Giant's Causeway is 6000 years old???

Crooked Jack

Probably an inappropriate turn of phrase to use but...Oh my God!
The Giant's Causeway, one of only three UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Ireland and the only one in Ulster, has given space at the Causeway Centre (run by the National Trust) to the creationist theory of how the Causeway was formed.
Is this utterly ridiculous or just being sensitive to the beliefs of some?
Personally I think it's idiotic on practically every level. The trust shouldn't be promoting any religious belief, they should concentrate exclusively on the science.
If they are going to promote religious beliefs why this specific one? Why not all of them? Lets have a wing for Scientology and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster while we're at it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/national-trust-in-giants-causeway-creationism-row-7917687.html

southcentralts

Show me one 6,000 year old atom and I will listen to what you say.

smash

The higgs boson created it!

krudler

Creationists are idiots, and shouldn't be pandered to.

paddy147

Tom Cruise created it

Fizman

Crooked Jack wrote: »

the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster while we're at it.

Where do I sign?

Biggins

krudler wrote: »

Creationists are idiots, and shouldn't be pandered to.

Yep, they in their nuttiness will argue with an older assessment.
It might conflict with their daftness. :pac:

smash

paddy147 wrote: »

Tom Cruise created it

No, that was the Highway to the dangerzone!

Father Damo

krudler wrote: »

Creationists are idiots, and shouldn't be pandered to.

They are. But neither should foaming at the mouth millitant athiests.

At least alot of devout Christians know that deep down they might be talking sh1t. Athiests actually believe their own sh1t.

martomcg

Religion should have no place in a facility like this. Its not like its some fleeting science that show how old the Causeway is, its fact that they were formed 60 million years ago. End of!

Last thing we need is international tourists coming here and thinking we're morons.

Religion should have no part of any educational facility imho

I don't know why we give creationists the value of the discussion, they're better left ignored to rot in their stupidity.

Carles Puyol

Thought we had moved past all the creationist shít..

Bad Panda

Impossible.

Everyone knows the earth is only 2,000 years old.

JohnMarston

When you say creationists of course you mean the ones that think the world was created in six literal days a few thousand years ago and that dinosaurs are a hoax.

ejmaztec

I've never met anyone from any religion dumb enough to believe that the planet is 6000 year's old.

krudler

Father Damo wrote: »

They are. But neither should foaming at the mouth millitant athiests.

At least alot of devout Christians know that deep down they might be talking sh1t. Athiests actually believe their own sh1t.

That the earth isn't 6000 years old? we know its not, ergo creationists are idiots for believing it. that's not militant atheism (whatever the fcuk that is) its common sense and basic science.

krudler

ejmaztec wrote: »

I've never met anyone from any religion dumb enough to believe that the planet is 6000 year's old.

more than you'd think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

Pedant

The excuse - "an alternative viewpoint".

Okay, fair enough. Accordingly, we should include all alternate viewpoints of how the Earth came into being, not just the creationist Christian viewpoint. Or does refraining from hypocrisy fail most creationist Christians?

It's nonsense. The most accurate and scientific theory of the day should be the only one included.

Also, I'm not surprised this happened in Northern Ireland given it's large non-Catholic population. I'm not defending Catholics but I think you get more of these fundamentalists and creationist nutcases in certain Protestant sects than you do in Catholicism - maybe this is why creationism hasn't really took off down south. Just look at the US, a bastion of Protestantism and fundamentalist Christianity and nearly half of its population believes in creationism. Northern Ireland is also a lot more conservative than the Republic. Just look at the Iris Robinson and her views on homosexuality, etc., towing the same line as many of those Born Again Christians in the US.

prinz

"Praise be to Jesus!!......as my mother would say" - Sheldon Cooper.

To answer the OP...utterly ridiculous.

Crooked Jack

Fizman wrote: »

Where do I sign?

here

http://www.venganza.org/

Jester252

is there going to be the same space to explain the myth about its formation.

krudler

Jester252 wrote: »

is there going to be the same space to explain the myth about its formation.

a giant made it? thats crazy talk, everyone knows it was a space wizard.

ejmaztec

krudler wrote: »

more than you'd think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

I'd like to think that most of them didn't realise that they were supposed to believe in the 6000 year planet-age along with everything else that Creationism stands for.:eek:

Gurgle

krudler wrote: »

That the earth isn't 6000 years old? we know its not, ergo creationists are idiots for believing it. that's not militant atheism (whatever the fcuk that is) its common sense and basic science.

