, that they can make errors, so that progress can be made. Encourage children to deal with ideas, not conclusions or opinions and these ideas will be refined as new information becomes available.
Fewer craters are found in the northern hemisphere of mars indicating that the surface features in this region are much younger than those seen in the southern hemisphere. Surfaces can vary in geological age.
Chronology of Planetary Surfaces http://history.nasa.gov/SP-467/ch3.htm
Astronomers believe that the younger features are the result of volcanic activity or water erosion. On average the surface of the northern hemisphere is 4km lower than that of the southern hemisphere.
Martian volcanoes http://www.solarviews.com/eng/marsvolc.htm
Martian dichotomy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_dichotomy
Chris.
Fair enough. I wasnât trying to imply that mainstream astronomy didnât have an answer for these features, only that, as you say, we canât measure the age of a celestial body by the number of craters. We agree on that. Things happen to change the surface of a planet. Naturally there are fewer craters on the earth because we have vast oceans, and an atmosphere. We have a thick atmosphere with the resulting weather that comes with it.
Consider, however, the features of many of these craters. The hexagonal shape of some, the domes centered in the middle of others. The scalloped edges along the outside of others. Thatâs the tip of the iceberg. Scientists in the EU are not just making guesses and blindly holding to them, nor are they trying to solve these riddles with math equations. They are using the scientific method. They form a hypothesis, and then they test it! These lab experiments with electricity have given us remarkably similar results. To me, thatâs science. Because we donât know what really happened on Mars, the ancient earth or the moon, we are only debating theories. I see evolution as just that, a theory. It isnât true science any more than saying simply âGod created the Earth.â Yet it is taught as fact, not theory, in our schools. Either may be true, (I certainly have my convictions, but for the sake of argument), but neither should be taught as a known fact to the general public. Evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity. They believe in a Big Bang, I believe in God. Wow, spell check even capitalized Big Bang for me. Both should be equally represented in public schools, but they are not. You could argue that the electric universe is only a theory as well, but at least they are testing their theories. They have correctly guessed beforehand many things scientists now know about our solar system, things that flabbergasted many of our modern scientists upon discovery. They are still making predictions, and since they have a great track record for being right, Iâm listening. For example, before we knew that Venus was incredibly hot and had an irregular rotation, they predicted it.
So, we could argue ad finem about theories, but as long as they are just that, theories, I donât see the point. I am interested in the Electric Universe because they are doing science. Science should not be the slave of theory or mathematical calculations and simulations. When mainstream science finds a surprising new feature about a our universe, their response is to do computer simulations to prove, with mathematics, that this feature fits into their theory. Whether or not you agree with the EU, I would argue that this is not science. A true scientific approach to solving the cosmic riddles would be to experiment. To try and fail, and to try again. Only when theories are tested can they be proven as fact, and a computer simulation doesnât count. You can start there, but we need to test them in real space and time, in our physical world. Shortly after the the Wright Brotherâs first flight, a paper was published elsewhere trying to prove with mathematics that flight would be impossible. The scientists who tested their theories, who failed and tried again, were the ones who were âWrightâ. By and by, mathematicians were able to catch up, and their final solutions were very simple compared to the kind of equations used previously to âproveâ that it couldnât be done. The math used to explain some of the surprising things we are seeing in the cosmos is likewise mind-boggling. EU suggests relatively simple solutions, and are seldom surprised or blown away by new discoveries. The pieces fit.
When I look for science, I look for who is using the scientific method. Without it, itâs just theory and math.
Details of more precise and direct dating methods from the schools version of the Made Easy series.
There seems to be a lot of evidence to support the idea of an old Earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lplcRdNDcps&list=PL100500E4C9404405&index=5
There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution and I have not been able to find any valid arguments against it.
What is a scientific theory http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
When used in non-scientific context, the word ââŹĹtheoryââŹÂ implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Chris.
We are going to have to agree to disagree, Chris. I was never trying to prove that mainstream science is wrong. I know that this isnât the place for it, Iâm not a scientist, and frankly, I would rather spend time with my children then research evolution at this point in my life. Iâm not asking for a debate. Iâve already established that my scientific views are âweirdâ, you donât have to prove that either. The fact that I am inclined to believe and listen to what the Electric Universe has to say about cosmology and science is also not up for debate. Iâve been studying mainstream science my whole life, I know what they have to say. Every time we go to a museum, every time I check out a science book from the library, and almost every time I watch a documentary, I am exposed to it. It never resonated with me like the Electric Universe does. Gradualists assume that our earth has changed under the same conditions over a long period of time. Catastrophists assume that dramatic events have shaped our world. The dating methods in the video you shared work under the assumptions of gradualism. The catastrophists of the Electric Universe assert that our recent past was much different then it is now, and naturally those differences would effect things like carbon dating. There are real scientists, many of them non-religious, working on these projects, and I find their work to be fascinating. Thatâs why I shared it. You donât have to agree with me.
