Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Did Aristotle run the plants through some sort of ancient pneumanonmeter? More lost ancient knowledge!
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, both as to the existence of "dogmatic" evolutionists and that they have some 'splainin' to do.
So much so they would rather file lawsuits than see the subject of ID brought up in an academic context.
Huh. Would you feel the same way about someone filing suit to get their children properly educated in a school district that decided to give equal time in college-track english class to eubonics and phonics?
No. By the time we get to the other end of the galaxy, and find out what's going on there, we'll be totally out of touch with what's happening at our point of origin, so we'll have to go back and start all over again.
As long as the FesterChugabrews and the gore3000s live, there will be no death of ignorance.
end-of-galaxy placemarker
Not unless there were some credible evidence to that effect. I personally doubt it will be forthcoming. But if those photographs are of real, live fairies I would think science might take an interest.
I've always been taught that fairies, by definition, are fictitious. Therefore, if those little people in that picture are really alive, they would not be fairies, but they would certainly pique the interest of biologists.
Science does not deal with fiction until it starts entertaining the notion that all the various biologial species (or the table of elements for that matter) arose and manifested themselves without the aid of intelligence or design.
What is there about those pictures that suggests to your reason and senses they are staged? My intuition says these are pictures denoting fake fairies. Does yours? If so, why? If not, take these pictures to the university for further evaluation.
Based on the evidence you've presented, no, science classes need not address fairies at this time. But science must keep an open mind. Just because a fairy has yet to be revealed to science does not mean there is no such thing.
Don't tell me. If it ever happened that the human population of earth consisted of nothing other than Gumlegs clones, then ignorance would never be an issue.
But the pursuit of knowledge, a.k.a. science, would be dead.
Nope. Lawsuits are not the way to establish or maintain a cirriculum. Neither are public schools the best way to educate the crowing glory of God's creation. But as long as they're there, decisions must be made that tend to the betterment of the students. In the case you mention, the swap is a bad one, whether by force of law or voice of persuasion.
Where one person's idea of betterment conflicts with another person's idea of betterment, hopefully a compromise can be reached that allows options. Heretofore the option of teaching ID in an academic setting has been opposed BY LAW from those who think the government ought enforce their idea of what is better. You know. Rome and all that.
The photos in question are quite old. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the creator of Sherlock Holmes, and an MD), saw them and found them convincing.
I've always been taught that fairies, by definition, are fictitious. Therefore, if those little people in that picture are really alive, they would not be fairies, but they would certainly pique the interest of biologists.
The name makes all the difference, then? Okay, call them angels. Now do they belong in science class?
Science does not deal with fiction until it starts entertaining the notion that all the various biologial species (or the table of elements for that matter) arose and manifested themselves without the aid of intelligence or design.
I know you haven't noticed this the last thousand times it's been pointed out, but abiogenesis has nothing whatever to do with the theory of evolution.
What is there about those pictures that suggests to your reason and senses they are staged? My intuition says these are pictures denoting fake fairies. Does yours? If so, why? If not, take these pictures to the university for further evaluation.
Being the sort who wants something resembling ... you know ... evidence, I've researched them thoroughly. I know what kind of camera was used to take them, what kind of film was used, I know what's on the negatives outside the print area, and I know quite a few facts about the biographies of the little girls pictured. I know exactly how the photographs were created and some pretty good theories as to why.
I can also inform you that there is no image manipulation involved. Each photograph is a single exposure, provided by two young ladies who were considered by all contemporary authorities to be incapable of fraud.
Photo two, btw, provides an important clue as to their authenticity. Can you name that clue?
Based on the evidence you've presented, no, science classes need not address fairies at this time.
Why? State some facts, some theories, some laws of science. Don't just make an assertion.
But science must keep an open mind. Just because a fairy has yet to be revealed to science does not mean there is no such thing.
So, maybe science class should consider the possibility of fairies ... excuse me "angels."
A world of nothing butGumlegs clones would be incredibly boring, but it wouldn't matter because it wouldn't last past one generation anyway.
Here's a space to insert between "but" and "Gumlegs" in my last post.
I can't remember much about it, but the first chapter in my Botany book in college was that reading from Aristotle. It has always stuck with me. I've been on these threads for a wile now (not as long as you, I'm sure). Notice how plants are rarely mentioned? Yet they make up a majority of the biosphere.
i am firmly convinced that evolution would mean squat to creationists if it didn't include man.
Science needs to remain neutral concerning any phenomenon it has yet to discover or explore.
Like an "intelligent designer," perhaps? You may be making progress after all.
Oh, I've heard it said many times. But I keep hearing this thing about the "common ancestry" of all living things, which, if it were something less than a fairy tale would explain a.) how the first living cell come about, and b.) how it propagated itself to the point we observe it today, with both phenomena occuring completely apart from any agent capable of intelligence and/or design.
Surely you are not going to tell me dogmatic evolutionists have said nothing about common ancestry where the biosphere is concerned?
No need to go into that now.
You're exactly right about evolution, man, and creationists. Two Catholic Popes, Pius XII and John Paul II, both had no problems with evolution at all ... as long as man was considered a special case. Both Popes defined "special case" in such a way as to allow Catholics, if they wished, to accept evolutionary theory and not be in conflict with the church. So there's no doubt that a theory about everything but man would hardly have made a ripple.
But I'm with Mark Twain on the matter. Ichy provided the Twain quote on this thread already.
Yes it would. As it is there is only one Gumlegs who happens to be a special creation of God, and who has blessed me with spirited challenges to my understanding of the universe.
Yes. Science must remain neutral, i.e. open, to the possibility of an intelligent designer.
* Ecstasy in the fossil digs!
* Miss Nude DNA goes ape!
* Find the bone!
* Gumlegs plugs the gap!
* Macro-man goes transitional!
* Randy Random and his missing link!
* VadeRetro and his vestigial organ!
* Lucy experiences her first Cambrian explosion!
* Longshadow displays his geologic column!
* RadioAstronomer demonstrates spontaneous generation!
* The Darwin gang re-enacts the Big Bang!
Um, no. The origin of life has always been outside of the theory of evolution. Is color theory unacceptable because it doesn't explain the origin of life?
... and b.) how it propagated itself to the point we observe it today, with both phenomena occuring completely apart from any agent capable of intelligence and/or design.
Study the theory itself (and not a cartoon version of it), and you'll find out. You'll find out what scientists believe we can explain, and what we currently have no explanation for. Science admits these things.
... with both phenomena occuring completely apart from any agent capable of intelligence and/or design.
Because there's no way to test for "any agent capable of intelligence and/or design." We've been over this, too.
Surely you are not going to tell me dogmatic evolutionists have said nothing about common ancestry where the biosphere is concerned?
I'm not and don't call me "shirley." ;>)
For this, more people than you are thankful.
... who happens to be a special creation of God,
There is no evidence for this, and according to my aunt, much against, but I'll take the compliment.
... and who has blessed me with spirited challenges to my understanding of the universe.
You're working with a definition of "blessed," which is unrecognized by my family. We're both conservatives, so we're on the same side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.