This one looks 100% like the one I had! only mine had a couple of bullet holes in it :\
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.
That's how Jesus taught us to pray, isn't it, making the loudest public show possible -- never praying in private?
I think you're right about the rubber strips appearing later on the vertical bits on the bumper.
I think you're right I think that one may be older than the one i had... I'me pretty sure mine hade like rubber verticle strips on the bumper, the bumper was crome and the ruber was encased in crome also. like around the rubber pads or whatever. It's been so, long... kinda hard to remember.. I know it was red! hehe. and had a bullet hole though the windshield and door when I bought it. :\
I never had an MG, but I did have a 1959 TR-3. Traded it in for a Pantera. :-)
What year Pantera? got pics?
BTW, my dad worked at Ford and could have gotten a Pantera really cheep way back in the day, he didn't jump on the deal... they had a trailer of them at the Ford plant and they were selling them in the parking lot to the employees. He should have snaged one.. My grandpa(his dad) was there too, but hey like he's gonna buy a sports car! :\
Was a 1973 Pantera, Sky blue. Funny thing is I never took a pic of it. After owning it about two months it got stolen. Sigh. I got it back in pieces and sold em. Took the money and bought a black 1983 RX-7.
Today I drive a Lemans Blue 2005 C6 Vette Coup. (No pics of it either yet) LOL!
I just don't seem to take pics of my cars.
BTW, the TR-3 was British Racing Green.
The only real muscle car I ever owned was a 440 1971 tan Roadrunner. I drove that thing all over south Florida. :-)
I wish I had all these cars. LOL! They are worth one hell of a lot more than I sold em for. (Even a stripped Pantera)
My first "sports car" was a black 1968 Javelin.
Dang! (My dad would not have either) LOL!
He knows and has known for a long time that he screwed the pooch and should have bought it, I can't remember what they were asking for them but it wasn't that much and it was brand new. Just about every time we see like a ferri for something on TV hes like "did i ever tell you the time where me and pop(his dad) could have bought brand new Ford Panteras right in the parking lot at work"? LOL! I'd just give him the glazed over look and say yea but tell me again... :D
Simple. How long is a day to God?
And how can you presume to know?
Folks who feel threatened by the truth often protest too loudly.
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:11
If you say a day is longer than a day, why do they not use a different word? the hebrew has more descriptive words than day for long periods of time.
We certainly are, i.e., I certainly am. I know some very reputable scientists think the way I do. And some don't.
Evolution has been scientifically demonstrated sufficiently to me. I personally believe the Big Guy may have used evolution as a tool, in some way. But I certainly wouldn't want anyone to use my quaint beliefs to slow down scientific inquiry. I actually see no conflict. The more evolutionists tell me, the better.
What I like about the Royal Academy's remarks is that at least they acknowledge guys like me. And Einstein. Now, pass the sherry.
All religious points of view. Practically speaking, however, this area could be honed down to general terms and electives. I am grown up enough to realize there are adherents to different religions, including atheists, all of whom are fellow citizens entitled to an equal hearing when their tax money is spent on education. All of which goes to show public education paid for by the taxpayer is a particularly stupid idea unless one is devoted to mediocrity.
I hate to disagree with you, but I do not see the scientific community behaving as you describe.
Uh, huh. Tell me specifically in which public forum, have you heard mainstream scientists touting the absolute truth of scientific theories. One example will do.
What I see the scientific professionals circling the wagons against the perceived threat of creationism. They correctly denounce creationsim as a non-science.
Yea, what's the matter with those dern scientists, taking offense just because some religeous sect wants to revise the high school science textbooks? The nerve. How do think they would like it if scientists were marching over to your church to pencil in some sensible revisions to the bible?
Yet they continue to tolerate those in their midst who bait the creationists by making non-scientific attacks on religion. (I am thinking of Dawkins and his ilk.)
Dawkins isn't science. Dawkins is an individual with individual opinions to which he is entitled. Science has no capacity to have an opinion one way or another on the subject of God.
How should scientists respond to creationists? By refusing to argue with them about how and why the earth was created. When creationists say that God created the Earth ex nihilo in six 24-hour days, do not tell them they are wrong or stupid. Simply say that such a creation would be a miracle, and science does not deal in miracles.
That is science's position, your evidence-poor lotus-dreams notwithstanding.
You might add that many of the great scientists have been and are religious persons. They have had no difficulty reconciling religion and science because they recognize that the two serve different purposes. If you are a religious person yourself, you could also say something about how you find that science and religion both play roles in your life.
Thanks for your advice. We never would have thought of it ourselves--unless we were over 6 years old.
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.