A militant atheist can only be identified by exclusion: A non militant atheist is one who quietly goes to mass and mumbles along with everyone else.

As for this nonsense: It's NI and involves religion, you may as well try to explain the Higgs boson to a burning bush.

krudler

Gurgle wrote: »

A militant atheist can only be identified by exclusion: A non militant atheist is one who quietly goes to mass and mumbles along with everyone else.

As for this nonsense: It's NI and involves religion, you may as well try to explain the Higgs boson to a burning bush.

depends on the bush, some are quite chatty

Crooked Jack

Father Damo wrote: »

They are. But neither should foaming at the mouth millitant athiests.

At least alot of devout Christians know that deep down they might be talking sh1t. Athiests actually believe their own sh1t.

I agree with you there. But my point is that neither of them have any business airing their views at the Causeway Centre.

prinz

Gurgle wrote: »

A militant atheist can only be identified by exclusion: A non militant atheist is one who quietly goes to mass and mumbles along with everyone else..

Total rubbish tbh.

Lisandro

This is an absolute disgrace. The existence of alternative views does not make them right, nor does it make them valid. Especially given that it has been proven beyond any form of conceivable doubt that the world is 4.6 billion years old, that life evolved through evolution by natural selection and that the Giant's Causeway was formed through volcanic activity, not only are all the religion-based explanations based on myths, but only one explanation can be right, and it's the explanation we've arrived at through generations of meticulous scientific investigation. To suggest that "alternative worldviews" are valid is an insult to the very idea of scientific truth. There's no excuse to give any oxygen to this myth because not only is there no evidence supporting it, but there is conclusive evidence against it. The Causeway Centre has given in to the desires of creationists to see their redundant worldview propogated, and I think that's a scandal in any modern scientific society.

Father Damo wrote: »

They are. But neither should foaming at the mouth millitant athiests...at least alot of devout Christians know that deep down they might be talking sh1t. Athiests actually believe their own sh1t.

Would you care to back up that snark, or are ad hominem attacks the only arguments you're capable of making?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I agree with you there. But my point is that neither of them have any business airing their views at the Causeway Centre.

When the Causeway Centre promotes religious untruths, yes, it is absolutely my business. It's not acceptable that ancient falsified myths should be placed on the same footing as established scientific theories.

Scioch

Father Damo wrote: »

They are. But neither should foaming at the mouth millitant athiests.

At least alot of devout Christians know that deep down they might be talking sh1t. Athiests actually believe their own sh1t.

There is no difference in the beliefs of atheists as they are only associated by a lack of belief. The only difference is in the level of hostility towards religion.

And Christians have no idea they are talking shít because they are incapable of understanding what they are actually talking about. There is no scenario where a Christians belief outweighs an atheists no matter how militant because one is based on reason and logic no matter how hostile they are in expressing it and the other is based on absolute horseshít.

krudler

there's a creationist "museum" in the States that shows people interacting with dinosaurs, including saddled ones.

a saddle.


on a dinosaur.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2O3kvvTxPk

ejmaztec

krudler wrote: »

there's a creationist "museum" in the States that shows people interacting with dinosaurs, including saddled ones.

a saddle.


on a dinosaur.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2O3kvvTxPk

Surely you must have watched the Flinstones?

mike65

If the Giants Causeway or similar site were in this state or indeed in Britain there is no way there would be a sop to "creationism" its just to appease those nutters in the DUP, of whom there are still far too many.

Dyr

nordies, innit?

the purple tin

ejmaztec wrote: »

Surely you must have watched the Flinstones?

Not to mention Dinoriders.

Conall Cernach

krudler wrote: »

there's a creationist "museum" in the States that shows people interacting with dinosaurs, including saddled ones.

a saddle.


on a dinosaur.

Well you wouldn't want to slip off the back of a Brontosaur it'd be a long way down. Besides everyone knows that we used them as cranes in the quarry and that we had cars with stone rollers for wheels that we'd power with our feet. Those great documentary makers Hanna Barbera made a series about it.