Just to clarify-There is no longer a dispute among Earth Scientists between gradualism and catastrophism. Scientists recognize that both gradual and sudden processes have shaped the surface of Earth and the course of biological evolution.
For those parents interested in teaching the unifying Theory of Evolution. These videos are a good introduction to the basic ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q76jw0ZB9hA&list=PL100500E4C9404405&index=6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKqqrfWevc&list=PL100500E4C9404405&index=7
Chris.
Just to clarify. There is very little dispute among experts about what is happening when we watch little kids on YouTube apparently âreadingâ. Experts agree that they are not really reading. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/48194090#48194090
In Galileoâs day, all mainstream science agreed in the geocentric model of the universe.
Sometimes experts are right, and sometimes they are wrong. I am very grateful that I live in a time and a country where I am free to study things out and, should I choose, disagree with the âexpertsâ.
What is a scientific theory http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
When used in non-scientific context, the word ââŹĹtheoryââŹÂ implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Why should creationism be taught in a science class when it has no science to teach?
Creationism is based on religious belief, not on evidence. Asking for equal time is asking for nonsense to be taught in science classes.
Note that that where creationist models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail the test.
Chris.
There is a lack of research in this area which is not something that can be said about the Theory of Evolution. Evidence led to the acceptance of the heliocentric model.
The overwhelming evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution has convinced 99.85% of AmericaââŹâ˘s earth and life scientists that the theory is valid. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the âfact of evolutionâ.
This is Why Every Scientist Accepts Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY
Chris
Chris, we have already agreed that most professional scientists believe in evolutionary theory, hence I use the term âmainstream scienceâ. What exactly are you trying to prove?
Hi Sonya
Quotes are very easy to misuse to give a false impression of what someone believes or means. Quotes should always be regarded with more skepticism than any other references. This was an appeal to authority; the ultimate authority is the evidence itself.
Richard Dawkins reveals what he actually said during this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM
Chris.
The video doesnât change what he actually said but what he meant by what he said. In any event, the issue of alien intelligent design is not the point. My point is that you have no idea how life came from non-life. You may only guess. And that is a huge guess. You make the assumption that life did come from non-life and then you extrapolate from there. As Mr. Dawkins said - you donât know, all you know is what it must have been.
The question I have is at the end of this video it calls taking someoneâs comments out of context an evil. If it supports a means to my end - how does one call it evil? Where goes one get the authority to call things evil? As Dawkins said in his bus tour, âThere is probably no god, stop worrying and live your life.â And if in my life I want to take quotes out of context - what is it to you? Evil is a moral judgment. If there is no god, Dawkins rightly declares morals to be what I determine. So, what if I want to believe in creation or eugenics or pink elephants with fuzzy bunny slippers, or taking quotes out of context. Who cares? You are just a rock.
Hi Sonya,
The Theory of Evolution does not imply that might makes right; this is the naturalistic or is-ought fallacy. Evolution is descriptive. It describes how things are, not how they should be. Humans, being social, improve their fitness through cooperation with other people. If survival of the fittest were to be taken as a basis for morals, it would imply treating other people well. Evolution teaches that people behave like humans.
When properly understood, evolution refutes both eugenics and racism.
Evolution is not about how life of earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.
Theistic evolution - is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, and some other mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Chris.
In Galileo's day, all mainstream science agreed in the geocentric model of the universe.
Evidence led to the acceptance of the heliocentric model.
Yes, but remember that evidence seemed to point to the geocentric model until we looked to the stars. It took a long time for mainstream science to accept heliocentricism, despite the proof that was staring them in the face. Was Galileo doing his students a disservice by teaching them that which was contrary to what mainstream science was saying, as well as what seemed to be contrary to the observable universe?
Now letâs consider the current, mainstream view of how our universe works. How long has it been around? The current mainstream model predates the Hubble telescope, and other, modern sensors that we use to look into deep space. Have our predictions been verified and confirmed? The Electric Universe suggests that they have not. If cosmology works according to the EU model, it would drastically change the way we perceive our universe, and likewise challenge the way we think our solar system came about, and how old our world is. It could make the whole gradualistic model come crashing down like a deck of cards.
