I think this deserves a thread of its own.
QuoteOnline group calls for removal of creationist exhibit at Giant's Causeway
An online campaign has begun to remove an exhibition at the new Giant's Causeway visitors centre.
The audio exhibit gives visitors the opportunity to learn about the creationist view of how the Causeway was formed.
Creationists believe the Causeway was formed 6,000 years ago. The vast majority of scientists believe it was formed 60 million years ago.
The £18.5m centre was opened by First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness on Tuesday.
A group has now appeared on the social networking site Facebook called "remove the creationist exhibits at the Giants Causeway visitors centre."
Over 200 people have joined the group in the first few hours of it being set up.
TV presenter Professor Brian Cox tweeted that it was nonsense "to suggest there is any debate that Earth is 4.54 billion years old."
Volcanic
The National Trust has defended its decision to include the references to creationist theory at a new state-of-the-art visitors' centre at the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland.
Speaking on BBC Radio Ulster Graham Thompson, Causeway project director said: "Over the past five or six years we have had a thorough appraisal at what should be contained in the Causeway visitors centre, we have a huge range of exhibits, audio tours, films and how the Causeway itself links into history.
"Central to everything is how the Causeway was formed and the National Trust position is that we believe and accept the mainstream scientific idea that the Causeway was formed by volcanic eruption 60 million years ago.
"In the scientific and formation elements we base everything on fact.
"It's a fact that in the late 17th and early 18th century, there was a series of debates about how the Causeway was formed, and it's a fact that today there are still debates about the formation of the Causeway.
"The exhibit is about that debate, as opposed to how the Causeway was formed.
"We have a respectful position which allows people to have debate."
Viewpoint
Northern Ireland evangelical umbrella group, the Caleb Foundation, welcomed the inclusion of the exhibit.
In a statement, its chairman, Wallace Thompson, said: "We have worked closely with the National Trust over many months with a view to ensuring that the new Causeway visitor centre includes an acknowledgement both of the legitimacy of the creationist position on the origins of the unique Causeway stones and of the ongoing debate around this.
"We are pleased that the National Trust worked positively with us and that this has now been included at the new visitor centre."
He added: "We fully accept the Trust's commitment to its position on how the Causeway was formed, but this new centre both respects and acknowledges an alternative viewpoint and the continuing debate, and that means it will be a welcoming and enriching experience for all who visit."
The Causeway is a Unesco World Heritage Site and features more than 40,000 interlocking basalt columns formed millions of years ago by volcanic activity.
The National Trust have misrepresented the science by implying that the debate continues. The debate is over. The only people still debating it are a small rump of ignoramuses who have neither the intelligence nor the willingness to understand the basics of science or how it works. There's as much point in mentioning their strange views as there would be in recognising the 9/11 "truthers" at the WTC memorial. Fringe views have no place in an educational exhibit, not even the briefest of mentions. Young Earth Creationism deserves nothing but ridicule, finger-pointing, and satire.
Send your letters of protest to the national trust at this address: ni.customerenquiries@nationaltrust.org.uk
Flood the blackguards' inbox. Give them a piece of your mind.
And while you're at it, join the Facebook group here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/263351503764526/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/263351503764526/)
Keep the pressure on!!! Down with this sort of thing!!!!
I don't think this deserves a thread of its own.
Quote from: Gazzler on July 13, 2012, 07:37:47 PM
I don't think this deserves a thread of its own.
I don't think this deserves a thread of its own
Eamonnca1........two 'I don't think this deserves a thread of its own' remarks.................not good lad; not good.
Start up a "who gives a f**k thread", and stick it in there.
Quote from: Hoof Hearted on July 13, 2012, 09:01:32 PM
Start up a "who gives a f**k thread", and stick it in there.
;D
Quote from: Hoof Hearted on July 13, 2012, 09:01:32 PM
Start up a "who gives a f**k thread", and stick it in there.
+1
(http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u411/gazzler1/893715-stfu__no_one_gives_a_fuck_super.jpg)
Quote from: Gazzler on July 13, 2012, 07:37:47 PM
I don't think this deserves a thread of its own.
The first three words were enough.
-5
= -3
x-1 = the times such ignorance should be rejected.
In the battle between maths and superstition there can only be one winner.,
Taking the wanes up here next week. Will set them straight on any potential creationist confusion. "Of course Finn created the causeway..."
Bloody awful. Any time i go near there my mobile picks up O2 Ireland. Disgrace.
The giants causeway was a ladder to heaven made by god 30 years ago, around the same time he made the internet.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 14, 2012, 12:10:29 AM
The giants causeway was a ladder to heaven made by god 30 years around the same time he made the internet.
Heretic.
I took some American visitors up last week. As it was a poor day they decided not to go down to the stones. To enter the vivitor shop cost £8,whether you were going down to the stones or not.
Now this is what I call a rip-off.PS i don`t think I will be rushing back again.
Quote from: JUst retired on July 14, 2012, 09:37:33 AM
I took some American visitors up last week. As it was a poor day they decided not to go down to the stones. To enter the vivitor shop cost £8,whether you were going down to the stones or not.
Now this is what I call a rip-off.PS i don`t think I will be rushing back again.
What the National Trust subscription was made for! £2 of that is probably going straight to an Ian Og slush fund ;)
I thought the causway was built by the giant, Finn McCool.
On a visit to Newgrange, I was informed by the tour guide that neolithic man went to all that trouble to build it, in order to find out when the darkest day of the year had been reached, a part of their sun worship thing.
Where is Olly when we need him. I was up there two years ago and I saw an ould wan in her sixties rooted to the spot as she listened in awe with mouth agape to someone telling her about this Finn lad who sounded like he came from Kenmare.
Good man Eamonnca. Ignore the eejits on this thread. This sort of superstitious nonsense should be fought at all times. The general population is ignorant enough when it comes to scientific issues without throwing this type of childish nonsense into the mix.
Quote from: J70 on July 14, 2012, 02:17:22 PM
Good man Eamonnca. Ignore the eejits on this thread. This sort of superstitious nonsense should be fought at all times. The general population is ignorant enough when it comes to scientific issues without throwing this type of childish nonsense into the mix.
Yourself and Eammon what an army!
Get a life and don't be worrying about such things would ya ;D
Quote from: JUst retired on July 14, 2012, 09:37:33 AM
I took some American visitors up last week. As it was a poor day they decided not to go down to the stones. To enter the vivitor shop cost £8,whether you were going down to the stones or not.
Now this is what I call a rip-off.PS i don`t think I will be rushing back again.
It costs nothing to visit the stones. I think it's foolish to charge into the visitor centre, but even more strange that people would go all that way to visit the visitor centre and not the attraction itself!
Quote from: Maguire01 on July 14, 2012, 02:57:24 PM
Quote from: JUst retired on July 14, 2012, 09:37:33 AM
I took some American visitors up last week. As it was a poor day they decided not to go down to the stones. To enter the vivitor shop cost £8,whether you were going down to the stones or not.
Now this is what I call a rip-off.PS i don`t think I will be rushing back again.
It costs nothing to visit the stones. I think it's foolish to charge into the visitor centre, but even more strange that people would go all that way to visit the visitor centre and not the attraction itself!
Yes very strange. Suppose you need a souvenir to say you were there (even if you weren't)!
QuoteA group has now appeared on the social networking site Facebook called "remove the creationist exhibits at the Giants Causeway visitors centre."
Over 200 people have joined the group in the first few hours of it being set up.
Ah the era of the Facebook warriors ;D
A whole 200 people...Be da hokey.
Quote from: Gazzler on July 14, 2012, 02:38:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on July 14, 2012, 02:17:22 PM
Good man Eamonnca. Ignore the eejits on this thread. This sort of superstitious nonsense should be fought at all times. The general population is ignorant enough when it comes to scientific issues without throwing this type of childish nonsense into the mix.
Yourself and Eammon what an army!
Get a life and don't be worrying about such things would ya ;D
I have a very nice life, thank you. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the total lack of knowledge and critical thinking among the general population when it comes to scientific knowledge. While this may ONLY be creationism, there are some things that do really matter such as anti-vaccine nonsense, climate change denialism, homophobia and so on. While not all of these pseudoscientific movements are aligned with the same political views, they all have their roots in the same things.
I am anti vacccination and do so from a medical scientific standpoint and a wide personal experience in this area. I regard the practice of vaccinations not to satisfy the accepted minimum medical standards of research, clinical trials, scrutiny and natural immunisation.
At best it offers an artificial immunity which cannot be passed on to a next generation. It defies Darwinism, therefore I associate the dogmatic vaccination lobby with creationism ;D
Quote from: Maguire01 on July 14, 2012, 02:57:24 PM
Quote from: JUst retired on July 14, 2012, 09:37:33 AM
I took some American visitors up last week. As it was a poor day they decided not to go down to the stones. To enter the vivitor shop cost £8,whether you were going down to the stones or not.
Now this is what I call a rip-off.PS i don`t think I will be rushing back again.
It costs nothing to visit the stones. I think it's foolish to charge into the visitor centre, but even more strange that people would go all that way to visit the visitor centre and not the attraction itself!
The car parking fees are/were the de-facto entrance fee (having been there in May before the centre was opened).
Quote from: Main Street on July 14, 2012, 04:15:39 PM
I am anti vacccination and do so from a medical scientific standpoint and a wide personal experience in this area. I regard the practice of vaccinations not to satisfy the accepted minimum medical standards of research, clinical trials, scrutiny and natural immunisation.
At best it offers an artificial immunity which cannot be passed on to a next generation. It defies Darwinism, therefore I associate the dogmatic vaccination lobby with creationism ;D
Well then you're acting like an idiot. I take it you never take medicine either when you're sick? You can't pass that on to the next generation after all. Conditions like measles and mumps are starting to make a comeback thanks to eejits like you.
From the Times:
Measles outbreak affects 25 children in Cork
DR MUIRIS HOUSTON
THE LATEST outbreak of measles in the Republic has occurred in west Cork, the Health Service Executive said yesterday.
Twenty-five children, mainly teenagers aged 12-18, have been diagnosed with the viral illness in the last four weeks.
None of those infected had been immunised with the MMR vaccine, which protects against mumps, measles and rubella, public health doctors confirmed.
MMR immunisation rates here have still not recovered following discredited research in 1998 linking the vaccine with bowel disease and autism.
Dr Fiona Ryan, specialist in public health medicine at HSE South, said, "This outbreak is affecting children who are not vaccinated. Siblings of children with measles, if not vaccinated, are also recommended to stay out of school or childcare during the incubation period (usually about 14 days but may be up to 21 days), to ensure that they do not transmit infection to other children who may be too young for vaccination or be at increased risk due to other conditions."
She urged parents of children who are not immunised to attend for vaccination.
MMR given to a child within 72 hours of exposure to measles may prevent the illness. The vaccine can prevent measles in more than 90 per cent of immunised children, following a single dose of the vaccine. With a second dose of MMR vaccine, more than 99 per cent of immunised children are protected from measles infection.
This vaccine is given free by family doctors to children aged 12-15 months, and a second dose is given at school entry. MMR vaccination is also recommended for children aged 11-12 years who have not received two previous doses of MMR.
Symptoms of measles develop nine to 11 days after becoming infected. The first symptoms include irritability, a runny nose, red eyes, a hacking cough and a fever. These symptoms may last up to eight days.
A skin rash, consisting of flat red or brown blotches, starts from day four. It usually starts on the forehead and spreads downwards over the face, neck and body and lasts from four to seven days.
About one in 20 of those infected will get pneumonia, one in 1,000 will get encephalitis (brain inflammation) and between one and two in 1,000 will die from measles.
The latest annual report from the Health Protection Surveillance Centre showed a 149 per cent increase in measles cases in Ireland in 2010, with 403 cases notified compared with 162 cases in 2009.
About one-quarter of the 2010 cases required hospitalisation. Cases predominantly occurred in children who had not been vaccinated in what the surveillance centre said was a "worrying number of measles outbreaks in Ireland and Europe".
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control reported a recent measles outbreak in Ukraine, prompting a warning to soccer fans planning to travel there for next month's European Championships to ensure they are fully immunised.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 15, 2012, 03:03:05 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 14, 2012, 04:15:39 PM
I am anti vacccination and do so from a medical scientific standpoint and a wide personal experience in this area. I regard the practice of vaccinations not to satisfy the accepted minimum medical standards of research, clinical trials, scrutiny and natural immunisation.
At best it offers an artificial immunity which cannot be passed on to a next generation. It defies Darwinism, therefore I associate the dogmatic vaccination lobby with creationism ;D
Well then you're acting like an idiot. I take it you never take medicine either when you're sick? You can't pass that on to the next generation after all. Conditions like measles and mumps are starting to make a comeback thanks to eejits like you.
You are the one taking issue with the creationist dogma?
Perhaps you have a clearer understanding of how the human species develops, how natural immunity/adaptability to environment develops over the generations and Darwinism, but somehow I doubt it. I recommend you read Evolution & Healing – The Science of Darwinian Medicine Dr.Randolph Nesse and Dr.George Williams.
