Giant's Causeway is 6000 years old???

mike65 · 06-07-2012 12:45PM

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 · 06-07-2012 12:46PM

nordies, innit?

the purple tin · 06-07-2012 12:47PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

Surely you must have watched the Flinstones?

Not to mention Dinoriders.

Conall Cernach · 06-07-2012 12:48PM

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.

06-07-2012 12:49PM

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

Pherekydes · 06-07-2012 12:49PM

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 · 06-07-2012 12:52PM

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 · 06-07-2012 12:53PM

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 · 06-07-2012 12:57PM

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 · 06-07-2012 12:59PM

Fascinating.

ejmaztec · 06-07-2012 01:00PM

the purple tin wrote: »

Not to mention Dinoriders.

I never saw that documentary.

Crooked Jack · 06-07-2012 01:03PM

Bambi wrote: »

nordies, innit?

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

Lisandro · 06-07-2012 01:14PM

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 · 06-07-2012 01:27PM

prinz wrote: »

Total rubbish tbh.

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

starbelgrade · 06-07-2012 01:33PM

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 · 06-07-2012 01:38PM

Ah Giants Causeway - great memories

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

Gurgle · 06-07-2012 01:50PM

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 · 06-07-2012 01:52PM

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

Peetrik · 06-07-2012 01:58PM

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 · 06-07-2012 01:58PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

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

ehh... Prods, innit?

Gurgle · 06-07-2012 02:00PM

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. · 06-07-2012 02:12PM

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 · 06-07-2012 02:12PM

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 · 06-07-2012 02:14PM

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 · 06-07-2012 02:18PM

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 · 06-07-2012 02:21PM

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

Scioch · 06-07-2012 02:25PM

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 · 06-07-2012 02:26PM

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 · 06-07-2012 02:28PM

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 · 06-07-2012 02:35PM

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.

Giant's Causeway is 6000 years old???

Comments