[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-school-at-the-centre-of-cruise-split-7904497.htmlKatie Holmes: I don't want my child to be brainwashed by Scientology. I want her to be brainwashed by Catholicism instead.[/url

Harrumph. I prefer Newsthump's explanation.
[urlhttp://newsthump.com/2012/07/02/tom-cruise-divorce-papers-cite-irreconcilable-difference-as-holmes-lack-of-penis[/url

That is rather good.

I'll be watching JJB very closely this evening for signs of divinity.

His party trick is turning wine into pi[is[/is

I don't know if you noticed, but he and his team were crucified by the Exiles.

It's not just the schools, they've infiltrated [url=http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/07/national-trust-promotes-creationism-at-new-visitor-centreThe National Trust[/url now.

That's the last penny the Trust will see from me

I hope they give as much credence to the story of Finn the Giant and his pavement to Scotland as they do the Creationist explanation, it has as much legitimacy although the Giant story doesn't have quite the same amount of comic value.

Me too.
Well, almost.
He told me the bible was nowt to do with him or his dad and was written by human beings.
He said that him and his dad wished we'd all be nice to each other, it would make a nice change.

Indeed, likewise I'll not be giving them any of my cash in a hurry.

That's put me off taking my family to St Michaels Mount on our summer holiday.

I've joined the Facebook group protesting against this.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/national-trust-in-giants-causeway-creationism-row-7917687.htmlReport in The Indy[/url

Sounds like country suppers or tory donors all over again

Was about to join the National Trust in time for the school holidays. Will find something else to do now.

As I understand it, the information which is being conveyed at the centre states that some Young Earth Creationists believe that the Causeway was formed in this fashion. That statement is factually correct, many YECs do believe that. The centre is not saying that such a view is correct or is scientifically sound.

Like much of what the NSS bleats on about, it's a big hoo-haa over nothing.

So why not give equal credence to those believing that Finn the Giant created the causeway? Or to any other bat[is[/ihit loony sect for that matter

It's a sign. Loaves and fishes are off, chicken chow mein is the new holy of holy's.

There are two main groups making claims about the Causeway's formation - the scientists and YECs. The YEC are much, much smaller in number but it is still an opinion which holds some sway in NI.

I've never heard of anyone mention Finn the Giant before.

Double post.

Scientists aren't 'making claims' about anything, they're stating facts based on empirical evidence.

But if they don't believe in God, due to evidence, they must have a agenda!

The clue is in the name

Hi, o man who ignores all questions.

There are not two main groups. There is science, which is the only one of any relevance to the issue, and tells us the facts of the formation of the site. It is not an "opinion".

A few YCs are not in any sense a "main group", but a collection of misguided people who base bat loony views on literally no evidence at all, and are happy to ignore the incontrovertible evidence of, say, carbon dating, or the fossil record. It is only they who "make claims", which is all they can do, as they have zero evidence to support their entirely faith-based opinion.

Says the man who went cowering last time. You can still find my challenge in the thread that got closed. Feel free to PM me your response.



Of course it is an opinion. Scientists believe it or not have their own biases. Why? Well because they interpret data through a naturalistic framework from which God is completely removed. Ohter people, such as the creationists cited in the article, come to the table with their own baggage - their belief in God. They look at things through this lens and it helps shape their opinions on all kinds of things. This is the reason why you often get two groups of people looking at the same data and formulating conflicting views.

Facts are facts. They do not change. Scientific 'facts' on the other hand do change, and with some regularity I might add. How many times has something been declared a fact only for the scientific consensus to shift and declare it incorrect? Whilst you can claim that that it is admirable that science is willing to change and self-correct, you cannot label scientific theories as fact. In science, today's fact is tomorrow's blunder.



Over 40% of the US population believes that God created the Heavens and the Earth. YECs are by no means a fringe group.

over 60% of the US population don't have a passport and couldn't identify Iraq on a map, maybe you should move over there and spread your hate filled poison.