Perhaps you have a perspective on the historical radical decline of the death rates and notification of diseases like measles since 1910, long before vaccines were introduced, but I also doubt that. Meticulous historical records are kept in the archives in England. Recorded in Thomas McKeown's "The Role of Medicine"
- Mortality rates from infectious disease from 1850's.
Perhaps you simply believe that measles vaccination creation is responsible for the decline in incidents of measles when all known historical records show how the human species adapts to this disease since records began in 1850 and record radical declines since 1910.
Before you call me an idiot you would be advised to get better acquainted with the subject of Darwinism, especially if you are taking issue with the creationist dogma.
Somebody was telling me he found his little fella with all his goldfish out of the tank and lying flapping on the table. When he asked him what he was doing he said he was teaching them to evolve into land dwelling animals. They all died.
Quote from: Main Street on July 15, 2012, 11:35:38 AM
You are the one taking issue with the creationist dogma?
Perhaps you have a clearer understanding of how the human species develops, how natural immunity/adaptability to environment develops over the generations and Darwinism, but somehow I doubt it. I recommend you read Evolution & Healing – The Science of Darwinian Medicine Dr.Randolph Nesse and Dr.George Williams.
Perhaps you have a perspective on the historical radical decline of the death rates and notification of diseases like measles since 1910, long before vaccines were introduced, but I also doubt that. Meticulous historical records are kept in the archives in England. Recorded in Thomas McKeown's "The Role of Medicine"
- Mortality rates from infectious disease from 1850's.
Perhaps you simply believe that measles vaccination creation is responsible for the decline in incidents of measles when all known historical records show how the human species adapts to this disease since records began in 1850 and record radical declines since 1910.
Before you call me an idiot you would be advised to get better acquainted with the subject of Darwinism, especially if you are taking issue with the creationist dogma.
1 - Creationism, unlike the scientific consensus on vaccinations ('dogma' as you put it), is based on the creation myths of middle eastern bronze age goat herders who treated women like property and thought the earth was flat. The scientific consensus on vaccination is based on rigorous research, evidence, and the views of qualified people who know what they're talking about. Vaccinations prevent diseases. Fact.
2 - If you're using your own children as an experiment in 'darwinism' then you're playing eugenics with your own family. You want the fit to survive and the weak to perish even if it means risking the health of your own children? Maybe 'eejit' was too generous a word. If they have poor eyesight are you going to let them go through life unable to see because you think the invention of glasses has weakened the gene pool? If they somehow acquire diabetes are you going to deprive them of insulin and let nature take its course?
Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.
Exactly. That was the (obscure) point of my little parable.
Quote from: J70 on July 15, 2012, 04:50:32 PM
Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.
That's poppycock, which flies in the face of Darwinian science and the historical evolution of humankind and disease.
Where on earth does science accept luck? Science demands a bit more rigour than that.
The factors that mount up an individual's susceptibility are varied - hereditary, nutrition, environment, hygiene, exposure
and a person's adaptability to that threat depends also on those factors.
You would need to read the history of diseases like the plague and small pox to see where the people who were afflicted and adapted to these infectious disease, were not affected when the 2nd wave came, immunity is an individually acquired state. Hereditary susceptibility to a disease is only one factor in a person's susceptibility.
My point is that vaccination might offer a temporary immunity but it can't be passed on to ones' offspring whereas an acquired natural immunity is passed on the next generation. Passed on in the first crucial years of growth, before birth and post birth. The germane issues are the reasons why some people don't adapt. Statistics prove that the incidents of and problems arising from a mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced, yet the consensus of allopathic 'science' is that it was the introduction of vaccines that radically affected the statistics.
QuoteThe germane issues are the reasons why some people don't adapt. Statistics prove that the incidents of and problems arising from a mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced, yet the consensus of allopathic 'science' is that it was the introduction of vaccines that radically affected the statistics.
Interesting point; my own opinion on vaccination (and acquired immunity) is also that it is contrary to Darwinism in that they (vaccines) are essentially commercial tools with no aim other than (commercial) profit, leaving aside the 'history' of allopathic sciences, the fraud, poor formulation, pitiful testing regimes and bad quasi-science associated with that discipline.
How did the Giant's Causeway lead us here?
"An acquired natural immunity is passed on to the next generation". Yes, but only by those who survive. The casualties of your experiment in natural selection won't be too impressed that you passed up the chance to save them in the interest of a next generation that won't exist because ... well you get my point. Or am I missing yours?
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
Quote from: J70 on July 15, 2012, 04:50:32 PM
Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.
That's poppycock, which flies in the face of Darwinian science and the historical evolution of humankind and disease.
Where on earth does science accept luck? Science demands a bit more rigour than that.
The factors that mount up an individual's susceptibility are varied - hereditary, nutrition, environment, hygiene, exposure
and a person's adaptability to that threat depends also on those factors.
You would need to read the history of diseases like the plague and small pox to see where the people who were afflicted and adapted to these infectious disease, were not affected when the 2nd wave came, immunity is an individually acquired state. Hereditary susceptibility to a disease is only one factor in a person's susceptibility.
My point is that vaccination might offer a temporary immunity but it can't be passed on to ones' offspring whereas an acquired natural immunity is passed on the next generation. Passed on in the first crucial years of growth, before birth and post birth. The germane issues are the reasons why some people don't adapt. Statistics prove that the incidents of and problems arising from a mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced, yet the consensus of allopathic 'science' is that it was the introduction of vaccines that radically affected the statistics.
Not a lot of time just now, but couldn't let the above garbage pass (esp
bold)
(From the World Health Organisation)
Key facts
Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2010, there were 139 300 measles deaths globally – nearly 380 deaths every day or 15 deaths every hour. More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 74% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2010 worldwide.
In 2010, about 85% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus.
In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.It remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. An estimated 139 300 people died from measles in 2010 – mostly children under the age of five.
Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. From 2001 to 2011 more than one billion children aged 9 months to 14 years who live in high risk countries were vaccinated against the disease. Global measles deaths have decreased by 74% from 535 300 in 2000 to 139 300 in 2010.
Most measles-related deaths are caused by complications associated with the disease. Complications are more common in children under the age of five, or adults over the age of 20.
The most serious complications include blindness, encephalitis (an infection that causes brain swelling), severe diarrhoea and related dehydration, ear infections, or severe respiratory infections such as pneumonia. As high as 10% of measles cases result in death among populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate health careOverwhelming evidence demonstrates the benefit of providing universal access to measles and rubella-containing vaccines.
Globally, an estimated 535 300 children died of measles in 2000. By 2010, the global push to improve vaccine coverage resulted in a 74% reduction in deaths. These efforts, supported by the Measles & Rubella Initiative (MR Initiative), contributed 23% of the overall decline in under-five deaths between 1990 and 2008 and are driving progress towards meeting MDG4.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/
P.S. Any comment on the inefficiency of Mass Vaccination as a means of controlling this?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/
Or this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11542653
Survival of the fittest in Monaghan.
Assuming there are unbroken lines of Jewish lineage where for thousands of years circumcision has been performed, are Jewish males showing signs of adapting to the fact that they no longer need their foreskins?
For his next trick he's going to let his children die of smallpox because he doesn't want to taint the gene pool with artificial solutions like vaccinations.
Quote from: Hardy on July 16, 2012, 10:16:35 AM
"An acquired natural immunity is passed on to the next generation". Yes, but only by those who survive. The casualties of your experiment in natural selection won't be too impressed that you passed up the chance to save them in the interest of a next generation that won't exist because ... well you get my point. Or am I missing yours?
I think you are missing my point.
Naturally living is better than dying ;)
But it helps to understand how the human species has adapted to the scourge of disease down through the ages. It's also worth considering the conditions hygene nutrition, war, famine, drought, city slums etc that those people lived under.
There are plenty of interventions that can be done by a person to keep alive, fit and healthy while at the same time an immune system can prosper and evolve.
The point I make is simple enough, within Darwinian science and theory is the observation of how an individual evolves within a species.
Without going into those details, this science and theory has been important for Western civilisation. I make a distinction because in Eastern philosophy these teachings are well established in ancient spiritual doctrines/teachings. The fundamentals of Darwin's theory of natural selection was the important central basis for the research of Gerald Edelman who won a nobel prize for his work on the immune system, adaptive immunity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman)
Part of that research, he outlined how the immune systems adapts and learns and where this memory is stored. That the immune system has a memory of how to deal with stuff.
That is the basis for an acquired immunity.
Back to my simple point, an artificial immunity (eg vaccination) is not an acquired immunity, it is not a learned immunity, not does the body hold any memory of this experience. An adapted immunity is passed on to the next generation and Edelman also explains how this is done.
I take some exception to being regarded as a crank for not sharing the same joy about the artificial immunity belief system. Not only have I studied this for years, I have wide experience in this area. If someone doesn't agree, then fair enough, I am not going to call them stupid for not believing in me, nor will I call for pistols at dawn.
I'm sorry, but your point is still not clear to me. Simple questions:
1. Are you saying people shouldn't be vaccinated and, if so, are you supporting the inevitable corollary of that position by stating that people should be prepared to sacrifice their children to preventable diseases in the interest of the evolution of the species?
2. Are you saying vaccination is anti-Darwinian and therefore wrong in some way or that it frustrates the Darwinian destiny of the individual (as opposed to the species) in some way that any other preventive or curative treatment doesn't?
If you're not saying these things, would you ever the f*** say in plain English whatever it is you are saying?
(Take the smiley as read.)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 16, 2012, 10:23:38 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
Quote from: J70 on July 15, 2012, 04:50:32 PM
Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.
That's poppycock, which flies in the face of Darwinian science and the historical evolution of humankind and disease.
Where on earth does science accept luck? Science demands a bit more rigour than that.
The factors that mount up an individual's susceptibility are varied - hereditary, nutrition, environment, hygiene, exposure
and a person's adaptability to that threat depends also on those factors.
You would need to read the history of diseases like the plague and small pox to see where the people who were afflicted and adapted to these infectious disease, were not affected when the 2nd wave came, immunity is an individually acquired state. Hereditary susceptibility to a disease is only one factor in a person's susceptibility.
My point is that vaccination might offer a temporary immunity but it can't be passed on to ones' offspring whereas an acquired natural immunity is passed on the next generation. Passed on in the first crucial years of growth, before birth and post birth. The germane issues are the reasons why some people don't adapt. Statistics prove that the incidents of and problems arising from a mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced, yet the consensus of allopathic 'science' is that it was the introduction of vaccines that radically affected the statistics.
Not a lot of time just now, but couldn't let the above garbage pass (esp bold)
(From the World Health Organisation)
Key facts
Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2010, there were 139 300 measles deaths globally – nearly 380 deaths every day or 15 deaths every hour.
More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 74% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2010 worldwide.
In 2010, about 85% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.
It remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. An estimated 139 300 people died from measles in 2010 – mostly children under the age of five.
Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. From 2001 to 2011 more than one billion children aged 9 months to 14 years who live in high risk countries were vaccinated against the disease. Global measles deaths have decreased by 74% from 535 300 in 2000 to 139 300 in 2010.
Most measles-related deaths are caused by complications associated with the disease. Complications are more common in children under the age of five, or adults over the age of 20. The most serious complications include blindness, encephalitis (an infection that causes brain swelling), severe diarrhoea and related dehydration, ear infections, or severe respiratory infections such as pneumonia. As high as 10% of measles cases result in death among populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate health care
Overwhelming evidence demonstrates the benefit of providing universal access to measles and rubella-containing vaccines. Globally, an estimated 535 300 children died of measles in 2000. By 2010, the global push to improve vaccine coverage resulted in a 74% reduction in deaths. These efforts, supported by the Measles & Rubella Initiative (MR Initiative), contributed 23% of the overall decline in under-five deaths between 1990 and 2008 and are driving progress towards meeting MDG4.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/
P.S. Any comment on the inefficiency of Mass Vaccination as a means of controlling this?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/
Or this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11542653
The above full quote you took exception to was a
mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introducedI apologise for some misunderstanding here.
This only refers to the UK.
I assumed this was understood and I assumed wrongly.
Everything I wrote is from a West European perspective because apart from recent enough wars, famines and plagues we have a similar enough standard of living/health care.
The statistics for the UK
1850 - 1910 approx 1200 out of a million children under the age of 15 died from measles
1910 to 1968 this death figure was steadily reduced to one or two per 1,000,000 children,
Vaccination was introduced in or around 1968
Measles notification was in cycles of course, with peaks and troughs.
The highest peak in the UK was 1962 (probably was when I did measles) some 750,000 notifications
1964 peak - 600.000 notifications
1966 peak - 450,000 notifications
1967 peak - 400,000 notification
1968 measles vaccination introduced
1970 peak 300,000 notifications
1976 peak 225,000 notifications
So we have a recorded decline to almost zero in deaths and a steady recorded decline in notifications before vaccinations were introduced. .
The other part you refer to is in poverty stricken 3rd world. The key word here is poverty. Yes children do die in their millions and the wonderment is how so many survive those conditions. If it was just a simple matter of saving lives through vaccination programs, I have no issue with that. But it is not as simple as that. There are hundreds of millions perhaps billions of people living in poverty. The main issues are poverty, sewage, food and water.
