I'm not 100% correct it's been awhile but I believe my car looked like the green one, the uprights on my bumpers looked a little
different and had rubber or plastic pads on them i believe
Posted on 04/13/2006 6:51:19 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
A statement opposing the misrepresentation of evolution in schools to promote particular religious beliefs was published today (11 April 2006) by the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science.
The statement points out that evolution is "recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species" and that it is "rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world".
It concludes: "Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."
Professor David Read, Vice-President of the Royal Society, said: "We felt that it would be timely to publish a clear statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design as there continues to be controversy about them in the UK and other countries. The Royal Society fully supports questioning and debate in science lessons, as long as it is not designed to undermine young people's confidence in the value of scientific evidence. But there have been a number of media reports, particularly relating to an academy in north-east England, which have highlighted some confusion among young people, parents, teachers and scientists about how our education system allows the promotion of creationist beliefs in relation to scientific knowledge. Our Government is pursuing a flexible education system, but it should also be able to ensure and demonstrate that young people in maintained schools or academies are not taught that the scientific evidence supports creationism and intelligent design in the way that it supports evolution."
The Royal Society statement acknowledges that many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe and life on Earth developed. But it indicates that "some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence".
It states: "For instance, a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago."
The Royal Society statement emphasises that evolution is important to the understanding of many medical and agricultural challenges: It states: "The process of evolution can be seen in action today, for example in the development of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to pesticides by insect pests, and the rapid evolution of viruses that are responsible for influenza and AIDS. Darwin's theory of evolution helps us to understand these problems and to find solutions to them."
The statement also criticises attempts to present intelligent design as being based on scientific evidence: "Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treats gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist as if they were evidence for a designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not."
The statement is published ahead of a public lecture today at the Royal Society by Professor Steve Jones on Why evolution is right and creationism is wrong'. The text of the statement follows.
April 2006
The Royal Society was founded in 1660 by a group of scholars whose desire was to promote an understanding of ourselves and the universe through experiment and observation. This approach to the acquisition of knowledge forms the basis of the scientific method, which involves the testing of theories against observational evidence. It has led to major advances of understanding over more than 300 years. Although there is still much left to be discovered, we now have a broad knowledge of how the universe developed after the 'Big Bang' and of how humans and other species appeared on Earth.
One of the most important advances in our knowledge has been the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Since being proposed by Charles Darwin nearly 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has been supported by a mounting body of scientific evidence. Today it is recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species. Evolution is rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world.
The process of evolution can be seen in action today, for example in the development of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to pesticides by insect pests, and the rapid evolution of viruses that are responsible for influenza and AIDS. Darwin's theory of evolution helps us to understand these problems and to find solutions to them.
Many other explanations, some of them based on religious belief, have been offered for the development of life on Earth, and the existence of a 'creator' is fundamental to many religions. Many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe, and life on Earth, developed. Creationism is a belief that may be taught as part of religious education in schools, colleges and universities. Creationism may also be taught in some science classes to demonstrate the difference between theories, such as evolution, that are based on scientific evidence, and beliefs, such as creationism, that are based on faith.
However, some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence. For instance, a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago.
Some proponents of an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth now claim that their theories are based on scientific evidence. One such view is presented as the theory of intelligent design. This proposes that some species are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and that therefore life on Earth must be the product of a 'designer'. Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treat gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist - as if they were evidence for a 'designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.
Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various religious beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs.
How can one? Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Does that prove it to you?
He would probably 'test' only those who are avowed Christians?...I dont buy into that notion at all...I think you are grabbing at straws here...You cannot possibly know what God would or would not do regarding 'tests'...nor can you possibly know who He would 'test'...you are just making wild guesses here, thats how I see it...
You know, as well as anyone else, that people can say, that Jesus is their Lord and Savior....but that does not make it so, and you know that as well...There are any number of people who can claim this, and yet their actions in life, dispute that notion...
Oh, man; that was excellent!
FWIW, I once helped do a clutch replacement on a MGB -- it was an eye opening experience. 1920s technology on a 1970s car.
I had a '65 with the knock-off wheel hubs and the original copper headed hammer, and a '68. When I needed parts, I always had the best luck scouring the junk yards. I think it was the '73 model year that had to comply with the US bumper requirements, and it really screwed up the car.
Just my opinion, but I believe he tests everyone everyday and not necessarily in the same ways.
My parents were poor as well...but I went to school in the 1950s and 1960s...and I went to public school...my husband went to Catholic School...
When my husband and I had children, we were not rolling in money, far from it...not dirt poor, but barely making it...and by that time the public schools in Chicago had become quite horrible...we opted for private school...we could ill afford it...but we sacrificed and scrimped and the hubby took on overtime hours at work, and I took on a part time job at nite(so that my husband could watch the boys)...it was dang hard to do, some folks thought we were nuts...but we did what we thought was right for our childrens education...if we could do it, anyone can do it...
If your childrens education is paramount in importance, next to food, clothing and shelter, then put the money there...there is usually a way to find the money for such an important undertaking...
It may be true, that God tests everyone in one way or another...but I thought we were discussing whether God tests only avowed Christians, for that is what I thought I understood you to say....now you have changed to God testing everyone...if I misunderstood, I am sorry...
Where does one get a windshield and gastank for a say 76 MGB British Leland... when that car went to the junk yard I was upset :( I did a lot of work to it, but couldn't find really anything for it. Most of the work I did was just derusting it :) and welding in new floorboards & such.
1974: the year of the "front porch/rear porch" bumbers.
yea, the plastic bumpers looked nasty! i remember lookig it up a couple years ago my year(forget what it is right now) was the last year before the import ban or whatever.
Beats me.
Well, time for me to leave..I have very much enjoyed this discussion, and tho we hardly seem to see eye to eye on anything, still, this was a most civil discussion, which I appreciate...
The hubby returns soon from his day at the VA, and I need to start the laundry, and get the dear hubby his dinner...
I probably wont be online much in the next few days...family coming in for the big Easter Feast...lots of work to do...
Will try to check in later if time allows..
But if I have not time to check in, I just want to wish for everyone enjoy your Easter, with friends and family, and hopefully good food, fine thoughts, enlightening conversations, and lots and lots of warmth and love...
I was posting from memory (never a good idea). '74 sounds right. That was, roughly, also the 3 windshield-wiper period, IIRC.
I'll defer to you on that, as I'm no expert in MG's. Doing the clutch job on the MGB and hearing the horror stories from a friend who owned a Jag (the part needing replacement will inevitably require the removal of at least five perfectly good parts just to get to it) was more than enough to scare me away from British motocars for life.
I'm actually a 2002tii kinda guy...
I'm kinda tired and have a bad time today with long term memory but I went to a place in Chicago, that was supposed to have lots of parts for MG's and they didn't have anything... and thats when I gave up. thats before I had internet, like early 90's.. who knows maybe they have something now, really haven't searched for parts... I looked for pictures of "my" car and found a couple sites a few years ago.
ok, nice chattin with ya. :)
Ironically, when my wife and I owned the '68 MG, we also owned a '79 Ford Fairmont. The MG was the reliable car.
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.