an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Oops!

@PiltdownSupermn New Isotope Measurement Could Alter History of Early Solar System http://bit.ly/I2M38G Evolutionist R running out of time

 

Oops! Looks like Scott Denard didn’t read the article he linked to!

The new value patches some holes in current understanding, according to Paul. “The new time scale now matches up with a recent, precise dating taken from a lunar rock, and is in better agreement with dates obtained with other chronometers,” Paul said.

Hmm, hardly seems to be supporting Young Earth Creationism AT ALL! See how hilariously wrong Scott Denard is for yourself here.

Single Post Navigation

29 thoughts on “Oops!

  1. Mex5150 on said:

    Hilarious, he didn’t even get as far as the second paragraph:

    It also means some of the oldest rocks on Earth would have formed even earlier — as early as 120 million years after the solar system formed

  2. Glenn on said:

    Give yourselves a big pat on the back boys, well done!You neglect to mention that this is all a theory or dont you guys notice phrases in the article like :-

    “might look quite different than previously thought”

    “used more sensitive instruments to find a different half-life”

    “According to current theory”

    “the team came up with a new calculation”

    “some holes in current understanding”

    You see, next year they will come up with another theory because this all assumes that the rate of change is and has been constant over the billions of eons God has existed.

    You guys have blind faith in science, more so than the God believers you so despise.

    Science is merely picking away at the surface of what is and coming up with infantile “theories” based on the very limited knowledge of what has been observed.

    You guys feed off this like it is the tree of life.You speak of these theories as if they were proven facts because you have blinded yourselves by your own bias.

    Get it into your heads – Its a THEORY !!! NOT PROVABLE !!!

    Lovely to talk but must run.

    Cheers

    Glenn

    • You see, next year they will come up with another theory because this all assumes that the rate of change is and has been constant over the billions of eons God has existed.
      Would the words of a christian radiometric dating expert be of any interest to you then?

      There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings or ice cores.

      All of the different dating methods agree–they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years. Some Christians make it sound like there is much disagreement, but this is not so. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-earth creationists would require differences measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 1000, 10,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, not orders of magnitude.

      There are vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favoring the old earth model. There are several hundred laboratories around the world actively doing radiometric dating; all but possibly one or two favor the old earth. A quick word search of the word “dating” shows that among the Caltech library holdings, in 1994 alone there were at least 450 research papers published specifically on dating of geologic and archaeologic materials. At least 95 of these were on rubidium-strontium, and 42 were on potassium-argon or argon-argon. Essentially all these favored an old earth.

      Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over forty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been over eighty years since the uranium decay rate was first determined.

      The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

      As to your claim that the decay rates have changed, just read on:
      Some Christians have argued that something may be slowly changing with time so that all the ages look older than they really are. The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. One could consider that time itself was changing if that happened (Remember that our clocks are now standardized to atomic clocks!). And such a thing would have to have occurred without our detection in the last 80 years, which is already 4% of the way back to the time of Christ.

      He discusses more of this in the Doubters Still Try section.

    • felixmeister on said:

      You neglect to notice or even vaguely understand what is meant by a theory.

      Plus, this is a correction that accounts for the minor anomalies that xtians jump all over. And it pushes the age of the earth to a point even further past what even old earth creationists are comfortable with.

  3. @Glenn

    I’ll take a tentative yet testable inductive conclusion that has been vetted in a peer reviewed journey over the ramblings of two thousand year old middle eastern barbarous goat herders any day.

  4. Out of all of the misunderstandings anyone could possibly make, this is one of the bigger ones I’ve seen. I almost have to wonder if anyone has explained this to him yet, or if he’d even listen if someone did.

    @Glenn, as others have said, you fail to understand what ‘theory’ means in this case. You also fail to understand that science adapts to new information – if we learn something that contradicts our current beliefs as to how something works, we figure out why the change happened and move on with the new information. That’s what change to theories is. It is a reflection of new information which has changed our understanding.

    Not to mention, as Justin said, I would rather have a ‘theory’ which has objective evidence to corroborate it than a set of religious beliefs that requires you to take the objective evidence and force it to conform to them, as well as ignore multiple branches of science in their entirety.

  5. Glenn on said:

    @ Miles “I would rather have a ‘theory’ which has objective evidence to corroborate”

    Well then on that basis have you ever entertained the possibility that some intelligent mind made all that we see before us ?