If I saw one stat which showed that vaccinations lowered the overall children mortality rate then I would be convinced of its benefits. But all I see is children dying of other causes. I have spent many years working with installing water systems for remote villages and drought areas throughout India. I have a reasonable overview of conditions that children have to put up with in the cities and the rural areas.
Quote from: Hardy on July 16, 2012, 08:18:46 PM
I'm sorry, but your point is still not clear to me. Simple questions:
1. Are you saying people shouldn't be vaccinated and, if so, are you supporting the inevitable corollary of that position by stating that people should be prepared to sacrifice their children to preventable diseases in the interest of the evolution of the species?
2. Are you saying vaccination is anti-Darwinian and therefore wrong in some way or that it frustrates the Darwinian destiny of the individual (as opposed to the species) in some way that any other preventive or curative treatment doesn't?
If you're not saying these things, would you ever the f*** say in plain English whatever it is you are saying?
(Take the smiley as read.)
I am saying I am not a believer in artificial immunity and I have good scientific reasons for doing so.
Whatever you do with your gene pool is your issue.
I don't quite understand Q2.
I am saying that adaptive learned immunity is in harmony with Darwinism science and theory, and artificial immunity is not.
I am not saying it is wrong, just because a person does not believe or understand Darwin science/theory does not make them wrong.
I still haven't a clue whether you would allow your children to be vaccinated or would refuse to because it wouldn't be "in harmony" with Darwinian principles. If you wouldn't, you're mad. I don't imagine that's the case, so why rail against vaccination? And why pick on vaccination as opposed to any other preventive measure against disease as anti-Darwinian.
I can't get a grip on your point, but your use of the term "harmony" seems seems to suggest that you think belief in and and understanding of the theory of natural selection and the evolution of species it facilitates is a quasi-religious phenomenon. My antennae for new-age quackery are raised by the fact that you seem to place it in a context that includes "Eastern philosophy" and its "teachings" that are "well established in ancient spiritual doctrines/teachings" No they're not. That's mystical mumbo-jumbo and tommyrot.
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 08:46:06 PM
Quote from: Hardy on July 16, 2012, 08:18:46 PM
I'm sorry, but your point is still not clear to me. Simple questions:
1. Are you saying people shouldn't be vaccinated and, if so, are you supporting the inevitable corollary of that position by stating that people should be prepared to sacrifice their children to preventable diseases in the interest of the evolution of the species?
2. Are you saying vaccination is anti-Darwinian and therefore wrong in some way or that it frustrates the Darwinian destiny of the individual (as opposed to the species) in some way that any other preventive or curative treatment doesn't?
If you're not saying these things, would you ever the f*** say in plain English whatever it is you are saying?
(Take the smiley as read.)
I am saying I am not a believer in artificial immunity and I have good scientific reasons for doing so.
Whatever you do with your gene pool is your issue.
I don't quite understand Q2.
I am saying that adaptive learned immunity is in harmony with Darwinism science and theory, and artificial immunity is not.
I am not saying it is wrong, just because a person does not believe or understand Darwin science/theory does not make them wrong.
I'd say the millions in Africa playing roulette with disease would rather take their chances with a jab than your "theories".
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 08:46:06 PM
I am saying I am not a believer in artificial immunity and I have good scientific reasons for doing so.
No you don't. You don't believe in vaccination because you can't see the facts staring you in the face. Vaccinations prevent disease. Fact. This is not up for debate.
QuoteWhatever you do with your gene pool is your issue.
"Your" gene pool? What does that mean? Are your kids your personal property and yours to experiment on as you see fit by depriving them of tried and tested treatment? Or perhaps you refer to the old "personal choice" fallacy, the idea that your refusal to get vaccinated or to vaccinate your own children has no effect on others. It bloody well does. It causes outbreaks.
QuoteI don't quite understand Q2.
Hadn't noticed.
QuoteI am saying that adaptive learned immunity is in harmony with Darwinism science and theory, and artificial immunity is not.
What are you waffling about? What did Darwin have to say about vaccination or any other medical procedure? Did he rail against all forms of medicine or are you just talking through your hat?
QuoteI am not saying it is wrong, just because a person does not believe or understand Darwin science/theory does not make them wrong.
Yes it does.
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
Quote from: J70 on July 15, 2012, 04:50:32 PM
Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.
That's poppycock, which flies in the face of Darwinian science and the historical evolution of humankind and disease.
Where on earth does science accept luck? Science demands a bit more rigour than that.
The factors that mount up an individual's susceptibility are varied - hereditary, nutrition, environment, hygiene, exposure
and a person's adaptability to that threat depends also on those factors.
Genetic diversity is one of the cornerstones of natural selection, so assuming that you are as educated about evolution as you claim, you must have misunderstood me.
Obviously the environment and its effect on the phenotype in terms of survival and reproduction are the other pillars.
My point was that even IF measles-caused morbidity and mortality has been on the decline long term due to adaptation by humans, that this is a population or species-level effect. Individuals can and still does die from diseases such as measles, so acquired immunity in the form of a vaccine is a very valuable tool to combat this.
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
You would need to read the history of diseases like the plague and small pox to see where the people who were afflicted and adapted to these infectious disease, were not affected when the 2nd wave came, immunity is an individually acquired state. Hereditary susceptibility to a disease is only one factor in a person's susceptibility.
Who is debating that people become immune to some diseases after the first infection?
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
My point is that vaccination might offer a temporary immunity but it can't be passed on to ones' offspring whereas an acquired natural immunity is passed on the next generation.
Ok, but so what?
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
Passed on in the first crucial years of growth, before birth and post birth. The germane issues are the reasons why some people don't adapt. Statistics prove that the incidents of and problems arising from a mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced, yet the consensus of allopathic 'science' is that it was the introduction of vaccines that radically affected the statistics.
Is this just measles, or does it apply to all diseases?
Do you think people should just take a chance on their kid getting measles? Hope that they won't be the unlucky ones who become seriously ill or even die?
Are oranges called oranges because they're orange in colour, or is the colour called orange because oranges are orange in colour?
From the prestigious Wikipedia:
The colour orange is named after the appearance of the ripe orange fruit.[1] Before this word was introduced to the English-speaking world, the colour was referred to as ġeolurēad (yellow-red).
The first recorded use of orange as a colour name in English was in 1512,[2][3] in a will now filed with the Public Records Office.
Refs:
1 Paterson, Ian (2003), A Dictionary of Colour: A Lexicon of the Language of Colour (1st paperback ed.), London: Thorogood (published 2004), p. 280, ISBN 1-85418-375-3, OCLC 60411025
2 "orange colour | orange color, n. (and adj.)". Oxford English Dictionary. OED. Retrieved 19 April 2011.
3 Maerz, Aloys John; Morris Rea Paul (1930), A Dictionary of Color, New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 200
Quote from: Gazzler on July 16, 2012, 10:45:00 PM
Are oranges called oranges because they're orange in colour, or is the colour called orange because oranges are orange in colour?
Anyone ?
Quote from: Gazzler on July 16, 2012, 10:45:00 PM
Are oranges called oranges because they're orange in colour, or is the colour called orange because oranges are orange in colour?
Oranges are actually green, but sprayed orange.
Quote from: ziggysego on July 17, 2012, 12:38:49 AM
Oranges are actually green, but sprayed orange.
You mean in the same way choc ice's are white, but sprayed a chocolatey coating?
Quote from: Gazzler on July 16, 2012, 11:03:32 PM
Quote from: Gazzler on July 16, 2012, 10:45:00 PM
Are oranges called oranges because they're orange in colour, or is the colour called orange because oranges are orange in colour?
Anyone ?
Did you read the previous post before you replied?
Or have you blocked Eamonnca?
Interesting contribution to the science debate in today's Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0717/1224320251262.html (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0717/1224320251262.html)
Quote from: Declan on July 17, 2012, 08:52:06 AM
Interesting contribution to the science debate in today's Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0717/1224320251262.html (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0717/1224320251262.html)
Now that 'contribution' was just annoying, as is the usual for that contributor (Humphries).
Jesus - I gave up the will to live half way through that pile of poo.
cure for cancer in 10 years and he thinks so what!
"And for every you or I who gets an extra few cancer-free years, so will a Kim Jong-un or a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
So hes basically saying that 50% of the people who get cancer deserve to die!
Quote from: nifan on July 17, 2012, 10:04:57 AM
So hes basically saying that 50% of the people who get cancer deserve to die!
It's an arty, religious nut's appreciation of science - and sadly, the Irish Times has given him (and continues to give him) a forum for his idiocy.
Now now lads - remember Voltaire
I'm just giving my opinion, as a scientist, of his opinion (as an idiot) .. ;)
Quote from: Declan on July 17, 2012, 10:29:19 AM
Now now lads - remember Voltaire
Chance'd be a fine thing.
Getting back to the original topic, it seems to me that the National Trust have made their position clear, that they completely accept the reality of how the Giant's Causeway was formed but have included alternative viewpoints to reflect the existence of those viewpoints in a place (Northern Ireland) where those viewpoints hold great sway. It would be useful to remember this (http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/contact-us/view-page/item480883/): "The National Trust is a charity completely independent of Government funding. We rely on the support of the public, through membership and donations." As with the GAA, if you want to change the Trust's policies you should become a member.
Quote from: Declan on July 17, 2012, 10:29:19 AM
Now now lads - remember Voltaire
What had he to say?
Quote from: Declan on July 17, 2012, 10:29:19 AM
Now now lads - remember Voltaire
Actually, I'd rather remember 'Main Street' and his contentious case against mass vaccination, than be distracted by the inane ramblings of a feeble-minded idiot like Humphries.
For at least MS is putting up some sort of a case, argued from a position of knowledge and experience etc, even if that case should be complete tosh when you get to the bottom of it.
Speaking of which, I would like to hear MS justify his contention in post#34, where he stated the following:
"You would need to read the history of diseases like... ... small pox to see where the people who were afflicted and adapted to these infectious disease, were not affected when the 2nd wave came, immunity is an individually acquired state."This is such a specious contention, it is hard to know where to start. Perhaps we might ask exactly how many people must die before mankind acquires a "natural" immunity to Smallpox, seeing as how the mortality rate for Smallpox was up to 30%? Or what we should do when, having got to the blessed state of having complete immunity to Smallpox, the virus should mutate, as these things often do?
Or why, out of all possible examples, he can cite Smallpox in his case against mass vaccination, when that terrible affliction has been completely eradicated from the face of the Earth, not by Mankind naturally acquiring an immunity, but by Scientists inventing a Vaccine!
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/
Quote from: J70 on July 16, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
Quote from: J70 on July 15, 2012, 04:50:32 PM
Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.
That's poppycock, which flies in the face of Darwinian science and the historical evolution of humankind and disease.
Where on earth does science accept luck? Science demands a bit more rigour than that.
The factors that mount up an individual's susceptibility are varied - hereditary, nutrition, environment, hygiene, exposure
and a person's adaptability to that threat depends also on those factors.
Genetic diversity is one of the cornerstones of natural selection, so assuming that you are as educated about evolution as you claim, you must have misunderstood me.
Obviously the environment and its effect on the phenotype in terms of survival and reproduction are the other pillars.
My point was that even IF measles-caused morbidity and mortality has been on the decline long term due to adaptation by humans, that this is a population or species-level effect. Individuals can and still does die from diseases such as measles, so acquired immunity in the form of a vaccine is a very valuable tool to combat this.
The population species effect as you call it arises from individuals gaining natural immunity. This does not happen with artificial immunity.
The endless cycle artificial immunity is never ending, Unless of course the allopathic theory is correct that a disease threat will just fade away. So far after 45 years of vaccination there is no sign of that happening. History shows that diseases fade away and are replace by a lesser threatening disease. This is how the human species has adapted to their environment. When cholera broke out in London mid 19C, human beings adapted by cleaning up the sewage and water supply.
Quote from: J70 on July 16, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
My point is that vaccination might offer a temporary immunity but it can't be passed on to ones' offspring whereas an acquired natural immunity is passed on the next generation.
Ok, but so what?
Then in the case of a parent/parents who already have done measles there is little or no scientific reason to support imposing artificial vaccination on their children.
Imposing a crude poison into babies to stimulate an immune response inside the body to keep it on full time alert against a possible threat has its drawbacks.
The reason I am against vaccination is based on a sound established science.
Quote from: J70 on July 16, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
Passed on in the first crucial years of growth, before birth and post birth. The germane issues are the reasons why some people don't adapt. Statistics prove that the incidents of and problems arising from a mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced, yet the consensus of allopathic 'science' is that it was the introduction of vaccines that radically affected the statistics.
Is this just measles, or does it apply to all diseases?
All disease that are vaccinated against?
I don't know about all but certainly with Measles and TB.
TB like Measles, was already well on the wane before vaccinations were introduced.
Quote from: J70 on July 16, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
Do you think people should just take a chance on their kid getting measles? Hope that they won't be the unlucky ones who become seriously ill or even die?
