Friday, November 30, 2007
“It just comes down to what glasses you are wearing”…
THE flat young earthers are back, as creationist Stephen Moore explains why he’d like any new Causeway centre to include ‘information’ on its ‘biblical’ origins. He’d also like his theories to be included in the Ulster Museum, to explain how dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. However, last night God came to me in a dream and told me that the Giant’s Causeway was in fact created by a legendary Irish hunter-warrior called Finn MacCool, and I am disappointed that this widely-held and obviously sincere view is merely considered a legend and not as seriously as this ‘volcanic activity’ humbug. Perhaps I should start a petition. Or maybe I have more sense.
Belfast Gonzo @ 03:23 PM
Sam
Just out of interest, do you see a belief in evolution as incompatible with Christian faith?
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 08:34 PMWe created God. We are the true Creationists
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1519335wp5zDfPhPosted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 08:45 PMThe views and arguments of creationists have been heard many times before on previous threads and for those of a non scientific bent are easily rebuked through a bit of research (I recommend Talkorigins.org). However ridicule and dimiss them at your peril. We do not have a firewall of separation of church and state as exists in the US and so there will never be the devastating expose of a Kitzmiler v Dover. This means that they can employ their “teach the controversy” tactics in schools, museums and even the dear old Causeway. Sam Hanna is not far off when he claims a large proportion of the NI populace believe in the literal and inerrant view of the bible. Secular opponents are notoriously diverse and have an innate suspicion of organising themselves into a coherent movement and this allows the middle ground to be easily conceded. Jonathan McCambridge’s article in the BT captures the mood of creationists at the moment in that they sense the tacit support of our polititians in councils and Stormont. If you care about our childrens education it may soon be time to stand up and be counted or as Pat Condell memorably said “What a waste of an enlightenment!”
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 09:03 PMReligion at its best gives humanity a sense of purpose. That may be its evolutionary advantage. Of course it doesn’t make any of it true.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 09:11 PMPauljames
“What a waste of an enlightenment!”
Well actually the joy of the Enlightenment was that there was a debate.
To be honest the thought of the Prodiban and Taliban lining up together against the forces of reason does not make me quake in my boots.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 10:00 PMReligion at its best gives humanity a sense of purpose.
I think secular humanism does a better job of that.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 10:04 PMDewi
The way I learnt it was “Stalactites come down from the ceiling, stalagmites come up from the ground.”
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 10:15 PM‘Tights come down....’
That’s how I remembered it, but at 14 it was more wishful thinking!
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 11:00 PM“To be honest the thought of the Prodiban and Taliban lining up together against the forces of reason does not make me quake in my boots. “
Can I hereby publicly not volunteer to go and meet the taliban to discuss matters of mutual interest.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 11:28 PMPaulJames
You would be better advised in actually studying what the Enlightenment scholars taught about about God. Kant, Hegel, Hume et al did not have any uniform understanding on this subject. They certainly did not hold to the view that the Causeway was 60 million years old!
One of the factors you also overlook in you rush to embrace a movement that has little to support your propositions is that it was the side effect of the Protestant Reformation. So, it is clear that Belief in an Infallible Inerrant Bible in Western European cultures was not the threat that you are now seeking to foist on us all.
Something to think about before you start typing again........
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 11:30 PMKant, Hegel, Hume et al were not in possession of all the facts.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2007 @ 11:57 PMI am once again in despair - what PROOF do creationists offer for any of their twaddle about the Giant’s Causeway? None. What PROOF do geologists offer? Study, observation, theories (in the scientific terminology rather than the theology terminology), tested dating techniques. Are we as a society to concede we are a Bible-led society? Or are we to assert ourselves as a society of enquiry and scientific investigation? I refuse to be bound by discredited texts from millenia ago whose interpretations change from decade to decade to suit fundamentalists who refuse to acknowledge anything that they cannot interpret within their plagiarised, discredited and woefully badly interpreted and written texts, which through Northern Ireland’s education system I was forced to read. Though in one moment of amusement an RE teacher told us to count how many rich and successful people were christians, such as Cliff Richard. When one bright spark asked ow many poor sods were Christians...he was sent to the principal for being cheeky! Oh, how we laughed!
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:04 AMsnakebrain,
Totally off thread but a question which you as an archeologist may be able to answer. It is my understanding that during the late bronze age there were a number of large middle eastern civilisations / empires. Then in the early iron age they fragmented temporarily. Is this so and if the case are there any theories regarding why?
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:05 AM“Kant, Hegel, Hume et al were not in possession of all the facts.”
They possessed enough to posit very different views of the origin of life and the nature of God. This diversity of opinion is something that so-called “enlightened” writers here are seeking to suppress at the Causeway.