    Or are are your minds so closed off to anything other than what the science of today tells you ?

    How do you guys all stand on Global warming? Lets see we have 2 theories, 2 schools of scientists poles apart and God forbid “a belief” that if somethings not done we will all perish.

    Come on guys which science do you believe now, where’s all your theories now??

    Al Gore is a self appointed saviour “Believe me and you will be saved”

    Do we believe him ? It sounds right because he is using science.

    You might have to start a new blog Alex, crucifying anyone who opposes your Global warming point of view whatever that is.

    You guys are relying on mankind to give you the answers.

    Science is your God.

    You guys are happy to blindly believe what they say about what happened 4 billion years ago when they cant even agree on what’s happening right before our eyes.

    Wake up .

    Start looking around you and start thinking about other theories that go beyond your narrow minded thinking.

    My cat, like you guys, has no concept of God .

    To him ,I am the great provider of his food. He bases that theory on a collection of facts dating back to when he was a kitten.He cant see beyond his known facts and his tried and tested theory.

    Im not saying you guys are no more intelligent than my cat but I am asking you to open your eyes.

    Is that the time?

    Cheers

    Glenn

    • Actually, Glenn, the general consensus amongst scientists is that global warming is definitely happening (hard to deny, as all the data points to this being the case). There may be a little bit of debate over whether it’s caused by man, but even then the majority view is that we are behind it.

      So, Glenn, it seems to me that, rather than actually go where the evidence leads, you would rather bleat ‘goddidit!’ when faced with something that either frightens you or you don’t understand. You believe Bronze Age myths rather than facts – I pity you.

  6. Glenn on said:

    You have completely missed my point Alex.

    I didnt give an opinion on global warming so dont waste your time with feigned pity.

    My point is that you guys place so much faith in the scientific community for your opinions (unless you have done the resesarch yourself ), what do you do when the scientific community is divided ??

    Which way do you go ?

    What or who do you believe?

    Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? The primeminister in my country says it is, her well paid scientific advisors say it is but what does the majority of the scientific community say?

    “hard to deny, as all the data points to this being the case”really Alex and who told you that?

    In the end you have to rely on someones opinion unless you have collected all the data you refer to.

    “The debate over global warming may be heating up again amid new scientific evidence that the sun’s activity is cooling down — which will cause temperatures to fall on planet Earth, scientists say”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/31/with-suns-activity-set-to-diminish-is-global-cooling-coming/#ixzz1rUxTsAYJ

    Who do you believe if you have an open mind.

    ” you would rather bleat ‘goddidit!’ when faced with something that either frightens you or you don’t understand.”

    Alex why dont you practice what you preach and stop making ridiculous personal statements about me with no suppoting evidence.

    Did I say God did it ? No.
    Is that my fall back position with something that frightenes me or I dont understand ? No.

    So just stick to the facts Alex.

    The trouble with relying on science for your meaning of life answers and future security is that no-one really knows the truth.

    Are the sea levels rising ,will the polar caps melt,will the great barrier reef disappear? Who knows for sure.

    We are being made to pay carbon tax in Australia as of July this year at $23/ton.

    Our climate cahnge advisor to the govt said a few years ago that our dams would never be full again.

    Politicians all listened and believed because a scientist said so and built a desalination plant in sydney at a cost of $5 BILLION.

    Guess what ? After months of torrential rain all the dams are full and overflowing.

    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/flannery-out-of-his-depth-as-flooding-rains-return/

    Seriously Alex who do you believe? You make out you consider data but do you?

    You publically say you dont like bigots but you express the most bigoted opinons on athieism Ive ever come across.

    I couldnt believe you’d take a cheap shot at my band particularly when you are a musician yourself.

    It was a cruel act. It served no good purpose other than to belittle me.

    Ive listened to your “Thee moths” and I came away with the opinion that you really arnt qualified to criticise other peoples music.

    Anyway ,its all part of getting to know some-one.

    Cheers

    Glenn

    • Glenn, you huff and you puff, but you never actually say what YOU believe.

      So – a literally true Bible, yes or no?

      As for attacking your band….well, you’re a bit shit aren’t you? And if you can’t take someone saying so, then maybe you shouldn’t be making music at all.

