Monday, November 26, 2007
“there are alternative views in relation to the age of the Giant’s Causeway..”
Mark Devenport also spotted a mischievous question from the Alliance Party MLA Trevor Lunn to the Environment Minister, the DUP’s Arlene Foster [scroll down] - “Mr T Lunn asked the Minister of the Environment what is her assessment of the age of the Giant’s Causeway.” The problem is that her answer, an official written answer as the Minister for the Environment, a) doesn’t answer the question, and b) in doing so appears to give equal weight to those alternative views.
Mrs A Foster: Geologists generally agree that the Giant’s Causeway is some 60 million years old. As you will be aware, however, there are alternative views in relation to the age of the Giant’s Causeway.
And a reminder of where the future of the Causeway Centre fits into that.
Pete Baker @ 09:00 PM
“Damn this so annoys me! ALL the scientific evidence, geological expertise and cartesian logic”
Plus the unmittigated fact that the existing books of the bible were picked and edited to suit.......
And still they believe it! I thank these Christian types have it right when they describe them selves as sheep, stupid and blindly following, Believing everything they are told and have read.
Sounds a bit like some of the slugger posters on a more political front!
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 10:15 AM“Damn this so annoys me! ALL the scientific evidence, geological expertise and Cartesian logic”
Plus the fact that the existing books of the bible were picked and edited to suit.......
And still they believe it! I thank these Christian types have it right when they describe them selves as sheep, stupid and blindly following, Believing everything they are told and have read.
Sounds a bit like some of the slugger posters on a more political front!
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 10:36 AMWhen we’ve all vented our understandable liberal-educated bestaggerment that fundamentalists and neanderthalers walk among us, can we possibly address a related (and, for me, more significant) topic?
Where there is no vision, the people perish (Proverbs, 29.18).
When the body politic is headed by people circumscribed by a limited teleological view (the world was created in 4004BC and will end any moment now, where one’s immortal “soul” is of greater value than present convenience and comfort), what chance such theocrats are possessed of a proper world view?
Quite frankly, in preference to that, give me a scheming politician, pragmatic and committed to the short-term needs of the public any day.
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 10:52 AM*throws eyes to heaven” As far back as 6,000 years?!? Sure, Finn mac Cumhail came waaaay after that!
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 11:38 AMNow Malcolm, really..
Which do you think is more likely? That the world is 6000 years old and the Giant’s Causeway was a mere stepping stone for a gigantic super-being who enjoyed nothing more than hurling boulders across the horizon, or that a “pragmatic and committed” politician is likely to turn up in a Minister’s job any time soon?
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 12:12 PMUlster exile..... Did you do a copy and paste?.
Fair point Snakebrain.....the likley hood of Finn McCool existing is infinatley more probable than a Pragmatic Commited politician in the assembley....or anywhere else for that matter
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 12:39 PMWill all youse fellas catch yourselves on? I’m very old. The Giant’s Causeway was the first thing I did. And the wee lad who went on about Social Darwinism - that nice Mr. Darwin believed in ME and was thoroughly disgusted by the Social Darwinists. Let’s get this clear before I start smiting: ‘survival of the fittest” wasn’t about conflict, it was about ‘fitting’ into a niche. Honestly, 1850 wasn’t that long ago humankind! Think about language carefully.
(Oh, and if Ian’s reading: see you SOON, though I’m afraid your place is reserved Downstairs. The Orange colourscheme should make you feel at home.
BE GOOD or I’ll start the Rapture.
Your Lord.Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 01:18 PMGood God!!!!!!
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 02:39 PMis he really?
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 03:39 PMOr she.
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 03:59 PMAm I correct in assuming that under the current blasphemy laws the above commenters should be stoned to death or something or maybe Ive been spending to much time with the DUPers again
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 06:37 PMSo, Jesus is standing in front of the crowd and says “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”
This woman standing beside him picks up a rock and chucks it.
Jesus turns to her and says “Mother, you know I hate it when you do that.”Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 06:51 PMRapunsel
“Fuck me , read the answer very carefully and it does more than give equal weight I think you can deduce that Ms Foster is one of those holding an alternative view. A fuckimng flat earther as the environment minuster responsible for the management of many government applied science services!!”!
Posted by rapunsel on Nov 26, 2007 @ 09:31 PM”
Why do you deduce that? I think all that e can deduce is that the lady in question is aware that there are alternative views and has quite nicely avoided answering the “mischevious” question.
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 07:03 PMShocked by the stance of Veritas there. An SDLP creationist. Next thing he’ll be opposing the equality agenda, making homophobic remarks, and adopting a fundamentalist stance on abortion....
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 07:09 PMBertie
Because she didn’t say that she agreed with the “geologists” and also because the statement equates the scientific evidence geology supplies with the alternative views that are simply that views lacking any objective evidence. I think we ought to be very afraid with such a person in charge of certain government scientific services. If the evidence of the age of the Giants Causeway can be so readily not accepted what’s next? Polluted drinking water doesn’t really do anyone any harm? Biodiversity , forget about that . I actually now find myself believing the theory the DUP want provate sector visitor attractions at the Giants Causeway is to shore up their business mates and ensure that the creationist rubbish is promoted, something that couldn’t be done within a publicly funded centre
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 10:39 PMHighly recommend (for the nth time) Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel” for anyone interested in this kind of “debate” - astonishing work of scholarship but as gripping as a good thriller.
