http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6826652/Angels-cant-fly-says-study.html I think they're missing the point.
They're parting from the conseption that religion is a "scientific hipotesis" only that is whithout good data support, and lacks methodology, so In a sense science can out-wit it, as that is the meaning of science, make hipotesis, than better theories, than make them clash, the best survive until they are reconginized as law, and we can than think it as True, or trueish ... Saying playing with religion is not fair game, in this view, is admiting defeat.
Competition is the driving force of science indeed, so in that regard I have no problem with religious claims being explored. Actually I highly encourage it. Besides, that article just explores a "what if" scenario, just for the fun of it, if Christians hold that God is omnipotent then having angels flying in the face of logic (lol) shouldn' t faze them much. I do however have a problem with religious "scientists" insinuating their unbacked claims are legit scientific theories. Say, completely out of the blue, asserting that creationism is as respectable as evolution from a logical standpoint. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It wishes it was, but it still goes to high-school. And it forgot its lunch box. That problem seems to be much, much much much more prominent in the United States than in my country, the thought of speaking of creationism in public school science classes wouldn' t cross our mind for a second here (as long as it isn' t an actual scientific theory of course).
Silly scientists calling out angels for publicity. This (rather pathetic) study applies to humans with wings, not angels. Angels are metaphysical beings, laws of physics don't need to apply. Any kid with a bit of knowledge in physics could answer this kind of question. It's not so much of a "study" as it is a basic homework problem.
I don't think it silly, even though no one is thinking about "real" angels these models are interesting and could be used to make children been more akin with science, I remember reading once 3 articles in Nature explain the "genetics in Harry Potter", the logic was how could they explain the "magic gene" as the story stated it is herenty so genetics would aply.. they face some troubles with the kids that are born from normal parents with magic, and the other scenerio when they face magical parents and normal kids, they did a beautifull explanation to what could "active these genes", they eventualy discover that it is not only a gene , but the early contact with "Magic milk" provided by "magic cows" seletioned by goblins or elfs (like Doby), sometimes a magic cow would escape the farm and would mix with our normal cow, Kids with the gene in the family and access to these "magical milk" would become wizards, in the other hand some magical kids (with the gene) would also be lactose intolarant so they wouldn't drink the milk and would never have magic (An epigenetic aproach, when the enveroiment active the gene). Of course it seems silly.. but it is a great way to teach genetics to kids isn't? So in the end it is just an methapor just like the famous " Schrondinger's cat", I don't think anyone really thinks that Erwin Schrondinger really put a cat in a box with venon... he just made a cleaver way to teach quantum physics to everybody.. the same thing can be made in many fields using many things to make the viewer understand serious stuff.
To add on to this, angels have would have no clear human resemblance, or at least very close to it. In the Bible it says: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:27 And: "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands." Hebrews 2:7 That said, humans and angels are two entire different beings, one physical and one metaphysical. Our minds cannot conceive a correct and exact replica etc of an angel, and as such why you see little baby cupid statues everywhere. Subjective interpretations. And last but not least: "Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." Isaiah 6:2 6 wings, not two.
I'm sorry but did scientists run out of important **** to do or something? I can think of ten different things right now more important than "Can angels really fly?" Honestly, what brilliant mind came up with this crap. Was one of them just sitting at home thinking "Wonder how we can **** off the religious people some more?" But enough of my rambling. Angels, like a Pegasus, are in right a mythical creature. Though religious in nature, it has never been proven to be real. Mythical creatures often hold some sort of impossible ability that they can utilize. Such as a Pegasus, a horse with eagle like wings, can fly as well. One cannot simply disprove something that was never proven to have existed in the first place, therefore I concluded that science fails this time around.
I don't think that you guys quite understand the meaning of this article, like patman did, why we need metaphors? The science behind it already exist we just need the metaphor to be more accessive to everybody, like shrondinger's cat, or the case of green globin X Spiderman, and Harry Potter and magic cows. Another thing if we start to tell what the science should or should not care we wouldn't have any great breakthroughs, basic science doesn't have a reason to be done, aplyed science picks years of basic science and aplies it to our "modern days problems", most antibiotics and a number of things were discovered by "accident" so you telling scientists where they should or should not do would in the end stop new foundings as we would always look at the same perspective.
Seriously though . . . if angels can really fly or not? I think they should be more focused on the cure for cancer, or a solution to global warming. I'm just saying that if these so called scientists have time to work on stupid crap like that, they should be working on something more important.
Ehhh to be fair it could have been a randomly thought up topic they came up on the side of what they were really researching. The topic should have been more like "If given wings could humans fly?" or something like that (giving references to angels in the article). One cant really know exactly how the gods or mythical beings look like. Even if they did make an appearance to a single person nobody would ever believe said person. All the paintings and pictures are most likely human interpretation of the stories told. To just say angels cant fly just because they have wings is not really accurate....at least that's what I believe
Actually, that seems pretty legit. I do, however, still think the topic was a blatant waste of time but if it was as you say, just a sub topic, then I can see it being a little less ridiculous. Like i've previously stated there are quite a few more important issues that need to be resolved before going on to menial matters such as this. In all honesty, people have learned how to fly without wings. Now that is a great example of science. We took something impossible and made it possible. Of course back then thinking of things like this was the best science could do at the time. Now, in today's modern society, we have a few more problems that need attended to. It's like having a pet (pet being today's problems) and only ever being interested in other people's pets (issues that have less value than the more important problems) I know growing up some people may have been told there is no such thing as a stupid question. Though sometimes I wonder how much farther people can go before there is a line that's crossed. I understand that as humans we are curious by nature and seek to find the answers to all that we can, but the whole wings thing . . . kind of ridiculous in my opinion.
Going by the article alone it' s hard to say what their motives actually were, it doesn' t source nor even name anyone or anything. I googled it and came up with this, apparently they merely did that study because they are part of a group called Angel Investors : http://blogs.nature.com/london/2009/12/23/angels-cant-fly-says-ucl-prof Maybe they just fund the hopeless.
Omg, greatest thing ever. I loved the angel series, the ending sucked!!! Also if there was a group of people calling themselves the Angel Investigators and it wasn't related to this show I would do certain things I can't say here to them . . . a lot . . . and it would be painful . . . a lot.
The farest I know, angles aren't living beings like us or any other animal. So I wouldn't get surprised if they could defy gravity and the world's rules.