That's a personal choice. I don't value hysteria or poor science very high. I have had this discussion many times with medics and they accepted that if my kids got sick I would know what to do. In my home town we had a good elderly wise MD, there were regular measles/mumps outbreaks, he did his job, did the rounds, kids were kept at home and parents followed his advice. Not all environments are like that, not all MDs are like that, not all people are that trustful, not all people shared that belief system. Measles was not regarded as a big thing, a big threat to life and liberty. It was regarded as doable and possibly/probably with beneficial effects to the kid's immune system afterwards.
This belief is backed up by a science.
Back to Finn McCool's Causeway and the attempt to lessen the value of this genuine myth with the introduction of another, the creationist version.
The national trust website explains its reasons which are fair enough imo.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/servlet/file/store5/item890895/version1/GCVC%20Interpretation%20statement%20060712.pdf (http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/servlet/file/store5/item890895/version1/GCVC%20Interpretation%20statement%20060712.pdf)
GIANT'S CAUSEWAY VISITOR CENTRE INTERPRETATION
The Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre provides a state-of-the-art exhibition area which showcases the science and the stories of the Giant's Causeway.
All of the information presented to visitors in relation to how the Giant's Causeway was formed, and how old it is, clearly reflects scientific consensus that the Causeway stones were formed 60 million years ago.
For centuries the Giant's Causeway has prompted debate about how it was formed and how old it is.
One of the exhibits in the Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre interpretation tells the story of the part the Giant's Causeway played in the debate about how the earth's rocks were formed and about the age of the earth.
In this exhibit we also state that for some people this debate continues today. A National Trust spokesperson said:
"The interpretation in the Visitor Centre showcases the science of how the stones were formed, the history of this special place and the stories of local characters.
"We reflect, in a small part of the exhibition, that the Causeway played a role in the historic debate about the formation of the earth, and that some people hold views today which are different from scientific consensus. However, the National Trust is entirely unequivocal in its acceptance of scientific consensus.
"We would encourage people to come along, view the interpretation and judge for themselves."
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 10:53:00 AM
Getting back to the original topic, it seems to me that the National Trust have made their position clear, that they completely accept the reality of how the Giant's Causeway was formed but have included alternative viewpoints to reflect the existence of those viewpoints in a place (Northern Ireland) where those viewpoints hold great sway. It would be useful to remember this (http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/contact-us/view-page/item480883/): "The National Trust is a charity completely independent of Government funding. We rely on the support of the public, through membership and donations." As with the GAA, if you want to change the Trust's policies you should become a member.
Unfortunately it is the NT's dependance on public donations etc, which causes it to give a place to idiocies like the "Creationist" view of how the Causeway was formed.
For there still exists a sufficient number of religious nutjobs in NI that the Trust will not risk upsetting them when they insist that their ludicrous theories be displayed in the Visitor Centre. Were the Causeway to be located elsewhere in the UK, I have little doubt that the NT would just ignore this lobby.
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 10:53:00 AMAs with the GAA, if you want to change the Trust's policies you should become a member.
If the NT requires to be answerable only to its Members on such matters, then it should not accept funding from non-Members, such as the British Taxpayer.
I can't quickly find exactly how much of our money has gone to this project, but this report from 2009 suggests it was £3m Lottery Funding, plus £9.25m NITB money (taxes). This amounted to more than half the projected total cost.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7853558.stm
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 11:24:21 AM
Unfortunately it is the NT's dependance on public donations etc, which causes it to give a place to idiocies like the "Creationist" view of how the Causeway was formed.
For there still exists a sufficient number of religious nutjobs in NI that the Trust will not risk upsetting them when they insist that their ludicrous theories be displayed in the Visitor Centre. Were the Causeway to be located elsewhere in the UK, I have little doubt that the NT would just ignore this lobby.
And if my auntie had balls etc
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 11:24:21 AMIf the NT requires to be answerable only to its Members on such matters, then it should not accept funding from non-Members, such as the British Taxpayer.
I can't quickly find exactly how much of our money has gone to this project, but this report from 2009 suggests it was £3m Lottery Funding, plus £9.25m NITB money (taxes). This amounted to more than half the projected total cost.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7853558.stm
Putting the cart before the horse there. The onus is on the National Lottery to put stipulations on its funding, which it does all the time. Why should the NT create policies with the intention of denying itself funding?
Yes, but the imperative of harvesting shekels does not absolve it, as the body presenting itself as the interpreter of reality for the public in this instance, of the responsibility to do this honestly. Unless they believe in the legitimacy of the creationist view, they're behaving no differently to a medical doctor who accepts payment for advertising homeopathic products.
Quote from: Main Street on July 17, 2012, 11:21:21 AM
Back to Finn McCool's Causeway and the attempt to lessen the value of this genuine myth with the introduction of another, the creationist version.
The national trust website explains its reasons which are fair enough imo.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/servlet/file/store5/item890895/version1/GCVC%20Interpretation%20statement%20060712.pdf (http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/servlet/file/store5/item890895/version1/GCVC%20Interpretation%20statement%20060712.pdf)
GIANT'S CAUSEWAY VISITOR CENTRE INTERPRETATION
The Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre provides a state-of-the-art exhibition area which showcases the science and the stories of the Giant's Causeway.
All of the information presented to visitors in relation to how the Giant's Causeway was formed, and how old it is, clearly reflects scientific consensus that the Causeway stones were formed 60 million years ago.
For centuries the Giant's Causeway has prompted debate about how it was formed and how old it is.
One of the exhibits in the Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre interpretation tells the story of the part the Giant's Causeway played in the debate about how the earth's rocks were formed and about the age of the earth.
In this exhibit we also state that for some people this debate continues today. A National Trust spokesperson said:
"The interpretation in the Visitor Centre showcases the science of how the stones were formed, the history of this special place and the stories of local characters.
"We reflect, in a small part of the exhibition, that the Causeway played a role in the historic debate about the formation of the earth, and that some people hold views today which are different from scientific consensus. However, the National Trust is entirely unequivocal in its acceptance of scientific consensus.
"We would encourage people to come along, view the interpretation and judge for themselves."
That seems reasonable enough, until you consider that it's not all that different to the "teach the controversy" nonsense.
"Some people hold views today which are different from scientific consensus". Some people believe they were abducted by aliens. I don't imagine the Science Museum, for instance, thinks it's any part of its remit to refer gratuitously to the existence of these crackpots in the interpretative notices on its space exploration exhibits.
Quote from: Hardy on July 17, 2012, 11:38:26 AM
Yes, but the imperative of harvesting shekels does not absolve it, as the body presenting itself as the interpreter of reality for the public in this instance, of the responsibility to do this honestly. Unless they believe in the legitimacy of the creationist view, they're behaving no differently to a medical doctor who accepts payment for advertising homeopathic products.
I don't think that's a legitimate analogy. By that logic, it shouldn't be called the Giant's Causeway because it is neither.
Maybe, but I think it's a stretch to suggest that people confuse mythology with pseudo-science. People don't imagine there's really a huge woman lying on her back to form the Paps mountains or that Old Nick is hanging around the Devil's Bit but the creationist stuff is a real attempt to mislead.
Maybe that's a stretch too far, but you're not going to take away that Cú Chulainn was a mean hurler.
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 11:30:31 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 11:24:21 AM
Unfortunately it is the NT's dependance on public donations etc, which causes it to give a place to idiocies like the "Creationist" view of how the Causeway was formed.
For there still exists a sufficient number of religious nutjobs in NI that the Trust will not risk upsetting them when they insist that their ludicrous theories be displayed in the Visitor Centre. Were the Causeway to be located elsewhere in the UK, I have little doubt that the NT would just ignore this lobby.
And if my auntie had balls etc
My argument is not based on an "if", since there is
undoubtedly a "Creationist" Lobby in NI which composes a much higher proportion of the population in NI than it does in GB.
Now if you want to argue that that Lobby is still not sufficiently influential to have caused the NT to include this Creationist propaganda in their display etc, then fair enough - it's not something which can easily be proved either way.
But I would just point out that Peter Robinson (First Minister), Rev. Ian Paisley (Former First Minister), Ian Paisley Jr. (MP for the area) and Nelson McCausland (present Minister for Social Development, and Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure at the time the Centre was mooted)
all subcribe to the Creationist view. Moreover, the present Minister at DCAL, Arlene Foster, may not believe it herself, but considering how many influential Members of her party do, she is hardly likely to rock the boat (Noah's Ark?) on this one, is she?
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 11:30:31 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 11:24:21 AMIf the NT requires to be answerable only to its Members on such matters, then it should not accept funding from non-Members, such as the British Taxpayer.
I can't quickly find exactly how much of our money has gone to this project, but this report from 2009 suggests it was £3m Lottery Funding, plus £9.25m NITB money (taxes). This amounted to more than half the projected total cost.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7853558.stm
Putting the cart before the horse there. The onus is on the National Lottery to put stipulations on its funding, which it does all the time. Why should the NT create policies with the intention of denying itself funding?
Re the National Lottery, it has donated millions eg to various Museums the length and breadth of the UK, without those recipients feeling obliged to include Creationist or any other religious dogma in their exhibits. Therefore it is fair to ask why this one should be different.
In fact, the National Lottery has generously funded the Ulster Museum without that institution feeling compelled to incorporate Creationism in its literature and displays etc:
http://www.nmni.com/um/News/Revitalised-Ulster-Museum-set-to-thrill-visitors
Not, of course, that there is any lack of zeal on the part of the Creationist Lobby to overturn this, mind:
... it was in his capacity as Minister of state that in May 2010, [Nelson McCausland] wrote to the Ulster Museum requesting that it display a range of Creationist and other anti-Evolution material, claiming that it was the Museum's job to "reflect the views of all the people in Northern Ireland" rather than to reflect the understanding of modern science. In response to McCausland's letter, the prominent evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, said "If the museum was to go down that road then perhaps they should bring in the stork theory of where babies come from. Or perhaps the museum should introduce the flat earth theory"And that's just the Lottery Funding. Have you nothing to say about Taxpayers' funding (the bulk of the cost of the centre, btw)?
In the end, if my Taxes are going towards this project, then I am entitled to express my opinion on it without having to be a Member of the NT.
Alternatively, of course, the HMRC may give me a rebate to the value of a National Trust Subscription, so that I might join the Trust, then resign in protest at their craven supplication to religious nutjobs who insist that the Giant's Causeway was formed as a result of a Great Flood 5,000 years ago... ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
My argument is not based on an "if", since there is undoubtedly a "Creationist" Lobby in NI which composes a much higher proportion of the population in NI than it does in GB.
The 'if' is based on the idea of the Giant's Causeway being somewhere else in the UK other than NI. I suppose if they can move Abu Simbel due to the construction of the Aswan Dam...
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 11:24:21 AM
Re the National Lottery, it has donated millions eg to various Museums the length and breadth of the UK, without those recipients feeling obliged to include Creationist or any other religious dogma in their exhibits. Therefore it is fair to ask why this one should be different.
Asked and answered. The National Trust has already explained why it has included the creationist guff in the exhibition.
I believe in God, can I prove he exists...No. I don't believe in creationism can I prove that it is not fact...No. It requires faith to believe in creationism. I'm not sure of the relevance to the giants causeway specifically, but it is undoubtedly a legitimately held belief. Although given that Nelson doesn't believe that the YCV's knew it was a Chapel or that the Words of Sloop John B have been modified to be more than a pop song it somewhat undermines the credibility some believers. Oh and by the way the stones are not worth the admission price £0.00, so if you are up there you will undoubtedly be so disappointed you will use the visitors centre.
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
My argument is not based on an "if", since there is undoubtedly a "Creationist" Lobby in NI which composes a much higher proportion of the population in NI than it does in GB.
The 'if' is based on the idea of the Giant's Causeway being somewhere else in the UK other than NI. I suppose if they can move Abu Simbel due to the construction of the Aswan Dam...
Not so [
bold].
My argument depends not on the Causeway being in NI, but on a
strong Creationist Lobby existing in NI (esp in Co. Antrim).
Now you may argue that that Lobby is not sufficiently influential to impose its views on the NT, but you cannot argue that it doesn't exist.
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 11:24:21 AM
Re the National Lottery, it has donated millions eg to various Museums the length and breadth of the UK, without those recipients feeling obliged to include Creationist or any other religious dogma in their exhibits. Therefore it is fair to ask why this one should be different.
Asked and answered. The National Trust has already explained why it has included the creationist guff in the exhibition.
Re the NT, I don't accept their explanation, since I would not expect them to give what I believe to be the correct answer.
Namely that without public money, the NT wouldn't have been able to build their shiny new Visitor Centre. And since the Political Wing of the Creationist Nutjob Army (i.e. the DUP) had/has such influence on the disbursement of the public money in question, the NT felt compelled to cave in to them.
And in any case, you concentrate solely on Lottery Funding.
Why do you not address my point about the (many more) millions of
Taxpayers' money going to this project, thereby giving Taxpayers, and not just NT Members, a right to a say on this matter?
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 12:54:05 PM
My argument depends not on the Causeway being in NI, but on a strong Creationist Lobby existing in NI (esp in Co. Antrim).