Posted by on Nov 27, 2007 @ 10:47 PMah this all takes me back to a conversation with a ‘believer’ who told me that Continental Drift was explained in the Bible...but strangely could not come up with the passage, nor could be produce a rebuttal for the age of the earth as proposed by ‘creationists’ flatly contradicts the physical evidence of the speed of light (i.e. what we see in the night sky is light that began its journey many, many millenia ago). In the end he just said: “But ye just gotta believe!” Err no I don’t, but it seems you do if you want to be a DUP MLA
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 12:13 AMrapunsel
“the statement equates the scientific evidence geology supplies with the alternative views that are simply that views lacking any objective evidence. “
It doesn’t equate them in anything other than that acknowledging that there are other alternative views, which is inarguably true.
It is a statement that I could have made myself, particularly if I knew that it was mischevious and I am not a creationist.
If I was in her position, I would take the view that my not being a crationist and indeed the truth or otherwise of its tenets are totally irrelevant to my job and that I was under no obligation to rule on it.
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 10:07 AMWhats the DUP’s opinion on dinosaurs I wonder?....
Sorry, I forgot, they give them a seat in the assembly, dont theyPosted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 10:11 AMAre we going to have another thread on creationism here? Or is this just more slagging off the DUP?
If it’s the former, I’m for taking it seriously. For example, wondering why the fundamental Prods have stuffed themselves with a doctrine of quite recent, and orthodox Catholic, coinage. The thesis of creation ab nihilo was concocted in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council, but reaffirmed by the Vatican Council as late as 1870. What is more astonishing (to me) is the way that theologians have discounted to the possibilities of an opt-out, which was offered them by pre-Christian philosophers, notably Plato who accepted the concept of creation, but using pre-existing materials.
Then, again, the Puritan divines of the 17th century were not obsessively hard-and-fast about Creationism: see how Milton plays fast-and-loose with it in Paradise Lost. Of course, Milton was a moralist, and was showing the cause of evil and injustice, rather than “proving” the Old Testament as a scientific tract. (And, yes, before any smartypants reminds me, I am aware that his posthumous De Doctrina Christiana endorses creation ab nihilo).
Then, again, if one must be canonical, what about that extraordinary passage in the Book of Job (which ought to be essential reading for all, believers or not, and used to be set as an English A-level text), Chapters 38-42? For those of a nervous disposition, the crucial bit, the climactic moment of the Book, is 42: 1-6:
Then Job answered the Lord and said: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted…
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know… I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”
Seems to me to be useful advice to those who are so certain of everything, including that (e.g. geology) of which they lack any understanding.Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 10:20 AM“Seems to me to be useful advice to those who are so certain of everything, including that (e.g. geology) of which they lack any understanding.”
So you quote a passage from an ancient text that has not even got the benifit of proof or logic behind it and use it as a defining point in an argument.
evolve....evolve.....evolve....for the love of man evole!!!!!!
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 10:30 AMnot one of you has any real evidence to suggest that creationists are wrong.
Veritas, that’s not how it works. For any theory, creationist or otherwise, there has to be an underpinning of empirical evidence. The creationists do not have any empirical evidence for their point of view.
where are the missing links ...
That is irrelevant. Science does not claim that it has all of the facts, or that it has the final, definitive explanation for everything which will stand for all time. Science is “here’s what we can come up with based on what we have observed”. The current theories of evolution, origin, the universe etc are merely the best shot. The great thing about science is that the door is open for someone to make other observations and argue them. Scientific opinions have been wrong countless times. They have been found to be wrong because science openly encourages debate and contradiction. Scientific theories are designed to be overruled by better ones.
Contrast this with Creationism, which says that we already know everything that happened based on the Bible, of which we have an infallible interpretation. Quite aside from the fact that this leaves out errors in translation or transcription, or indeed the likely human origins of the text, it’s fundamentally not science, because science can never claim that it has a set of infallible facts which will stand for all time.
I am not a Christian but I don’t see why some Christians see science as a threat. Believing that God created the universe and everything in it does not rule out evolution, fossils or anything else as being a part of the way he chose to do things. Fundamentally, the Creationists have a perspective that God does not want us to observe the world around us. I find that bizarre.
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 10:34 AMI am a Christian and agree with CS‘s final para 100%.
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 10:40 AMulsterexile @ 09:30 AM:
Two serious typos and a refutation of all previous human experience: and that’s a reason to “evole”?
Ahem…
I was proposing the Book of Job, not as a scientific text showing the “benifit (sic) of proof or logic” (indeed, the whole point is that not much is settled in the course of the debate), but as one of the great fictions of all time. It is a warning against taking up narrow theological positions, against having too small a conceit of the numinous.
As a non-theist (I’m agnostic even about my agnosticism), I am delighted to be attacked as a doctinaire believer. It won’t stop me reading the texts, from second-millenium BC Genesis and c.700BC Homer to Jared Diamond (nice one, Dewi! How you done his Collapse! How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed?)
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 11:12 AMgreat come back from from a book smart man on my un-evolved typing finger!!!!
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 12:07 PM