  7. @Glenn

    In the case of a controversial theory that has the scientific community divided and further it is in a subject that I have little to no expertise, I take the honest position and say I don’t know. I may or may not share my suspicions but If I do I would still quantify them as just that, only my suspicions. For me at any rate science is not my religion, it has no prophet and no sacred texts, just a method and a method that works a damn sight better then anything else man has done.

  8. Lovely. Next step for Scott: just deny the science.

  9. freddies_dead on said:

    Glenn said…

    Quite a lot, but it all seemed to boil down to “Ner ner, you all believe scientists, you’re stupid.” with a side order of “boo-hoo you don’t like my music.”.

    He misunderstands ‘theory’ when used in scientific parlance and is desperate for us to look at the bits science hasn’t explained yet, or that there is debate about, because it would seem that he thinks we’ll find his God hiding in those gaps.

    He asks “Well then on that basis have you ever entertained the possibility that some intelligent mind made all that we see before us ?”

    And the answer for me is, yes, yes I have, and you know what? I dismissed the possibility as it does not comport with reality as we experience and understand it.

    Do you have any credible evidence for the existence of this “intelligent mind” you want us to consider?

    Why do you think screaming “SCIENCE ISN’T ALWAYS RIGHT AND THINGS CHANGE!” actually supports your creation theory?

    Wouldn’t a truly “intelligent mind” make that which it creates more readily explainable by the method of reasoning it bestows upon it’s creation?

    Why would an “intelligent mind” insist on punishing that creation for mistakes that the supposed “intelligent mind” had made?

  10. glenn on said:

    Wouldn’t a truly “intelligent mind” make that which it creates more readily explainable by the method of reasoning it bestows upon it’s creation?

    Why do you guys always imagine a higher intelligence than us should do things according to what we think is logical??

    ‘Awh if there was a God then he would do things the way I think they should be done, how ridiculous! That is why you cant see a God, you only think in base human terms.

    “He misunderstands ‘theory’ ” Yeah good on you ,another assumption based on ignorance. I spent 23 years working in medical science occasionally assisting in research projects. Dont preach to me about theory definitions please.

    “Do you have any credible evidence for the existence of this “intelligent mind” you want us to consider? ”

    Here is some evidence for the intelligent free thinkers to consider, the red ragger bigoted athiest’s wont bother anyway.

    So here is the challenge.

    The bible claims to be the word of God (the creator of the universe)

    God in the bible claims to be able to tell the future.

    I know the ipcc also claims to tell the future on climate change but we will have to wait and see for that one (at least 1000 years)

    Anyway its a simple test , can the the God, the author of the bible tell the future?

    Before I give you the evidence I would like you all to make up your mind on the question with a simple yes or no.

    Commit yourselves. If it can be shown that the word of God tells the future then it must have been at least written by a higher intelligence than ourselves. Can any human tell the future ? None that I know of.

    You guys are all ready to slag off anyone who makes a comment about the existence of God so commit yourselves as to whether you think the word of God contains any information written before the events took place.

    When I see some passionate commitment I will give you the evidence.

    And to Freddies dead….yeah still crying about alex’s comment about my band. The most hurtful thing was that it came from Alex who is such a great musician himself, known the world over, every musician in Sydney knows or have heard of the great Alex Botten and his sample loop virtuosity.

    Someone at the door, must go

    Glenn

    • Alex Botten on said:

      If you intend to cite prophesy be prepared for a relentless mocking from me

    • Glenn asked the following: Wouldn’t a truly “intelligent mind” make that which it creates more readily explainable by the method of reasoning it bestows upon it’s creation?

      I don’t see why it should. Certainly, it might want its creation to understand the universe it lives in. However, it might just as well decide to hide the details of how that creation works, to prevent said inhabitants from ruining it.

      It’s not a safe assumption to imagine that God wants us to understand how everything works. If you’re a parent, tell me: do you hide some of life’s details from your kids?

      • freddies_dead on said:

        @Whateverman – it was actually me that asked the question of Glenn.

        I don’t see why it should. Certainly, it might want its creation to understand the universe it lives in. However, it might just as well decide to hide the details of how that creation works, to prevent said inhabitants from ruining it.