Now you may argue that that Lobby is not sufficiently influential to impose its views on the NT, but you cannot argue that it doesn't exist.
Where have I said or implied the lobby doesn't exist? I think it exists and I think the Trust have been influenced by it. Given the history of NI, I can't say I blame them for following the path of least resistance.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 12:54:05 PM
Re the NT, I don't accept their explanation, since I would not expect them to give what I believe to be the correct answer.
Namely that without public money, the NT wouldn't have been able to build their shiny new Visitor Centre. And since the Political Wing of the Creationist Nutjob Army (i.e. the DUP) had/has such influence on the disbursement of the public money in question, the NT felt compelled to cave in to them.
And in any case, you concentrate solely on Lottery Funding.
Why do you not address my point about the (many more) millions of Taxpayers' money going to this project, thereby giving Taxpayers, and not just NT Members, a right to a say on this matter?
If you have evidence that the NT received money under false pretences, i.e. that there is a law which forbids the presentation of creationist ideas in a scientific setting, then I'm sure you would have produced it at this stage. Instead you seem to be suggesting that the Trust should have a policy of not taking money from the taxpayer/Lottery if there is a creationist element to the presentation. And that is why if you think the Trust should have that policy, you should join the Trust. If you think a law should be introduced to forbid the presentation of creationist ideas in a scientific setting, lobby your MP/MLA.
Quote from: Applesisapples on July 17, 2012, 12:29:00 PMI believe in God, can I prove he exists...No. I don't believe in creationism can I prove that it is not fact...No. It requires faith to believe in creationism. I'm not sure of the relevance to the giants causeway specifically, but it is undoubtedly a legitimately held belief.
Just because it is legitimate to hold the belief does not make the belief itself legitimate.
Therefore it would be wrong of the NT eg to refuse admission to Creationists solely on the basis that they hold such a belief.
And since Creationists are being admitted on exactly the same terms as everyone else, then there is nothing to stop them viewing the Causeway and concluding that it is further evidence of God's Work etc.
But what I do object to is this particular group of Believers being given special prominence above all other groups. For it might be acceptable if
every Creationist story were given
equal prominence, but seeing as there are literally thousands of such stories, deriving from every Culture in every part of the Earth, that's not a practical proposition, is it?
Moreover, I don't insist that my "Right to Reply" be inserted in their religious services every Sunday, even though I'm a Taxpayer and Churches receive privileged tax treatment, including direct funding etc.
Quote from: Applesisapples on July 17, 2012, 12:29:00 PMOh and by the way the stones are not worth the admission price £0.00, so if you are up there you will undoubtedly be so disappointed you will use the visitors centre.
The last time I was up there, I was with some English friends. I suspect that (like me) they found the Causeway itself a bit underwhelming, but were too polite to say.
However, the Causeway was only part of a 10 mile(?) coastal walk which we were completing, past Dunluce, Whitepark Bay and Portbraddan etc and all agreed that (at least when the weather is clear!) it must be one of the finest coastal walks anywhere in the world.
Outstanding.
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 01:06:53 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 12:54:05 PM
My argument depends not on the Causeway being in NI, but on a strong Creationist Lobby existing in NI (esp in Co. Antrim).
Now you may argue that that Lobby is not sufficiently influential to impose its views on the NT, but you cannot argue that it doesn't exist.
Where have I said or implied the lobby doesn't exist? I think it exists and I think the Trust have been influenced by it. Given the history of NI, I can't say I blame them for following the path of least resistance.
Then you've come a Hell of a long way from your post #63, wherein you extolled the NT's independence from political influence:
"The National Trust is a charity completely independent of Government funding [and relies] on the support of the public, through membership and donations."Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 01:06:53 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 12:54:05 PM
Re the NT, I don't accept their explanation, since I would not expect them to give what I believe to be the correct answer.
Namely that without public money, the NT wouldn't have been able to build their shiny new Visitor Centre. And since the Political Wing of the Creationist Nutjob Army (i.e. the DUP) had/has such influence on the disbursement of the public money in question, the NT felt compelled to cave in to them.
And in any case, you concentrate solely on Lottery Funding.
Why do you not address my point about the (many more) millions of Taxpayers' money going to this project, thereby giving Taxpayers, and not just NT Members, a right to a say on this matter?
If you have evidence that the NT received money under false pretences, i.e. that there is a law which forbids the presentation of creationist ideas in a scientific setting, then I'm sure you would have produced it at this stage.
I do not claim that the NT received money from the Lottery or Tourist Board "under false pretences".
I have no doubt that they were neither required to give, nor gave, any assurance in their funding applications that they would not include Creationist literature at the Visitor Centre etc (at least not specifically).
Therefore I am not claiming any law was broken, rather I am arguing a question of principle.
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 01:06:53 PMInstead you seem to be suggesting that the Trust should have a policy of not taking money from the taxpayer/Lottery if there is a creationist element to the presentation.
Not what I am suggesting at all.
I am merely pointing out that seeing as that in norder to build this Centre, the NT received huge amounts of money from taxpayers who follow all religious faiths and none, then it is entirely invidious of the Trust to promulgate the views of just
one of those faiths.
And this offence is compounded by the fact that their choice evidently was influenced by a narrow politico-religious lobby, representing only a minority of the public in NI (never mind the UK), yet the NT claims to be independent of political influence.
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 01:06:53 PMAnd that is why if you think the Trust should have that policy, you should join the Trust. If you think a law should be introduced to forbid the presentation of creationist ideas in a scientific setting, lobby your MP/MLA.
Why should only joining the NT entitle one to a voice?
The NT receives its funding not just from Membership Fees, but also from Donations, Entry Fees, the Lottery and the Taxpayer.
As someone who meets at least two of those categories, I feel that gives me the right to express an opinion and that they should take it into account.
Of course, that does not mean they must accede to that opinion, but they should at least be honest about what they are doing when they do not. I do not believe them to have been so here, and that is shameful (imo).
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 02:01:15 PM
Then you've come a Hell of a long way from your post #63, wherein you extolled the NT's independence from political influence:
"The National Trust is a charity completely independent of Government funding [and relies] on the support of the public, through membership and donations."
So if you receive Government funding of any description you are no longer independent of the Government. Does that mean civil servants, public servants, those on the dole or those in receipt of mortgage interest relief are no longer independent of Government?
As for the rest it's all your opinion, you are entitled to that and to express it. If you want to change things though, you have to
do something. So what will you do?
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 02:11:13 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 02:01:15 PM
Then you've come a Hell of a long way from your post #63, wherein you extolled the NT's independence from political influence:
"The National Trust is a charity completely independent of Government funding [and relies] on the support of the public, through membership and donations."
So if you receive Government funding of any description you are no longer independent of the Government.
Well, yes.
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 02:11:13 PMDoes that mean civil servants, public servants, those on the dole or those in receipt of mortgage interest relief are no longer independent of Government?
To a certain extent, yes.
For example, someone who works as a Teacher, Nurse, Police Officer or Fireman etc, might be tempted eg to vote Labour over Conservative in an election, on the basis that the former will be more likely to preserve their jobs from cuts etc.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, only when that person (or other entity) claims to be totally "independent" of Government when casting his/her vote.
In this case, the NT proudly claims to be independent of Government, whilst at the same time also receiving huge amounts of Government funding. In some circumstances at least, this can create a conflict of interest and whilst I freely accept that not every such conflict must inevitably be acceded to, I am convinced that the Visitor Centre is one example where the NT has caved in.
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 02:11:13 PMAs for the rest it's all your opinion, you are entitled to that and to express it. If you want to change things though, you have to do something. So what will you do?
I already have. ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 02:40:20 PM
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, only when that person (or other entity) claims to be totally "independent" of Government when casting his/her vote.
Eh? So the mere act of voting to influence Government policy, which is the whole point of voting, means you are no longer independent of Government? :o
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 01:23:33 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on July 17, 2012, 12:29:00 PMI believe in God, can I prove he exists...No. I don't believe in creationism can I prove that it is not fact...No. It requires faith to believe in creationism. I'm not sure of the relevance to the giants causeway specifically, but it is undoubtedly a legitimately held belief.
Just because it is legitimate to hold the belief does not make the belief itself legitimate.
Therefore it would be wrong of the NT eg to refuse admission to Creationists solely on the basis that they hold such a belief.
And since Creationists are being admitted on exactly the same terms as everyone else, then there is nothing to stop them viewing the Causeway and concluding that it is further evidence of God's Work etc.
But what I do object to is this particular group of Believers being given special prominence above all other groups. For it might be acceptable if every Creationist story were given equal prominence, but seeing as there are literally thousands of such stories, deriving from every Culture in every part of the Earth, that's not a practical proposition, is it?
Moreover, I don't insist that my "Right to Reply" be inserted in their religious services every Sunday, even though I'm a Taxpayer and Churches receive privileged tax treatment, including direct funding etc.
Quote from: Applesisapples on July 17, 2012, 12:29:00 PMOh and by the way the stones are not worth the admission price £0.00, so if you are up there you will undoubtedly be so disappointed you will use the visitors centre.
The last time I was up there, I was with some English friends. I suspect that (like me) they found the Causeway itself a bit underwhelming, but were too polite to say.
However, the Causeway was only part of a 10 mile(?) coastal walk which we were completing, past Dunluce, Whitepark Bay and Portbraddan etc and all agreed that (at least when the weather is clear!) it must be one of the finest coastal walks anywhere in the world.
Outstanding.
I'd agree that whole coastline is well worth the walk/drive, and the stones are a disappointment. I would actually agree with you that Creationism is not a legitimate belief and in fact its inclusion does make the whole thing a laughing stock to a point. But I think you nailed it when you pointed out that many in the DUP would have been lobbying for it's inclusion and Arelene had to go with the flow.
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 02:50:23 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 02:40:20 PM
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, only when that person (or other entity) claims to be totally "independent" of Government when casting his/her vote.
Eh? So the mere act of voting to influence Government policy, which is the whole point of voting, means you are no longer independent of Government? :o
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Not even close, in fact.
Are you having a particularly bad day today?
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 02:50:23 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 02:40:20 PM
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, only when that person (or other entity) claims to be totally "independent" of Government when casting his/her vote.
Eh? So the mere act of voting to influence Government policy, which is the whole point of voting, means you are no longer independent of Government? :o
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Not even close, in fact.
Are you having a particularly bad day today?
I stand over my interpretation of what you said. If you want to be Jesuitical in your responses, expect people to call you out
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 04:19:44 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 02:50:23 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 02:40:20 PM
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, only when that person (or other entity) claims to be totally "independent" of Government when casting his/her vote.
Eh? So the mere act of voting to influence Government policy, which is the whole point of voting, means you are no longer independent of Government? :o
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Not even close, in fact.
Are you having a particularly bad day today?
I stand over my interpretation of what you said. If you want to be Jesuitical in your responses, expect people to call you out
Wha?
It's quite simple. When the Government gives you money, you risk being beholden to them.
But when you give the Government your vote, they are beholden to you.
In this case, the NT claims to be independent of Government, proclaiming that its revenues come from Membership and donations.
Whereas it clearly also receives revenue from the Government, and a considerable amount at that.
Now even that might not serve to give the Government undue influence, so long as the NT stands up for itself.
But in this case, by including this Creationist guff at the Causeway, they are acting entirely out of character from their practice elsewhere in the UK. (We can assume that this is not customary elsewhere, otherwise they'd have highlighted it in their Press Releases etc).
Now when you consider that all the key Government figures involved in the approval of this funding are drawn from the same small DUP/Evangelical clique, who push "Creationism" at every opportunity, then it is hardly a giant leap (sorry) to conclude that they were "leaned on".
Which is, considering that my taxes (and yours) have gone towards paying for this, a pretty shameful state of affairs for a body like the NT (imo).
Of course, you might think this is pretty unimportant in the scheme of things, but what next from the DUP if people don't stand up to them?
Closing Leisure Centres on Sundays? Making sure to get enough of "their own" into the Girdwood Estate? Defending provocative displays by Loyalist bandsmen outside Catholic Churches? Or even getting into bed with (former) Terrorist Bigots who openly discriminate against job applicants on a nakedly sectarian basis?
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2012, 05:26:24 PM
Wha?
It's quite simple. When the Government gives you money, you risk being beholden to them.
But when you give the Government your vote, they are beholden to you.
So civil servants etc are 'beholden' to the Government. Which was your point, then kinda your point, then definitely not your point, and now back to your point.
Quote from: Gazzler on July 13, 2012, 09:33:18 PM
(http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u411/gazzler1/893715-stfu__no_one_gives_a_fuck_super.jpg)
You were saying...?
Quote from: Main Street on July 17, 2012, 11:16:57 AM
The reason I am against vaccination is based on a sound established science.
No it isn't. If you knew anything about what sound established science had to say on the matter you'd be taking your responsibilities as a parent more seriously.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 17, 2012, 06:44:52 PM
Quote from: Gazzler on July 13, 2012, 09:33:18 PM
(http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u411/gazzler1/893715-stfu__no_one_gives_a_fuck_super.jpg)
You were saying...?