I have a few resources I would like to share, and I share them with this disclaimer about what they are. No, Chris, I donât expect you to read all of it for the sake of debate. Itâs simply a list of resources for anyone who is curious about this perspective. I also acknowledge that all of these posts come from the same website. Why? Because thunderbolts.com is a central hub where these scientists are collaborating. There are different authors. Are these articles published, peer reviewed papers? No. These articles are what they are and, as Stephen Smith says, âTruth is what you make of it.â http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/09/27/truth-is-what-you-make-of-it/
ââŹĹWhenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.ââŹÂ - Karl Popper
I offer for consideration the following evidence for electric heavens:
Are comets âdirty snowballsâ, or are they electric in nature?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn_HqbMmn-4
The electric heliosphere of our solar system:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/12/06/voyager-1-confirms-electric-heliosphere/
Different perspectives on
A diamond planet?
http://www.astronomy.com/~/link.aspx?_id=564662dd-601e-466e-a1e0-79d493b9e09b
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/09/07/the-diamond-fields-of-the-mind/
Or rings around stars?
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=50252
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/09/17/a-ring-of-truth-2/
Also consider the evidence in these articles
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/10/16/black-hole-surprise/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/11/18/explanations-that-dont-explain/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/06/19/stars-that-will-not-explode/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/04/a-superstar-for-gravity-is-normal-for-plasma/
And how the EU affects the world we live in
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02/24/the-case-of-the-missing-delta/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02/10/mega-tsunamis-chinese-junks-and-port-phillip-bay/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/11/27/serious-issues-with-plate-tectonics-2/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/11/05/thunderbolts-mammoths-and-mass-destruction/
The idea of an Electric Universe is not new, but has been around for quite some time.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/07/25/mountains-of-evidence-2/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/07/19/on-the-shoulders-of-suppressed-giants-part-one/
Furthermore, what does our own written history say about the world that we live in? Even if one doesnât accept the idea that the world was created, or that the world is young, there is a common thread in the ancient myths about how our world began, as shown in âSymbols of an Alien Skyâ I referenced earlier. How do we explain the similarities across the continents, among so many different cultures?
This is just the tip of the iceberg- some of my favorite articles since I started following what these scientists are doing. If you want evidence for an electric universe, there is plenty there to be found. Look under the âpredictionsâ tab. I also have enjoyed the âThunderbolts Projectâ facebook group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/thunderbolts.project/?ref=ts&fref=ts
I donât think it is irrational to question the experts when they wonât admit that the new evidence pokes some big holes in their theory. I am not trying to convince as much as offer apologetics for my view. There are a lot of atheistic, fully-trained scientists doing research on the Electric Universe, and most of them have no intentions of proving that God created the world. Rather they suggest that the dramatic display our ancestors witnessed in the heavens were interpreted to be the work of a powerful creator or god. In other words, religion is not a motivator behind this research.
I personally look at their research with a scientific eye and appreciate their work. As a religious person, I view God as the ultimate scientist. I do not see my belief that there was intelligent design behind the intricate complexities of this world to be irrational any more than it could be irrational to assume that the Sistine Chapel was made by man.
But I digress. The whole purpose of this thread was to ask if we teach our children evolution. My answer is that I do not avoid letting my children be exposed to it. Itâs everywhere we look, from the Magic School Bus, to the local museum, and yes, even Bill Nye the Science Guy. We talk about it. We check out books that include evolutionary concepts. But I donât actively teach evolution to my children. I do teach them that animals can adapt to their environment. So yes, I believe in micro-evolution, but thatâs as far as my belief system goes. There has been plenty of experiments that have proven it. However, noone has taken a fish to the lab and produced a lizard. I am not ashamed to let my children know that I believe that there was a loving creator who loved His children enough to provide them with a beautiful world to meet their wants and needs. I teach from that perspective, and I work hard to endow my children with the moral compass that our religion provides.
Yes, I edited this post to clean it up a bit. Sorry, Lappy and anyone else I may have offended. Thank you for the reminder :wub:
IMPORTANT NOTE, YET AGAIN
Should, right, wrong, correct, mistake. Again, there are posts in this threads which can easily be miscontrued, not for the purposes of healthy debate, but rather as judgmental comments.
Might I remind all participants that - as Tamsyn has said - the purpose of this thread was to ask if parents here will be teaching their children evolution. Not to ask for opinions, wait for other people to post theirs, and then try to break down why their opinions are wrong.
Seriously - itâs okay to differ, and itâs great to agree to disagree. But letâs not push the issue beyond the topic. Yes, you are all free to take quotes or other peopleâs posts out of topic, but if you feel like youâre beginning to flame, leave it out of the forum.