I would support all view to be presented at the Causeway in an honest way. Let men like Prf Norman Nevins et al set out their view and the “monkey men” of the Darwin Fundamentalists set out theirs. That would be a great tribute to the Enlightenment.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:06 AM“Totally off thread but a question which you as an archeologist may be able to answer. It is my understanding that during the late bronze age there were a number of large middle eastern civilisations / empires. Then in the early iron age they fragmented temporarily. Is this so and if the case are there any theories regarding why? “
The Welsh Empire just decided to come home - had enough of conquest and stuff and needed to write poetry.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:09 AMWasn´t there an Irish bishop who determined that the world was created in about 4002 BC, on a Sunday I do believe. Did he get it right then, Sam Hanna et al :-)?
A good thing about most of Europe is its ever increasing scepticism, or indifference about things religious. Let´s move closer to Berlin than Boston, I say.
If you want to run your life by the Bible, or any other work of fiction, fine, but leave the rest of us alone.
Signed,
someone not at all embittered by wasting so many school hours studying R.E. instead of something interesting like Music.Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:16 AMSam, whereabouts did Noah’s ark sink?
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:19 AMSam
I for one would be delighted to hear Professor Nevin’s comments and the peer reviewed evidence he would wish to present.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:20 AM“I would support all view to be presented at the Causeway in an honest way.”
Excellent, Sam.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is on his way!
On a more serious note..
If you want your preferred conjecture about the geological, or indeed evolutionary, development of this Earth to be taken seriously then produce an hypothesus, test it, provide the results, and allow it to be peer reviewed.
You know, scientifically.
Otherwise, stop trying to get your beliefs taught as if they were science.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:21 AMPete Baker
As someone very eloquently pointed out above, it was your ancestors who tried to burn to death any scientist who stood agaisn the latest popular theory of a flat earth.
Evolution is not a testable hypothesis as the conditions it describes cannot be replicated today and its underlying mechanism of natural selection cannot be gainsayed. It is a classic tautology i.e. the fittest survived because they are the fittest and we cannot argue with this beacause they are here. Also, I have repeated here numerous times, the Scientific Method that you hold up to Divine status and worship cannot itself be verified objectively.
I understand Profs. Nevin, Michael Behe et al have written numerous books, articles etc. so I am sure they would welcome submitting them for honest review.
As for your “flying Sphagetti Monster” jibe this was essentially the scientifcally presented view of Francis Crick as to how DNA got here, when he understood that the biological atmosphere on earth would never allow DNA to arise by natural selection. I think his answer is wrong, but at least he understood the issue and came up with an alternative unlike you who appear incapable of either. Secondly, the Flying Sphagetti Monster concept is no different than your belief that all of time, space and matter simply exploded in a fraction of a second from nothing.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:42 AM“If you want to run your life by the Bible, or any other work of fiction, fine, but leave the rest of us alone.”
A classic existential approach to life that clearly has no understanding to the underlying legal, political, moral framework of our Judaeo-Christian society in Britain. Listen mate, if you don’t like what this society was founded on why don’t you clear off and start your own, but if you want to enjoy the benefits of our culture as a citizen stop trying to destroy the foundations that the majority espouse to.
I trust you are also consistent enough to defend my right not to have evolution, pro -sodomy foisted on to my kids or is your tolerance one-sided?
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:48 AMSorry Turgon - that’s way outside my remit, though I think there were relatively major climate changes in the area around that period that may have placed stress on the political organisations in question, and encouraged their break-up. I’m open to standing corrected though, and there would obviously be more going on than that.. :)
foreign correspondent - i think that was Usher you’re talking about - who Sam referenced a few posts back, so that probably answers your question..
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:49 AMSam
What if one of your kids was gay, and partial to a spot of sodomy? Would you force them to deny that essential facet of their character? Would you deny that they were gay? How would you respond?
And what about poor old me who doesn’t mind a spot of heterosexual sodomy? Am I buggered too?
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:52 AMHow on earth did sodomy get into this discussion?
I think you have lost the run of yourself, Sam.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:52 AMIt’s amusing isn’t it Joe?
I read in the Times the other day that on Conservapedia, the evangelical fundamentalist alternative to Wiki, the most-searched term is....homosexuality.
2nd is homosexuality and promiscuity. 3rd is homosexuality and hepatitis. And so on all the way down to number ten.
Now I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t think about the love that dare not speak all that often, and I would certainly never consult an encyclopaedia on the subject.
Which merely leaves the question of why it holds such a fascination for the conservative, fundamentalist community.
Maybe it just puts the fun back into fundamentalist..
Posted by on Dec 01, 2007 @ 12:57 AM