About 90% of the posts have nothing to do with the opening post ffs ;D
Quote from: Gazzler on July 17, 2012, 06:52:01 PM
About 90% of the posts have nothing to do with the opening post ffs ;D
Nice try. ;D
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 17, 2012, 06:54:56 PM
Quote from: Gazzler on July 17, 2012, 06:52:01 PM
About 90% of the posts have nothing to do with the opening post ffs ;D
Nice try. ;D
I dont play Rugby.
Quote from: deiseach on July 17, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
The National Trust has already explained why it has included the creationist guff in the exhibition.
The NS did use an unfortunate word in their explanation that "the NS fully supports the scientific explanation for the creation of the stones 60 million years ago".
I think there's been an overreaction. Some criticism is definitely considered, other criticism is offered with the vigour of intolerant anti-religious fascists.
Though I haven't a clue where the Giant's Causeway comes into the creationist belief system.
With other NT sites like Stonehenge, I see they do accommodate pagan and druid based beliefs on the reasons why it was built, as well as the old Newgrange standby absurdity, burial place chamber/ human sacrifice.
Quote from: Main Street on July 17, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
intolerant anti-religious fascists.
And you're an anti-anti-religious fascist.
See how easy it is to pick a word like 'fascist' and just throw it around willy nilly?
Anyway, why should we be "tolerant" of ignorant cretins who want to pollute educational exhibits and institutions with their nonsense? Because cloaking superstitious garbage in the veil of "religion" gives it a free pass? Get out of my sight! A policy of zero tolerance is long overdue for this stuff.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 17, 2012, 10:50:53 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 17, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
intolerant anti-religious fascists.
And you're an anti-anti-religious fascist.
See how easy it is to pick a word like 'fascist' and just throw it around willy nilly?
Anyway, why should we be "tolerant" of ignorant cretins who want to pollute educational exhibits and institutions with their nonsense? Because cloaking superstitious garbage in the veil of "religion" gives it a free pass? Get out of my sight! A policy of zero tolerance is long overdue for this stuff.
Shut up you Nazi!!! ;)
Commie! :P
Quote from: Main Street on July 17, 2012, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: J70 on July 16, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
Quote from: J70 on July 15, 2012, 04:50:32 PM
Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.
That's poppycock, which flies in the face of Darwinian science and the historical evolution of humankind and disease.
Where on earth does science accept luck? Science demands a bit more rigour than that.
The factors that mount up an individual's susceptibility are varied - hereditary, nutrition, environment, hygiene, exposure
and a person's adaptability to that threat depends also on those factors.
Genetic diversity is one of the cornerstones of natural selection, so assuming that you are as educated about evolution as you claim, you must have misunderstood me.
Obviously the environment and its effect on the phenotype in terms of survival and reproduction are the other pillars.
My point was that even IF measles-caused morbidity and mortality has been on the decline long term due to adaptation by humans, that this is a population or species-level effect. Individuals can and still does die from diseases such as measles, so acquired immunity in the form of a vaccine is a very valuable tool to combat this.
The population species effect as you call it arises from individuals gaining natural immunity. This does not happen with artificial immunity.
The endless cycle artificial immunity is never ending, Unless of course the allopathic theory is correct that a disease threat will just fade away. So far after 45 years of vaccination there is no sign of that happening. History shows that diseases fade away and are replace by a lesser threatening disease. This is how the human species has adapted to their environment. When cholera broke out in London mid 19C, human beings adapted by cleaning up the sewage and water supply.
Not sure I really get your point here. Are you advocating just allowing the human-disease evolutionary "arms race" to naturally run it course or reach some kind of equilibrium, just treating the symptoms and hoping for the best for individuals? Was the vaccination and quarantine programme that led to the eradication of smallpox wrong in your view? I don't get your dismissal of the value of acquired immunity. Are you for prolonging life and fighting disease through medical interventions such as surgery and nuclear therapies?
You mention the relatively simple process of reducing water-borne diseases such as cholera through water treatment. Fair enough, but infection prevention is rarely that simple.
Quote from: Main Street on July 17, 2012, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: J70 on July 16, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
My point is that vaccination might offer a temporary immunity but it can't be passed on to ones' offspring whereas an acquired natural immunity is passed on the next generation.
Ok, but so what?
Then in the case of a parent/parents who already have done measles there is little or no scientific reason to support imposing artificial vaccination on their children.
Imposing a crude poison into babies to stimulate an immune response inside the body to keep it on full time alert against a possible threat has its drawbacks.
The reason I am against vaccination is based on a sound established science.
Ok. So what do you know that the WHO, UNICEF and CDC apparently don't know or just dismiss? They estimate that more than a million deaths from measles were prevented by their vaccination programs from 1999-2004, much of this in sub-Saharan Africa.
Quote from: Main Street on July 17, 2012, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: J70 on July 16, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
Passed on in the first crucial years of growth, before birth and post birth. The germane issues are the reasons why some people don't adapt. Statistics prove that the incidents of and problems arising from a mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced, yet the consensus of allopathic 'science' is that it was the introduction of vaccines that radically affected the statistics.
Is this just measles, or does it apply to all diseases?
All disease that are vaccinated against?
I don't know about all but certainly with Measles and TB.
TB like Measles, was already well on the wane before vaccinations were introduced.
So are you saying that sanitation and treatment is the answer? That morbidity and mortality from these diseases would have reached present-day levels without vaccinations?
How do you know?
Quote from: Main Street on July 17, 2012, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: J70 on July 16, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
Do you think people should just take a chance on their kid getting measles? Hope that they won't be the unlucky ones who become seriously ill or even die?
That's a personal choice. I don't value hysteria or poor science very high. I have had this discussion many times with medics and they accepted that if my kids got sick I would know what to do. In my home town we had a good elderly wise MD, there were regular measles/mumps outbreaks, he did his job, did the rounds, kids were kept at home and parents followed his advice. Not all environments are like that, not all MDs are like that, not all people are that trustful, not all people shared that belief system. Measles was not regarded as a big thing, a big threat to life and liberty. It was regarded as doable and possibly/probably with beneficial effects to the kid's immune system afterwards.
This belief is backed up by a science.
Any references?
Was disappointed when I went to the GC.............. very small and looked way bigger in the Geography books in school. There was a cliffside castle in ruins close by which imo was way more impressive.
When I was at the Alhambra, I overheard this snatch of a comment from a passing middle-aged American woman to her male companion: "this is better than that other crap". I was pleased that she was impressed, because the Alhambra truly is magnificent, but to this day I've wondered what was the other crap she was comparing it to. Maybe they'd just come from the Giant's Causeway.
Does the Scottish Tourist board try as hard to market Fingals cave or is the NITB alone in thinking that a lock of hexagonal rocks alone are worth coming to see?
Quote from: LeoMc on July 18, 2012, 12:45:31 PM
Does the Scottish Tourist board try as hard to market Fingals cave or is the NITB alone in thinking that a lock of hexagonal rocks alone are worth coming to see?
I'm sure if Fingal's Cave was ninety minutes drive from Edinburgh with parking and easy access by foot then the Scottish Tourist Board (or whatever it's called) would make a bigger deal of it. There's not much at the Giant's Causeway, but what is there is wondrous
Quote from: deiseach on July 18, 2012, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on July 18, 2012, 12:45:31 PM
Does the Scottish Tourist board try as hard to market Fingals cave or is the NITB alone in thinking that a lock of hexagonal rocks alone are worth coming to see?
I'm sure if Fingal's Cave was ninety minutes drive from Edinburgh with parking and easy access by foot then the Scottish Tourist Board (or whatever it's called) would make a bigger deal of it. There's not much at the Giant's Causeway, but what is there is wondrous
Hmmmm... that's an ever-so-slight exaggeration. It's not particularly beautiful or interesting to look at and neither is it a jaw-droppingly interesting phenomenon. IMO of course. ;) I can't undertstand the attraction at all. I've been once and I'll never be back.
Quote from: Franko on July 18, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
Hmmmm... that's an ever-so-slight exaggeration. It's not particularly beautiful or interesting to look at and neither is it a jaw-droppingly interesting phenomenon. IMO of course. ;) I can't undertstand the attraction at all. I've been once and I'll never be back.
As you say, IYO. No matter how many times my wife sees photos of it she expresses bewilderment at how it can be real. When I'm in that part of the world again - and it's when, not if, the north Antrim coast is worth visiting on its own - I'll be going to the Giant's Causeway. I wonder what people expect of it. Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...?
Quote from: Main Street on July 17, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
With other NT sites like Stonehenge, I see they do accommodate pagan and druid based beliefs on the reasons why it was built, as well as the old Newgrange standby absurdity, burial place chamber/ human sacrifice.
You can hardly compare the the Causeway with the treatment of attractions that are man-made!
Quote from: J70 on July 18, 2012, 01:47:32 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 17, 2012, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: J70 on July 16, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2012, 09:50:08 AM
Quote from: J70 on July 15, 2012, 04:50:32 PM
Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.
That's poppycock, which flies in the face of Darwinian science and the historical evolution of humankind and disease.
Where on earth does science accept luck? Science demands a bit more rigour than that.
The factors that mount up an individual's susceptibility are varied - hereditary, nutrition, environment, hygiene, exposure
and a person's adaptability to that threat depends also on those factors.
Genetic diversity is one of the cornerstones of natural selection, so assuming that you are as educated about evolution as you claim, you must have misunderstood me.
Obviously the environment and its effect on the phenotype in terms of survival and reproduction are the other pillars.
My point was that even IF measles-caused morbidity and mortality has been on the decline long term due to adaptation by humans, that this is a population or species-level effect. Individuals can and still does die from diseases such as measles, so acquired immunity in the form of a vaccine is a very valuable tool to combat this.
The population species effect as you call it arises from individuals gaining natural immunity. This does not happen with artificial immunity.
The endless cycle artificial immunity is never ending, Unless of course the allopathic theory is correct that a disease threat will just fade away. So far after 45 years of vaccination there is no sign of that happening. History shows that diseases fade away and are replace by a lesser threatening disease. This is how the human species has adapted to their environment. When cholera broke out in London mid 19C, human beings adapted by cleaning up the sewage and water supply.
Not sure I really get your point here. Are you advocating just allowing the human-disease evolutionary "arms race" to naturally run it course or reach some kind of equilibrium, just treating the symptoms and hoping for the best for individuals? Was the vaccination and quarantine programme that led to the eradication of smallpox wrong in your view? I don't get your dismissal of the value of acquired immunity. Are you for prolonging life and fighting disease through medical interventions such as surgery and nuclear therapies?
You mention the relatively simple process of reducing water-borne diseases such as cholera through water treatment. Fair enough, but infection prevention is rarely that simple.
Part 1.
I have given you a scientifically sound basis my choosing not to partake in the method of artificial immunity. That's my considered choice. I say this because you (perhaps in blind ignorance) gave grave insult to the quackery of such a choice :) You can chose to deny the science or accept there is a science and then discuss whether Darwenian science of natural selection is appropriate for society. Or perhaps outdated ? superceded by artificial immunisation? Is it appropriate in some parts of the world? I'd say when it comes to measles in the UK and Ireland, according to the recorded statistics of its rapid decline, there was a solid enough case for allowing natural acquired immunity to take further root and the costs of perpetual artificial immunity are too high.
Part 2 on Cholera
True, each disease is different. However water borne related diseases are amongst the most lethal in the impoverished areas of the world and you might wonder about the obstacles to establishing this basic human fundamental right, considering the massive beneficial effects.
QuoteOk. So what do you know that the WHO, UNICEF and CDC apparently don't know or just dismiss? They estimate that more than a million deaths from measles were prevented by their vaccination programs from 1999-2004, much of this in sub-Saharan Africa.
I wasn't referring to impoverished areas in Africa. Where on earth do you get this 'one size fits all' dogma from? ;D
As you are probably aware, it is poverty and malnutrition which underly the health complexities in SSA. Poverty is inextricably linked also to large families. The cesspits of poverty are in the urban slums, due to migration - escape from economic slumps, drought, wars, famines etc.
Making a claim for one specific intervention in SSA is an acknowledged impossibility.
There are 2 interesting studies which are actually pro-vacccination as being part of an integrated program.
The first http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2208&page=R1 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2208&page=R1) deals with the period 1970-85 and studies the effects of all interventions and in general is favourable to an integrated approach.
The 2nd http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/218/ (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/218/) is more recent and states that under 5 mortality rates varied from 185 (per 1,000 live births) in 1990 to 172 in 2003. This slow progress is not anything to write home about, both poverty and malnutrition are the nr 1 issue.
The rate of reduction in child mortality rates from 1960 -1975 in SSA was much more substantial.
The dominant health issue now in SSA are the living conditions in the urban slums.
QuoteSo are you saying that sanitation and treatment is the answer? That morbidity and mortality from these diseases would have reached present-day levels without vaccinations?
How do you know?
How do I know the answer to something I have not claimed?
I am not saying that sanitation and treatment was responsible for the rapid pre-vaccination decline in death and notifications of Measles and TB.