It'd be funny if it turns out Giants really did create it.

Pherekydes

If mankind arose in Mesopotamia 6000 years ago, I'd like to know how they managed to migrate in numbers to the Céide Fields (and build it) in only 500 odd years. Or to Newgrange (and build it, and aligned it to the sun) in about 800 years.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

It'd be funny if it turns out Giants really did create it.

Of course they did. I was always told it was created by Fionn Mac Cumhaill.

prinz

Pherekydes wrote: »

If mankind arose in Mesopotamia 6000 years ago, I'd like to know how they managed to migrate in numbers to the Céide Fields (and build it) in only 500 odd years. Or to Newgrange (and build it, and aligned it to the sun) in about 800 years.

Have you not being reading about the saddled dinosaurs?

Crooked Jack

Lisandro wrote: »

When the Causeway Centre promotes religious untruths, yes, it is absolutely my business. It's not acceptable that ancient falsified myths should be placed on the same footing as established scientific theories.

I think maybe some wires got crossed in the way I wrote that. I agree with you, I was saying the Causeway Centre isnt a place for any religious views, it should be exclusively for science. I wasnt saying you shouldnt have an opinion or interest in this issue.

Lionel Messy

Fascinating.

ejmaztec

the purple tin wrote: »

Not to mention Dinoriders.

I never saw that documentary.

Crooked Jack

Bambi wrote: »

nordies, innit?

No, it isnt. Dont lump us all in with those eejits. Plenty of them all over the world.

Lisandro

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I think maybe some wires got crossed in the way I wrote that. I agree with you, I was saying the Causeway Centre isnt a place for any religious views, it should be exclusively for science. I wasnt saying you shouldnt have an opinion or interest in this issue.

I suppose it's more the place for secularism than atheism. Then again, it's very easy for secularism and atheism to join an argument together, though bearing in mind that Christians on this side of the Atlantic generally accept evolution, one's religion (or lack thereof in my case) doesn't have to come into it.

Gurgle

prinz wrote: »

Total rubbish tbh.

I am firmly put in my place by your eloquent rebuttal.

starbelgrade

I went to Giants Causeway a few years ago - it was a major let down.. the rocks are fucking tiny.

They should be done under the Trade Descriptions Act.

kfallon

Ah Giants Causeway - great memories

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KpBcVY-dhA

Gurgle

Lisandro wrote: »

I suppose it's more the place for secularism than atheism. Then again, it's very easy for secularism and atheism to join an argument together,

Yes, secularism is more relevant to the NT as an organization. The religious views of its staff and management shouldn't affect the running of the place.

Secularism: Not referring to supernatural mythology in how to run a country
Atheism: Rejection of supernatural mythology

I have no problem with including mythology as part of the visitors center, but it should be mythology relevant to the site. Giants throwing rocks for example is appropriate to the Giant's causeway.

The issue of including creationist theories has sparked controversy in the past in Northern Ireland, when prominent members of the Democratic Unionist Party at Stormont lobbied for museums to include such opinions.

Why on earth would museums include religious mythology? That's what churches are for, museums are for history. Is Tìr na nÒg on the history syllabus?

Lisandro wrote: »

Christians on this side of the Atlantic generally accept evolution, one's religion (or lack thereof in my case) doesn't have to come into it.

I believe (open to correction) that the catholic hierarchy accepts the big bang, big old universe, evolution etc. while many protestant organizations reject all the above in favour of direct intervention 'God did it'.

If both mainstream faiths in NI had the same views on these topics, neither would be bothered annoying the National Trust about them.

smash

Was there really a need for this to turn into a religious debate?

Peetrik

Way WAY WAY more annoyed at this recent trend of putting visitor centers that you have to pay into at naturally occuring tourist attractions like at the cliffs of moher and the hill fort on Inis Mór to name but a few others.

Father Ted Crilly: You're supposed to be taking Jack for his walk.
Father Dougal McGuire: Well erm, the cliffs were closed for the day.
Father Ted Crilly: How can the cliffs be closed Dougal?

Dyr

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No, it isnt. Dont lump us all in with those eejits. Plenty of them all over the world.

ehh... Prods, innit?