Giant's Causeway is 6000 years old???

Gurgle

smash wrote: »

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

Turn into?
The topic is about a World Heritage Site visitors center, built and funded by a secular state organization pandering to religious mythology.

BFDCH.

Fionn MacCumhaill definitely did not exists 60 M years ago, so I am calling bull **** on your arguement right there. Historians believe he roamed the country sometime in the 2nd century AD.. go **** yerself science...

martomcg wrote: »

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

Suceed

ejmaztec wrote: »

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

Not only is evolution false, but there is proof thereof...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/louisiana-students-loch-ness-monster-disprove-evolution_n_1624643.html

smash

Gurgle wrote: »

Turn into?
The topic is about a World Heritage Site visitors center, built and funded by a secular state organization pandering to religious mythology.

But common sense should say that religion doesn't have a place there. There's no need to turn the thread in an atheists vs whatever thread. From either side.

Ray Palmer

I get the impression people didn't read the article. It isn't a stated alternative to what science believe. It is mentioned as how there has been beliefs about their creation and their are still people who believe differently.
Certainly not a ringing endorsement of creationists. I wouldn't call it a win for creationists.

Dermighty

Cadillacs and Dinosaurs existed at the same time so why not people riding dinosaurs :cool:

Scioch

smash wrote: »

But common sense should say that religion doesn't have a place there. There's no need to turn the thread in an atheists vs whatever thread. From either side.

I know what you mean but any discussion about whether or not religious beliefs should be given credence along side scientific fact will always goes that way. Because all it really is is a discussion on whether or not religion should be taken seriously. So its belief vs non belief. Atheist vs Religion vs creationists vs militant Atheists vs anti militant Atheists.

Lisandro

Gurgle wrote: »

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.

At least no one believes that actually happened!

Gurgle wrote: »

Is Tìr na nÒg on the history syllabus?

Funny you should mention that, it was taught in history class when I was in primary school. Mind you, it was, as above, acknowledged to be nothing more a legend.

Gurgle wrote: »

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.

What you say about the Catholic stance as I understand it is correct; as far as I am aware the Vatican acknowledges those truths (though they come from another perspective; they say evolution and the big bang demonstrates their god's beauty). I am not aware of biblical doctrinism in Protestantism, I always considered that a distinctly American phenomenon; if that's the stance being taken by some organisations up North, then I can only be glad that they're drowned out by the rest of society, unlike over in America where pernicious attempts have been made to have creationist junk taught to schoolchildren.

smash

LordSmeg wrote: »

I know what you mean but any discussion about whether or not religious beliefs should be given credence along side scientific fact will always goes that way.

Point in this case being the fact that it's a tourist information centre. It should give proper factual information. To be honest, the kind of crap they're doing by adding in region could be bloody insulting to a lot of people.

Scioch

smash wrote: »

Point in this case being the fact that it's a tourist information centre. It should give proper factual information. To be honest, the kind of crap they're doing by adding in region could be bloody insulting to a lot of people.

I agree wholeheartedly I'm just saying that that argument is an argument for not taking religion seriously in relation to facts and reality.

So its a religious argument not a cut and dry common sense one. I'd imagine a creationist's idea of common sense would vastly differ to ours. Any discussion of the involvement or exclusion of religion or religious beliefs is a religious discussion. I think.

But I agree unfounded nonsense has no place being offered to be people in anyway that gives it any credibility.

prinz

smash wrote: »

But common sense should say that religion doesn't have a place there. There's no need to turn the thread in an atheists vs whatever thread. From either side.

Indeed, it's a common sense v stupidity thread. The only space for that kind of thing in an exhibition centre/museum is by way of a humourous tidbit/anecdote from the tourguides... in the 'some people believe it's 6,000 years old/some people believe it was made by a giant Irish man so he could cross to Scotland and bate the lard out of another giant etc' vein for a few giggles from the tourists and tips. Isn't much room for it other than entertainment value IMO.

cowzerp

ejmaztec wrote: »

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

A mate of mine is a Baptist minister and whole heartidly believes this, he aslo believes that Dinosaurs dies in Noah's floods and that Jesus was risen from the dead.

It's all there in a very popular book, Personally i'm anti religion but if Christians choose to use the bible they should use it all like my good friend, not just the bit's that are easier to convince people of/lie about.

Exactly.. Believe it all or believe none. Creationists just have more faith that catholics/protestants.

prinz

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly.. Believe it all or believe none. Creationists just have more faith that catholics/protestants.

You realise the Bible is actually many different books, written over many centuries, by different authors, in different styles?

You take a book of poetry from 1500, bind it with a biography of Mahatma Ghandi and a book by David Icke. Now tell me you have to believe it all, or believe none.

There's nothing in the Bible to say the world is 6,000 years old besides some mad old fella Ussher trying to do a family tree from year 0 back.

Yes I know there's lany different books.. Pick one and belief it or dont. Iirc, King James is one of the more entertaining ones.

Chuck Stone

cowzerp wrote: »

if Christians choose to use the bible they should use it all like my good friend, not just the bit's that are easier to convince people of/lie about.

The problem with that is the rapey-slavery-murdery bits in the bible.

I'd much rather have to deal with a reasonable 'religion person' than one who takes thousands of years old ramblings seriously.

Thank god science has rationalized religious people to the point where they dismiss much of the total bollocks written in religious texts otherwise we could be living in a pre-historic ****-hole like Saudi Arabia.

Highly Salami

Did the people who built the Giant's Causeway believe in creationism?