These are merely the full factual statistics of these numbers. And I don't see any observable reason why the decline would have slackened should artificial immunity not intervened.
QuoteAny references?
I have already given reference to nobel prize winner Gerald Edelman's research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman) based on Darwin's natural selection, where he outlines how the immune system, through a natural process of adaption, maps out and retains a memory of how to deal with a disease it has encountered, how this information is passed on from the mother to the child and where the inherited immunity rises to a peak when the child is 4 years old.
Artificial immunity does make this claim, admits that the body does not retain any memory of such immunity and admits that no immunity is passed on to the next generation.
Result!
QuoteGiant's Causeway visitor centre interpretation statement
Posted on July 18, 2012 by ntsteve
The National Trust has welcomed over 25,000 visitors through the new Giant's Causeway visitor centre since we opened its doors at the beginning of July.
We have been delighted with the positive feedback we have seen and heard from our visitors.
However, one small part of the visitor centre's interpretive display has caused mixed reactions, mainly from people reacting to media coverage and online discussions.
The display in question focuses on the role that the Giant's Causeway has played in the historical debate about how the earth's rocks were formed.
Our intention in this section was to provide visitors with a flavour of the wide range of opinions and views that have been put forward over the years.
Our intention was not to promote or legitimise any of these opinions or views.
Unfortunately, elements from this part of the display appear to have been taken out of context and misinterpreted by some.
A spokesman said: "Having listened to our members' comments and concerns, we feel that clarity is needed.
"There is clearly no scientific debate about the age of the earth or how the Causeway stones were formed.
"The National Trust does not endorse or promote any other view.
"Our exhibits, literature and audio guides for visits to the Causeway stones and this renowned World Heritage Site all reflect this.
"To ensure that no further misunderstanding or misrepresentation of this exhibit can occur, we have decided to review the interpretive materials in this section."
Our focus at the Giant's Causeway is to ensure that the 700,000 or so visitors we expect to welcome in the coming year will have a thoroughly enjoyable, informative and rewarding visit. During this summer we have extended opening times from 9a.m. to 9p.m. See www.nationaltrust.org.uk/giants-causeway/ for details of opening times, pre booking arrangements and specials deals for those who arrive by green transport.
Well done Eamonn!
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. *takes bow*
Quote from: deiseach on July 18, 2012, 03:06:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on July 18, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
Hmmmm... that's an ever-so-slight exaggeration. It's not particularly beautiful or interesting to look at and neither is it a jaw-droppingly interesting phenomenon. IMO of course. ;) I can't undertstand the attraction at all. I've been once and I'll never be back.
As you say, IYO. No matter how many times my wife sees photos of it she expresses bewilderment at how it can be real. When I'm in that part of the world again - and it's when, not if, the north Antrim coast is worth visiting on its own - I'll be going to the Giant's Causeway. I wonder what people expect of it. Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...?
I haven't done it for over twenty years but it's unarguably the most scenic drive I've ever done. Btw re The Giant's Causeway, I've seen it once and if I never saw it again it wouldn't bother me.
Quote from: deiseach on July 18, 2012, 03:06:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on July 18, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
Hmmmm... that's an ever-so-slight exaggeration. It's not particularly beautiful or interesting to look at and neither is it a jaw-droppingly interesting phenomenon. IMO of course. ;) I can't undertstand the attraction at all. I've been once and I'll never be back.
As you say, IYO. No matter how many times my wife sees photos of it she expresses bewilderment at how it can be real. When I'm in that part of the world again - and it's when, not if, the north Antrim coast is worth visiting on its own - I'll be going to the Giant's Causeway. I wonder what people expect of it. Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...?
I had no such delusions. I expected a few inanimate hexagonal basalt columns neatly arranged set against a scenic background. I was waiting for the 'WOW Factor' but it never came. Hence, I left, suitably unimpressed and never to return. What exactly do you find so attractive about it?
See below (taken directly from Wiki of course). I haven't even heard of most of these 'wondrous' places.
Basalt columns are a common volcanic feature, and they occur on many scales (because faster cooling produces smaller columns). Similar sites include: the flood basalts of the Columbia Plateau of eastern Washington state, the Prismas basálticos da costa sul de Santa María in Santa María, the Azores, the Prismas Basálticos in Hidalgo, Mexico, the Los Tercios waterfall in Suchitoto, El Salvador, Fingal's Cave and the 'Kilt Rock' on Skye in Scotland, east coast of Suðuroy, the Faroes, Svartifoss in Iceland, Jusangjeolli in South Korea, the Garni gorge in Armenia, the Cyclopean Isles near Sicily, Devils Postpile National Monument in California, Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming, the Organ Pipes National Park just outside of Melbourne, Australia, the "Organ Pipes" formation on Mount Cargill in New Zealand, the "Rocha dos Bordões" formation in Flores, the Azores, near Twyfelfontein in Namibia, Gành Đá Đĩa in Vietnam,[23] Cape Stolbchatiy in Russia, Coloanele de bazalt in Racoş, Romania, Fingal Head in New South Wales, Australia, the Hong Kong National Geopark in High Island Reservoir in Hong Kong, and on St. Mary's Islands on the west coast of India and in Riyom, Nigeria.
In all honesty, I see the place as having more educational value than tourist attracting value. Not all science has to have some sort of Hollywood style 'wow' factor.
Quote from: Franko on July 18, 2012, 08:15:46 PM
I had no such delusions. I expected a few inanimate hexagonal basalt columns neatly arranged set against a scenic background. I was waiting for the 'WOW Factor' but it never came. Hence, I left, suitably unimpressed and never to return. What exactly do you find so attractive about it?
Steven Spielberg built an entire film around the wonder of basalt extrusions (see Devil's Tower in your list). What did I find so attractive? I find it hard to credit that nature can make something so vast and regular. Molten rock cooling in perfectly hexagonal shapes? Yeah, I got the wow factor.
Quote from: deiseach on July 19, 2012, 09:12:37 AM
Quote from: Franko on July 18, 2012, 08:15:46 PM
I had no such delusions. I expected a few inanimate hexagonal basalt columns neatly arranged set against a scenic background. I was waiting for the 'WOW Factor' but it never came. Hence, I left, suitably unimpressed and never to return. What exactly do you find so attractive about it?
Steven Spielberg built an entire film around the wonder of basalt extrusions (see Devil's Tower in your list). What did I find so attractive? I find it hard to credit that nature can make something so vast and regular. Molten rock cooling in perfectly hexagonal shapes? Yeah, I got the wow factor.
Fair enough, you were amazed, I wasn't.
However, your first assertion is bollocks. It was used as a location in the film. The film itself had the sum total of f**k all to do with volcanic basalt columns.
Quote from: Franko on July 19, 2012, 12:11:57 PM
However, your first assertion is bollocks. It was used as a location in the film. The film itself had the sum total of f**k all to do with volcanic basalt columns.
Fine, we'll leave it at that.
On the "definitely to do" list when I'm home with mini-me next week. He's been asking about it. We'll also be taking in the Titanic area of Belfast. :)
Quote from: Main Street on July 18, 2012, 06:07:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on July 18, 2012, 01:47:32 AM
Not sure I really get your point here. Are you advocating just allowing the human-disease evolutionary "arms race" to naturally run it course or reach some kind of equilibrium, just treating the symptoms and hoping for the best for individuals? Was the vaccination and quarantine programme that led to the eradication of smallpox wrong in your view? I don't get your dismissal of the value of acquired immunity. Are you for prolonging life and fighting disease through medical interventions such as surgery and nuclear therapies?
You mention the relatively simple process of reducing water-borne diseases such as cholera through water treatment. Fair enough, but infection prevention is rarely that simple.
Part 1.
I have given you a scientifically sound basis my choosing not to partake in the method of artificial immunity. That's my considered choice. I say this because you (perhaps in blind ignorance) gave grave insult to the quackery of such a choice :) You can chose to deny the science or accept there is a science and then discuss whether Darwenian science of natural selection is appropriate for society. Or perhaps outdated ? superceded by artificial immunisation? Is it appropriate in some parts of the world? I'd say when it comes to measles in the UK and Ireland, according to the recorded statistics of its rapid decline, there was a solid enough case for allowing natural acquired immunity to take further root and the costs of perpetual artificial immunity are too high.
Part 2 on Cholera
True, each disease is different. However water borne related diseases are amongst the most lethal in the impoverished areas of the world and you might wonder about the obstacles to establishing this basic human fundamental right, considering the massive beneficial effects.
Oh, I stand by calling the followers of Wakefield and those who deny the effectiveness of vaccines quacks.
But I am glad to see you're not totally anti-vaccine and acknowledge their effectiveness and (presumably?) endorse their use in some parts of the world.
Quote from: Main Street on July 18, 2012, 06:07:17 PM
QuoteOk. So what do you know that the WHO, UNICEF and CDC apparently don't know or just dismiss? They estimate that more than a million deaths from measles were prevented by their vaccination programs from 1999-2004, much of this in sub-Saharan Africa.
I wasn't referring to impoverished areas in Africa. Where on earth do you get this 'one size fits all' dogma from? ;D
As you are probably aware, it is poverty and malnutrition which underly the health complexities in SSA. Poverty is inextricably linked also to large families. The cesspits of poverty are in the urban slums, due to migration - escape from economic slumps, drought, wars, famines etc.
Making a claim for one specific intervention in SSA is an acknowledged impossibility.
There are 2 interesting studies which are actually pro-vacccination as being part of an integrated program.
The first http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2208&page=R1 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2208&page=R1) deals with the period 1970-85 and studies the effects of all interventions and in general is favourable to an integrated approach.
The 2nd http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/218/ (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/218/) is more recent and states that under 5 mortality rates varied from 185 (per 1,000 live births) in 1990 to 172 in 2003. This slow progress is not anything to write home about, both poverty and malnutrition are the nr 1 issue.
The rate of reduction in child mortality rates from 1960 -1975 in SSA was much more substantial.
The dominant health issue now in SSA are the living conditions in the urban slums.
I have absolutely no problem with an integrated approach. How could I?
But unless I missed it, at no point until now did you state that your opposition was British Isles-confined and not applicable to the third world.
Quote from: Main Street on July 18, 2012, 06:07:17 PM
QuoteSo are you saying that sanitation and treatment is the answer? That morbidity and mortality from these diseases would have reached present-day levels without vaccinations?
How do you know?
How do I know the answer to something I have not claimed?
I am not saying that sanitation and treatment was responsible for the rapid pre-vaccination decline in death and notifications of Measles and TB.
These are merely the full factual statistics of these numbers. And I don't see any observable reason why the decline would have slackened should artificial immunity not intervened.
OK, I've obviously misinterpreted you. But assuming the natural decline in pathogenicity had been allowed to continue, at what point would the fatality rate have reached an acceptable level to negate the need for vaccinations? And again, how do you know the equilibrium point would have been low enough to have an acceptable background rate of serious illness? Is there research out there on this?
Quote from: Main Street on July 18, 2012, 06:07:17 PM
QuoteAny references?
I have already given reference to nobel prize winner Gerald Edelman's research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman) based on Darwin's natural selection, where he outlines how the immune system, through a natural process of adaption, maps out and retains a memory of how to deal with a disease it has encountered, how this information is passed on from the mother to the child and where the inherited immunity rises to a peak when the child is 4 years old.
Artificial immunity does make this claim, admits that the body does not retain any memory of such immunity and admits that no immunity is passed on to the next generation.
I'll have to take your word for this for now. But thanks for the reference.
Quote from: Maguire01 on July 18, 2012, 05:56:50 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 17, 2012, 10:37:59 PM
With other NT sites like Stonehenge, I see they do accommodate pagan and druid based beliefs on the reasons why it was built, as well as the old Newgrange standby absurdity, burial place chamber/ human sacrifice.
You can hardly compare the the Causeway with the treatment of attractions that are man-made!
You should have quoted my reply in total and considered the context.
My preceeding sentence was
"Though I haven't a clue where the Giant's Causeway in particular comes into the creationist belief system".And quite honestly, I don't know where the Giant's Causeway in particular, comes into the creationist belief system. It's relatively straightforward to see where/how some of the more bizarre theories are incorporated without prejudice by the National Trust into the Stonehenge 'experience' and into the Newgrange 'experience'.
Nonetheless, they do not arbitrate between science and myth, even when the myth is patently ridiculous, in the sense that there is some tolerance to such bizarre myths that primitive man built it because they were sun worshippers or built some 'awesome' burial chambers or went to an awful lot of trouble to perform bizarre human sacrifice rituals.
I suspect the creationists are using this to zealously propagate their myth on how the earth was created. In that case, it has no legitimate place in this exhibition. I would regards it as equally bizarre as for instance the inclusion of a Gravity creator belief system into the exhibition 'experience', though I would be interested to see how such an explanation matches up to progressive scientific scrutiiny such as the accelerating universe observations , perhaps we could do with a separate 'how this universe was created' exhibition? :)
Quote from: J70 on July 19, 2012, 11:52:25 PM
I have absolutely no problem with an integrated approach. How could I?
But unless I missed it, at no point until now did you state that your opposition was British Isles-confined and not applicable to the third world.