        I get that it’s not necessarily a given that such a being would be logical and rational and give it’s ‘creation’ the ability to understand how things work, however, I don’t recall any ID proponents advocating for a being that is actively seeking to hoodwink it’s creation by making it impossible/difficult for them to figure out how things work. As for incomprehensibility preventing the inhabitants ruining things – surely gving them the ability to figure out how things work would be more likely to lead to them understanding how NOT to ruin it?

        It’s not a safe assumption to imagine that God wants us to understand how everything works. If you’re a parent, tell me: do you hide some of life’s details from your kids?

        Yes, I am a parent, and I don’t recall conciously hiding any of life’s details from my children – it seems to me that the most intelligent way to help them through life is to teach them everything I possibly can about how life works *shrug*

    • Come on then, Glenn, let’s have your list of amazing prophesies. I will also look forward to your evidence that they were written before the events!

      Btw, it must REALLY fucking sting that a musician that you think is useless has had 100 times the success you have had!

    • And let me save you some time with your doomed prophesy mission by linking you to this – http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.htm

  11. freddies_dead on said:

    I asked:

    Wouldn’t a truly “intelligent mind” make that which it creates more readily explainable by the method of reasoning it bestows upon it’s creation?

    And Glenn responds with:

    Why do you guys always imagine a higher intelligence than us should do things according to what we think is logical??

    Why do you guys claiming a higher intelligence always imagine that that intelligence would do things in an incomprehensible manner? Why on earth would you call something that acts and creates in a completely illogical and irrational manner a “higher intelligence”? It simply beggars belief.

    ‘Awh if there was a God then he would do things the way I think they should be done, how ridiculous! That is why you cant see a God, you only think in base human terms.

    It’s not how I think they should be done it simply seems logical that an intelligence – especially one deemed ‘higher’ – would act in a rational and comprehensible manner to bring about a rational and comprehensible ‘creation’. Are you really advocating that the higher intelligence is just fucking about and making shit up as he goes along and really couldn’t give a toss whether we can work out what it’s done? That simply doesn’t seem at all intelligent.

    “He misunderstands ‘theory’ ” Yeah good on you ,another assumption based on ignorance. I spent 23 years working in medical science occasionally assisting in research projects. Dont preach to me about theory definitions please.

    If you insist on misrepresenting the word ‘theory’ when used in a scientific manner then we have no choice but to think you either a) do not understand the meaning in that context or b) you are deliberately using it in the much broader sense of the word in order to attack something you do not agree with. a) suggests ignorance which can be mitigated by a little bit of research, b) however, suggests you’re simply lying. Take your pick.

    I asked:

    “Do you have any credible evidence for the existence of this “intelligent mind” you want us to consider? ”

    And Glenn responds with:

    Here is some evidence for the intelligent free thinkers to consider, the red ragger bigoted athiest’s wont bother anyway.

    Your attempt to poison the well is duly noted and leads me to think the true answer is, in fact, no.

    So here is the challenge.

    The bible claims to be the word of God (the creator of the universe)

    Circular reasoning – the Bible is the word of God because the Bible claims that it’s the word of God. Do you have any credible objective evidence to support the claim of divine inspiration? Better yet, do you have any credible objective evidence of a deity capable of divinely inspiring? Oh wait, that was what you were trying to come up with when you started going round in little vicious circles of reasoning.

    God in the bible claims to be able to tell the future.

    And we know this must be true because the Bible is the word of God because the Bible claims to be the word of God …. are you trying to make yourself dizzy? Stop chasing your tail.

    I know the ipcc also claims to tell the future on climate change but we will have to wait and see for that one (at least 1000 years)

    The IPCC is extrapolating based on current data – it does not claim to be infallible and will alter it’s predictions based on new information – and should any prediction turn out to be wrong that data is used to alter the models in an attempt to be more accurate going forwards.

    Anyway its a simple test , can the the God, the author of the bible tell the future?

    I’m sure we can all imagine a being capable of doing such – doesn’t actually mean that it exists though…

    Before I give you the evidence I would like you all to make up your mind on the question with a simple yes or no.

    Commit yourselves. If it can be shown that the word of God tells the future then it must have been at least written by a higher intelligence than ourselves. Can any human tell the future ? None that I know of.

    You guys are all ready to slag off anyone who makes a comment about the existence of God so commit yourselves as to whether you think the word of God contains any information written before the events took place.

    When I see some passionate commitment I will give you the evidence.

