Replies

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.

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."

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.

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?