Giant's Causeway visitor centre controversy

[Gazzler]

You were saying...?

About 90% of the posts have nothing to do with the opening post ffs

[Eamonnca1]

About 90% of the posts have nothing to do with the opening post ffs

Nice try. 

[Gazzler]

About 90% of the posts have nothing to do with the opening post ffs

Nice try. 

I dont play Rugby.

[Main Street]

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.

[Eamonnca1]

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. 

[trileacman]

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!!! 

[Eamonnca1]

Commie! 

[J70]

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.

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.

  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?

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?

[Canalman]

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.

[Hardy]

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.

[LeoMc]

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?

[deiseach]

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

[Franko]

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.

[deiseach]

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...?

[Maguire01]

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!