    As I suspected earlier – you have no evidence to give – if you did you wouldn’t be asking for anything from me, least of all some commitment on what some imaginary being is capable of.

    And to Freddies dead….yeah still crying about alex’s comment about my band.

    You should grow a thicker skin as it’s hugely unlikely that everyone would like your music – you’re bound to receive criticism from those that don’t and crying about it isn’t likely to change their minds.

    The most hurtful thing was that it came from Alex who is such a great musician himself, known the world over, every musician in Sydney knows or have heard of the great Alex Botten and his sample loop virtuosity.

    Oh, you weren’t being serious, except that your attempt at sarcasm has only made you seem quite bitter over the whole affair…

    Someone at the door, must go

    Glenn

    *freddie crosses his fingers and hopes that it’s the Jehovah’s Witnesses*

  12. Glenn on said:

    Oh Alex settle down, your vitriol runneth over. Show some self control . You abuse people after they have made a statement you dont agree with not before.

    Also I looked at the link that was supposed to floor my argument (even before
    I ve given it )it showed me that the writer and yourself know nothing about prophecy.

    It would be like a critic of the Beatles saying ” John Lennon is a liar because he said he is a Walrus and he’s clearly not” Anything taken out of context can look like nonsense

    By the way when did I say you were a “useless musician”?

    Send me over some of your tracks and ill put some real drums to them. How’s that for being a good neighbour. Lets collaborate, you have got my email address.

    Now the first thing to consider is the Bible. Is it truth or fiction?

    Settle in Alex this is going to take some time and a lot of posts over the coming weeks.Iknow you would have liked one paragraph that you could have mercilessly ravaged ( be prepared for a relentless mocking from me) but its
    going to be looked at in detail.

    I was asked to give evidence and I shall.

    I would firstly like you to consider the premise that if something is true then all the detail both big and small will fit into the puzzle precisely. Most crime is solved using this premise.

    If a lie is being promoted then the detail both big and small can never fit because the lie never happened.

    I cite a book written in 1847 by J J Blunt entitled “Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences”

    In his first chapter he writes ” It is my intention to argue in the following pages the veracity of the books of scripture from the instances they contain of coincidence without design”

    The point is that if something is true then all the surrounding detail mentioned will be true also.

    If you are late home and your wife gets suspicious and starts investigating your story ,if you are telling the truth then every detail she uncovers will fit with your story.

    If you tell her a lie ,nothing will fit, times ,places, reciepts , phone calls and eyewitness’s will all tell a different story.

    I want at some stage to look at the book of Jeremiah but rather than just quote the book ,I want to give it some credibility in your unbelieving eyes.

    You see Jeremiah’s job was to warn his people (for 40 years) to change their ways or the Babylonians would invade and take them to Babylon.

    Now we seem to be overlapping into real history here which is a suprise to most armchair critics of the Bible who think its all about stoneings and other barbaric practices.

    Now using JJ Blunts’s premise of undesign coincidence in truth, there is a verse in Jeremiah that up until 2007 had details which could not be proven.

    *****WARNING******* I’m about to quote the Bible………brace yourself.

    Jeremiah chp 39 verses 1-3

    ‘ v1 In the 9th year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the 10th month, came Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon and all his army against Jerusalem to besiege it

    v2And in the 11th year of Zedekiah ,in the 4th month the city was broken up.

    v3 And all the princes of the King of Babylon came in and sat in the middle gate even, Nergal sharezer Samgar nebo Sarsechim Rabsaris Nergalsherezer Rabmag with all the residue of the princes of Babylon.

    Fiction pure fiction you might say.

    In 2007 Michael Jursa working in the British Museum came across a cuniform tablet that confirmed the veracity of Jeremiah with an undesigned coincidence.

    Before 2007 the names of the Babylonian officials mentioned in Jeremiah ch39 could have been criticised as purely fictional.

    When something is true then all the small details will fit.

    Check out the article http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/news_and_debate/press_releases/2007/biblical_archaeology_find.aspx

    Before you go off like a spoilt kid Alex, this is not my evidence, I am merely setting up some credibility to be able to use the information in the book of Jeremiah in the coming posts.

    Im leaving for Canberra tommorrow for a wedding and wont be back until sunday night so you have got 3 days to think about what’s presented so far.