Peetrik

Highly Salami wrote: »

Did the people who built the Giant's Causeway believe in creationism?

Giants didn't believe in the bible... idiot... Giants are scientologist.

Scioch

Peetrik wrote: »

Giants didn't believe in the bible... idiot... Giants are scientologist.

You mean Giantologists right ? Sceince didnt exists back then because there was no biros to write stuff down. Everything was done by magic. They learned me that in dem books I read dat time.

prinz

Peetrik wrote: »

Giants didn't believe in the bible... idiot... Giants are scientologist.

They were also rocking the old adult-baby fetish too if I remember my primary-schooling correctly.

prinz

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I know there's lany different books.. Pick one and belief it or dont. Iirc, King James is one of the more entertaining ones.

King James is a version of the Bible. The Bible itself is a collection of many other books.

ejmaztec

The Simpsons must be more than 6000 years old at this stage so the wacky ones must be wrong.

Scioch

prinz wrote: »

King James is a version of the Bible. The Bible itself is a collection of many other books.

King James was a King called James if I remember my learnings.

But you are correct the bible itself is a collection of numerous books including such classics as Noah and his multicolored dream boat (touching story of an old mans love for his multiracial man slave). And Jesus Christ that was a close one ! (Riveting tale of a young lords first shave)

3ndahalfof6

i believe everything i am told by everyone, win win

Scioch

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

i believe everything i am told by everyone, win win

No you dont.

ejmaztec

LordSmeg wrote: »

King James was a King called James if I remember my learnings.

But you are correct the bible itself is a collection of numerous books including such classics as Noah and his multicolored dream boat (touching story of an old mans love for his multiracial man slave). And Jesus Christ that was a close one ! (Riveting tale of a young lords first shave)

I think you must be referring to the Hollywood version.

prinz

LordSmeg wrote: »

And Jesus Christ that was a close one ! (Riveting tale of a young lords first shave)

Can you remember if he went with the grain or against it? Or one after the other?

Boombastic

BFDCH. wrote: »

Fionn MacCumhaill definitely did not exists 60 M years ago, so I am calling bull **** on your arguement right there. Historians believe he roamed the country sometime in the 2nd century AD.. go **** yerself science...

Fionn didn't have to be around 60 million years ago. He just built it sometime in the 2nd century, with rocks that had formed 60m years ago:rolleyes:

Scioch

prinz wrote: »

Can you remember if he went with the grain or against it? Or one after the other?

Magnificent story to this actually, in the book itself he went with the grain and then against but a number of years later in a tell all book entitled the bible according to Jim it was revealed that "Jesus couldnt even wipe his own arse let alone manage a sharp blade, thats why he had that stupid beard all the time. It was actually me that did the shaving but I'm not the one with an influential father and a book deal so I get shít all credit".

Unavailable for Comment

When you're abroad and you don't speak the lingo you can go to a museum rent a little mp3 player and then a voice will tell you what all the exhibits are.

Why can't all museums do the same for creationists here? You can wander in and say "Howya I'm a creationist" and receive a little player that will tell you how God hid dinosaur fossils as a joke on archaeologists and made easily curable diseases as a test of faith.

Gurgle

LordSmeg wrote: »

3ndahalfof6 wrote:

i believe everything i am told by everyone, win win

No you dont.

Now you've broken his brain, that was mean.

Capt'n Midnight

southcentralts wrote: »

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

look to the sky

dead cert that you will gaze upon at least one atom created 6,000 (or even 6,016) years ago from the energy released by cosmic rays

Unavailable for Comment

All joking aside though it's hilarious that the lunatics behind this creationist drivel, the Caleb foundation say, "we feel that it is important that the centre ... should be inclusive and representative of the whole community" while orchestrating long running campaigns against gay rights, democracy and sunday shopping.

The fact they count this as a success should worry the vast majority of people.

Thelonious

Speaking as a geologist, I must say that these creationists are way out of their depth.

They shouldn't be asserting that there is any doubt as to the fundamental origins of the Giant's causeway within the mainstream geological community ( by which I mean geologists that are actually formally educated within the discipline).

They shouldn't be encouraging people with no scientific background to "judge for themselves" how the Causeway formed. There's hard science to back up the accepted theory of how the Causeway formed. The average person has no appreciation for how rock formations are accurately dated.

Ellunia

Crooked Jack wrote: »

here

http://www.venganza.org/

Better sign here:
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-national-trust-remove-creationist-exhibit-from-the-giants-causeway-visitors-centre-2#

PieandMash

Two different view points, not a big deal. Most people agree with the science one.

ferretone

I have an alternative theory as to the motivation behind this exhibit. Given the large proliferation of articles, forums etc regarding this controversy, I would postulate that this is exactly why they did it. I mean, look at all the free advertising it's received!

I myself wouldn't even have known it had a shiny new visitor centre except that all these articles were coming up with the bizarre headlines, so had to click as I thought it was a spoof :rolleyes:

If I'm right, it's surely working a treat

Ellunia

ferretone wrote: »

If I'm right, it's surely working a treat

Minus all the suddenly former members of the National Trust ;-)

Duggy747

Since they're at it, they might as well make Attenborough add in a new dub into every one of his programmes just before the credits, with the music suddenly stopping like the pin being pulled off a vinyl.:

"Then again, God just did it"

You know, for balance.

rossie1977

ejmaztec wrote: »

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

never met this chap so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L72h2R4FO0k

starlit

How interesting!

Capt'n Midnight

Date of creation explained

https://xkcd.com/1076/