I had no doubt that that you had no problems with an integrated approach. But you had asked me, do I dismiss the WHO statistics/claims you quoted and I answered that those claims are an acknowledged impossibility to make. Therefore imo they have no scientific credibility and I'd assign them to value of hysteria due to the manner in which they are made and considering the accumulated detailed research on SSA from which those claims are made.
Perhaps you missed where I have stated previously that these stats I provided were from UK and that impoverished areas in the world require different strokes.
QuoteOK, I've obviously misinterpreted you. But assuming the natural decline in pathogenicity had been allowed to continue, at what point would the fatality rate have reached an acceptable level to negate the need for vaccinations? And again, how do you know the equilibrium point would have been low enough to have an acceptable background rate of serious illness? Is there research out there on this?
I made some sort of a case for measles and the recorded statistics already reflected a species adaptability in the UK and probably Ireland, fatality statistics were already so low as to be just incidental. I hazard a reasonable guess that Mumps was in a similar decline to Measles
I regard it as poor quality science to have intervened at that time with vaccinations, in the case of childhood diseases. There are definitely situations in the world where such crude interventions are needed while chronic underlying issues are dealt with, or more true - not being dealt with.
There was a moment in time in the UK and probably ireland when the species had a proven long term adaptability in progress. That horse has now bolted and now the children are faced with a program of inoculations.
Eventually the species will still be faced with an ever expanding cycle of inoculations with no improvement in individual adaptability. These artificial interventions operating at a very crude level in the body will (in all likelihood) take an increasing toll on an individual natural immune levels. The theory that childhood disease threat will fade away, eventually negating the use for inoculations, quite frankly flies in the face of observable science/biology. I am aware of the arguments but I believe them to be seriously faulty.
Removing the artificial intervention would also be an act of madness considering the collective dependency and conventional ignorance towards the nature of the immune system.
I speculate that if natural adaptable capabilities of the species continue to be overridden, something will have to change with these interventions. Something will have to be engineered to work in harmony with the body's inherent superior intelligent design that adapts, learns and memorises immune response experiences. Quite possibly artificial design of laboratory babies will provide such an alternative and eventually negating the necessity to endure the biological process :)
Quote from: Main Street on July 20, 2012, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: J70 on July 19, 2012, 11:52:25 PM
I have absolutely no problem with an integrated approach. How could I?
But unless I missed it, at no point until now did you state that your opposition was British Isles-confined and not applicable to the third world.
I had no doubt that that you had no problems with an integrated approach. But you had asked me, do I dismiss the WHO statistics/claims you quoted and I answered that those claims are an acknowledged impossibility to make. Therefore imo they have no scientific credibility and I'd assign them to value of hysteria due to the manner in which they are made and considering the accumulated detailed research on SSA from which those claims are made.
Perhaps you missed where I have stated previously that these stats I provided were from UK and that impoverished areas in the world require different strokes.
QuoteOK, I've obviously misinterpreted you. But assuming the natural decline in pathogenicity had been allowed to continue, at what point would the fatality rate have reached an acceptable level to negate the need for vaccinations? And again, how do you know the equilibrium point would have been low enough to have an acceptable background rate of serious illness? Is there research out there on this?
I made some sort of a case for measles and the recorded statistics already reflected a species adaptability in the UK and probably Ireland, fatality statistics were already so low as to be just incidental. I hazard a reasonable guess that Mumps was in a similar decline to Measles
I regard it as poor quality science to have intervened at that time with vaccinations, in the case of childhood diseases. There are definitely situations in the world where such crude interventions are needed while chronic underlying issues are dealt with, or more true - not being dealt with.
There was a moment in time in the UK and probably ireland when the species had a proven long term adaptability in progress. That horse has now bolted and now the children are faced with a program of inoculations.
Eventually the species will still be faced with an ever expanding cycle of inoculations with no improvement in individual adaptability. These artificial interventions operating at a very crude level in the body will (in all likelihood) take an increasing toll on an individual natural immune levels. The theory that childhood disease threat will fade away, eventually negating the use for inoculations, quite frankly flies in the face of observable science/biology. I am aware of the arguments but I believe them to be seriously faulty.
Removing the artificial intervention would also be an act of madness considering the collective dependency and conventional ignorance towards the nature of the immune system.
I speculate that if natural adaptable capabilities of the species continue to be overridden, something will have to change with these interventions. Something will have to be engineered to work in harmony with the body's inherent superior intelligent design that adapts, learns and memorises immune response experiences. Quite possibly artificial design of laboratory babies will provide such an alternative and eventually negating the necessity to endure the biological process :)
Is there not a case for the use of vaccinations to eradicate a disease rather than depending on genetics to evolve resistance quicker than the virus itself evolves?
Was at the Causeway today and despite my earlier reservations, IMO the Creationism part of the exhibition is tiny and the whole thing is a storm in a teacup. In its context I think it is a legitimate part of the exhibition consodering the other 90% of the exhibition put the creation of the Causeway in its true geological context.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on July 20, 2012, 10:48:55 PM
Was at the Causeway today and despite my earlier reservations, IMO the Creationism part of the exhibition is tiny and the whole thing is a storm in a teacup. In its context I think it is a legitimate part of the exhibition consodering the other 90% of the exhibition put the creation of the Causeway in its true geological context.
A storm in a teacup you say?
But there are a whole 200 people on Facebook who think different ;D
I took mini-me to the Giant's Causeway the other day. When we arrived we were told it would cost 8.50 for me and 5 quid for mini-me to park in the upper carpark and access the building. When the National Trust person saw my horror at the price - clearly I was not the first to react this way - she told me I could, alternatively, park down the road for 6 quid but that would not include access to the building. No big deal I thought. So I did, except the lad there said 5 quid would do.
We went off and did our stuff at the Giant's Causeway and I must admit I was impressed with the place. It had been about 20 years since I was last there - funny how things that are on your doorstep are usually not a priority - so we spent a bit of time taking photos etc.
On the way back we decided to buy some souvenirs. As we were about to enter the building (it was about 6.50pm) we were told we would have to pay an entrance fee. I told the man we had been down at the Causeway and were just looking for a few souvenirs. In his finest "No Surrender" attitude he told me that I would have to pay to buy souvenirs. Thinking maybe a gold coin donation to the National Trust or something, I nearly laughed in his face when he announced it would be 8.50 and 5 quid for junior. I asked him if he was having me on. He wasn't.
As I left, I noticed a wee souvenir shop across the road and the man was bringing in his sign. I went over, got in and bought my stuff and the man threw in a few freebies for good measure. I told him what had happened and he just nodded saying I was not the first to have this experience and that it was great for his business too, as alot of people were not happy at being charged so much to go in to spend more, and were happy to come to his wee shop.
Never mind the power of the Creator and all that fuss, the power of the mighty pound is an even greater force it would seem.
A Giants Causeway thread this long without "worth seeing, but not worth going to see" 8)
Quote from: Aerlik on August 14, 2012, 07:22:07 AM
I took mini-me to the Giant's Causeway the other day. When we arrived we were told it would cost 8.50 for me and 5 quid for mini-me to park in the upper carpark and access the building. When the National Trust person saw my horror at the price - clearly I was not the first to react this way - she told me I could, alternatively, park down the road for 6 quid but that would not include access to the building. No big deal I thought. So I did, except the lad there said 5 quid would do.
We went off and did our stuff at the Giant's Causeway and I must admit I was impressed with the place. It had been about 20 years since I was last there - funny how things that are on your doorstep are usually not a priority - so we spent a bit of time taking photos etc.
On the way back we decided to buy some souvenirs. As we were about to enter the building (it was about 6.50pm) we were told we would have to pay an entrance fee. I told the man we had been down at the Causeway and were just looking for a few souvenirs. In his finest "No Surrender" attitude he told me that I would have to pay to buy souvenirs. Thinking maybe a gold coin donation to the National Trust or something, I nearly laughed in his face when he announced it would be 8.50 and 5 quid for junior. I asked him if he was having me on. He wasn't.
As I left, I noticed a wee souvenir shop across the road and the man was bringing in his sign. I went over, got in and bought my stuff and the man threw in a few freebies for good measure. I told him what had happened and he just nodded saying I was not the first to have this experience and that it was great for his business too, as alot of people were not happy at being charged so much to go in to spend more, and were happy to come to his wee shop.
Never mind the power of the Creator and all that fuss, the power of the mighty pound is an even greater force it would seem.
Who sets those prices? The National Trust or a private concern?
I believe its the National Trust that determines the prices. BBC NI interviewed the National Trusts assistant director, cant find the actual interview but heres basically it, similar to Aerlik's experience:
The National Trust has said it will look at public concerns about signs at the Giant's Causeway to ensure members of the public know they can access the stones at the site for free.
The trust also said it would respond to a letter from the North Antrim MP Ian Paisley jnr, who described the £8.50 charge for adults as "excessive".
The National Trust said its pricing policy was very competitive when compared to other UK attractions.
The new visitors centre opened in July.
David Turner emigrated from Northern Ireland to Canada 40 years ago. He returned for a holiday this summer, and was shocked by visiting the Giant's Causeway.
"We arrived in Belfast and we decided to drive up the coast as we have always loved up there and eventually we ended up at the Giant's Causeway," he said.
"When we got there, this whole development was new to us, we hadn't seen it before.
Souvenirs
"We parked in the carpark and went inside. we saw that they had a price up on the wall - £8.50 to walk round to the Giant's Causeway.
"My wife has arthritis and my brother also has a bad leg, so we decided we wouldn't walk round, we'd just go in to the restaurant and have something to eat and maybe go into the shop and get some souvenirs.
"We were told we couldn't go into the shop without paying £8.50 per person, so I said 'I don't think so', and we left.
"We walked around the building and there was an old hotel there, that has been there for many years and we saw a sign that said they had a coffee shop and ice cream, so we went in there and we bought some souvenirs in there.
"When we were speaking to the ladies in the shop, they were saying that everyone's coming in there and they think they have to walk through and pay £8.50 to on the Giant's Causeway but you don't have to, you just walk around the building and there is an entrance there and it doesn't cost anything.
"It's been a right of way for over a hundred years."
The National Trust's assistant director of operations, Billy Reid explained the pricing structure at the Giant's Causeway.
"The causeway experience is an £8.50 charge if you drive in," he said.
"It's cheaper if you come by bus or public transport, there's a pound reduction - this also applies if you use the park and ride facilities in Bushmills.
"It's £4.25 for a child and there's a family ticket at £21. National Trust members go free."
'World-class'
Mr Reid defended the cost of using the centre.
"What we've tried to do at the Giant's Causeway and what we were tasked to do was to provide a world-class visitor experience for a world-class facility at an international destination.
"We've compared prices around the UK and actually £8.50 is very competitive.
"Most of our visitors and there have been 116,000 people through the centre since it opened on the 3 July - we're getting good feedback from the vast majority who are saying it's good value for money and they're having a really good time."
But the DUP MLA, Ian Paisley, who said he had been contacted by constituents, described the pricing plan as excessive.
"It potentially makes Northern Ireland most popular tourist location, less popular," he said.
Mr Paisley had previously lobbied on behalf on a private developer, Seymour Sweeney, who had wanted a rival visitor centre at the attraction.
In June, Mr Paisley described a decision by the National Trust to mount a legal challenge for another project he supported - a golf course close to the Giant's Causeway - as 'a national disgrace'.
The Causeway is a Unesco World Heritage Site and features more than 40,000 interlocking basalt columns formed millions of years ago by volcanic activity.
The £18.5m centre was opened by First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness on 3 July.
For £18.5M I'd Be expecting the causeway itself to be fully roofed and air conditioned.
It must be some yolk of a place?
Quote from: bcarrier on August 14, 2012, 12:27:41 PM
A Giants Causeway thread this long without "worth seeing, but not worth going to see" 8)
Just as Dr. Johnson's other, better-known aphorism was a criticism of Scoundrels, rather than Patriotism, the one to which you allude was saying more about the state of Ulster's roads in the 18th Century, than it was about the Causeway.
Of course, had God been responsible for the upkeep of the roads as well as the Causeway, then Johnson wouldn't have had this problem. ;)
40,000 interlocking basalt colums, seemed alot less than that to me when I had the misfortune to visit the place some years ago . A massive disappointment and way smaller than it appears in pictures and geography books. Took ages to walk to it from the carpark as well.
Got way more enjoyment from walking the walls of Derry .
Interperative centre or not ..............a place to miss imvho.
I had a relation who worked as an employee for a short time with the National Trust. She said they were the most disorganised, incompetent bunch of idiots she had ever met at management level.
The people on the ground and the volunteers did their best but the people tasked with actually being creative and economical did not. There was no responsibilty and there was certainly no accountability. (just like the current N.I. Civil Service).
I remember reading not so long ago that the vast majority of people in Enniskillen thought the Castlecoole estate there was owned by the council. I believe they charge in there now.
Having said all that I am a card carrying member (@£34) which I think is fantastic value for money considering the amount of NT facilities there are not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the UK.
More energy and resources should be put into signing up new members.