    Alex send something a bit bluesy, I dont mind a good shuffle. Send a .wav file via http://www.wetransfer.com

    Cheers

    Glenn

  13. @ freddies_dead, sorry about mistaking you for Glenn. You said a few things I want to address, however. You wrote this:

    As for incomprehensibility preventing the inhabitants ruining things – surely gving them the ability to figure out how things work would be more likely to lead to them understanding how NOT to ruin it?
    Do you think having brains that can understand the existence of atoms is beneficial to a creator God’s universe? Seriously, what “good” can we do with this knowledge? We can certainly improve some aspects of our own lives, yet surely the millions of tons of nuclear waste and the radioactive test sites we’re leaving behind aren’t improvements. Wouldn’t God’s creation be better off if we didn’t have the power to understand nuclear physics?

    You also wrote this:

    I am a parent, and I don’t recall conciously hiding any of life’s details from my children – it seems to me that the most intelligent way to help them through life is to teach them everything I possibly can about how life works *shrug*
    I an NOT questioning how you raise your kids, but I *am* questioning this notion that you have not hidden things (about human existence) from them. I imagine they weren’t allowed to watch certain tv shows until they got old enough, or perhaps you kept the nature of disagreements between you and your partner hidden. You MUST have hidden something from them at some point.

    Myself, I applaud the notion that children should be exposed to things rather than hidden from them. I just don’t think this ideal is put into practice anywhere close to 100% of the time.

  14. freddies_dead on said:

    Do you think having brains that can understand the existence of atoms is beneficial to a creator God’s universe?

    I guess that rather depends on what the creator God’s purpose is, but, taking the Christian God as an example – so the purpose is allegedly to ‘glorify God’ – then I think that it would better if we could understand just how awesome the deity must be in order to create what it has. If we have no understanding of the creation then I don’t see how we could be suitably impressed enough to shout his glory from the rooftops.

    Seriously, what “good” can we do with this knowledge?

    Obviously this depends on what you mean by ‘good’. For humans it could be an ability to manipulate atoms in a way to create ‘clean’ energy or the ability to manipulate at the atomic level to cure disease perhaps. For God it’s simply us knowing how wonderfully brilliant He is to create atoms and us using our knowledge of those atoms to do stuff in such a way that He’d be glorified.

    We can certainly improve some aspects of our own lives, yet surely the millions of tons of nuclear waste and the radioactive test sites we’re leaving behind aren’t improvements. Wouldn’t God’s creation be better off if we didn’t have the power to understand nuclear physics?

    But then the opposite could also be said – if we had understood nuclear physics better we may never have ended up with the millions of tons of waste or the toxic test sites we now have to deal with.

    I know it’s all pretty subjective when all that’s being posited is a “higher intelligence” but lets face it, Glenn isn’t arguing for some random “higher intelligence” he’s trying to get to the Christian God. From that we can then discern some of the purpose His God is alleged to have and from there we can make some reasonable assumptions about how the “higher intelligence” (i.e. God) would more logically behave.

    I an NOT questioning how you raise your kids,

    I never felt that you were…

    but I *am* questioning this notion that you have not hidden things (about human existence) from them. I imagine they weren’t allowed to watch certain tv shows until they got old enough, or perhaps you kept the nature of disagreements between you and your partner hidden. You MUST have hidden something from them at some point.

    I think here it’s more about degrees rather than hiding – obviously they weren’t watching horror films or pornography as children and my wife and I didn’t always explain exactly why we were arguing – but that’s not to say that we hid the existence of things like violence, death or sex and we never deliberately refrained from ‘arguing in front of the kids’. Admittedly we weren’t exactly ‘pro-active’ in teaching them about these things either – preferring instead to wait for them to ask of their own accord but I’m still not sure I’d consider that hiding things per se.

    I’m also happy to concede that many parents do prefer to hide things from their children so my own experience is just that, my own. However, it’s my opinion that it’s always ‘better’ to be more, rather than less, informed.

    Myself, I applaud the notion that children should be exposed to things rather than hidden from them. I just don’t think this ideal is put into practice anywhere close to 100% of the time.

    Agree entirely.

  15. I’m also happy to concede that many parents do prefer to hide things from their children so my own experience is just that, my own. However, it’s my opinion that it’s always ‘better’ to be more, rather than less, informed.
    Bingo. Couldn’t agree more.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: