Spey Pages banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Indicators Anonymous
Joined
·
846 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
after reading and listening to the debates regarding intelligent design today after the Surpreme Court struck it down, it got me thinkin' a bit as such topics tend to do. and when i think about it All, i always revert back to thoughts that have come my way when steelheading.

is the ability for us to pursue such magnificent gamefish (steelhead) in such a mysterious manner (the swung fly w/ the longer rod) on mystical rivers a coincidence or the work of a supernatural being?

everytime it crosses my mind, which is often, it scares me to think that the only reason i have an oppurtunity to steelhead fish is because of a coincidence. also, as i've driving up some old logging road or bushwacking into a favorite run or swinging my fly, i just can not fathom that it was coincidence that put me where i am (rivers) allowing me to do what i am doing (steelheading).

thoughts?
 

·
Here we go again!
Joined
·
620 Posts
God must be a fisherman!

My favorite line in that vein (author unknown) "God does not deduct from a mans allotted time those hours spent fishing".

It's said that God allows you to suffer trials and tribulations that bring you nearer to the creator. Well, I'm suffering down here in the dirty city while you're up there steelheading in that beautiful country....I'm trying not to hate you:saeek:

I noticed your little after thought in the edit comments about the skagit lines and I think you may have hit on a great example there. Many feel that intelligent design set things into motion and the process of evolution, sometimes ugly and seemingly accidental and arising out of a chaotic mess, naturally takes place in the environment set up by the creator.

Long belly = intelligent design. Skagit line = accident;)

Even better, when you hook one on the swung fly = intelligent design. When your buddy hooks one = accident.

To be serious for a moment, it was a federal judge presiding over a district handing down a ruling on the manner in which a school board inserted the intelligent design theory into a science class curriculum. Interestingly enough the judge ruled that certain board members allowed personal bias towards intelligent design to influence the decision to place the thoery into the curriculum. Both intelligent design and evolution are theories yet scientifically unproven, both having merits and flaws, yet the judge ruled that the intelligent design theory was unproven and therfore should not be taught along side the evolution theory (how do you like that for logic). So by allowing the evolution theory to be taught and not the intelligent design theory, the judge ruled based on a bias he himself holds in favor of one side of the arguement, so shouldn't the ruling be thrown out?

I see this becoming an even bigger mess. Why not teach both theories and explain that they are 2 separate schools of thought, both having merits and flaws, both scientifically unproven but potentially true. Funny, but given the information available most folks are able to make a personal decision on their own. Withholding information in an educational environment for the sake of protecting the poor stupid children is not what you'd expect to see in a country allegedly based on individual freedom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
This is so close to being way off topic (fishing).....

but I can't help myself....yes I can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Personally I think both long belly and skagit lines were intelligently designed for different purposes - one does some things very well and one does other things very well. You will not see me throwing 15 to 20 feet of T-14 and a size 1/0 leech in tight quarters with a long belly line. So that is the fishing related part.

On the other part, it seems there is a good deal of "science" that backs evolution but none that supports intelligent design. Not to say evolution did not have help but other class venues seem a better place to teach this than a science class
 

·
#&%*@^# Caster
Joined
·
3,058 Posts
Will see where this goes but lets keep the religion, evolution, lowercase god, uppercase God, separation of church and state, blue state, red state, nra, aclu, pro choice, pro life, ad nauseaum...out of the discussion.

It always goes down the path of crap and I am sure this one might as well.

I will say one thing though. Pink and Chum salmon are the most genetically advanced species of salmonid. Whether it be through evolution or some guy in the clouds we got screwed.

-sean
 

·
Skidrow Woolley Fly Club
Joined
·
387 Posts
Evolution was designed by intelligence
 

·
Relapsed Speyaholic
Joined
·
5,533 Posts
Sparkey,

My thoughts are you must have hit the sauce hard after I left you :hihi:

'tip
 

·
JD
Joined
·
3,641 Posts
One believes what one believes

based on what one was taught in one school or the other. If you have any doubts, you need to spend more time on the water.:tsk_tsk:
 

·
Here we go again!
Joined
·
620 Posts
My entire post was intended to be tongue in cheek for the most part. I don't really take a hard stance either way as, like I said, both have merits and flaws. I know I'm not smart enough to know for sure the answers, and that's why I don't trust the proclaimations the scientists (generic label here) make, because it seems that they DO think they're smart enough. Seems like every time they claim to prove a theory like this is fact, time and continued research shows that certain "facts" were wrong.

Remember when the world was flat? When they insisted god was real? When they insisted god was not? Always question people who claim to know for sure that subjective things are thus and so. Time proves that we don't know much, really.

"And that's all I have to say about that".--Forest Gump.

I do think the ruling was flawed if only because the judge condemned bias while using it as his basis for the ruling. Typical human behavior.

Rick, just poking fun about the skagit thing. :razz:
 

·
Indicators Anonymous
Joined
·
846 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
when i wrote what i wrote i was thinkin' that it might be a bad topic to post because it could quickly go political and overly religious etc. etc. etc. and that was not my intent.

it was a slighty t.i.c. post and i was just curious to see what everyone thought about how much a topic applies to just their fishing. not their everyday life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,095 Posts
Moose, this is an an excellent suggestion: "Why not teach both theories and explain that they are 2 separate schools of thought, both having merits and flaws, both scientifically unproven but potentially true. Funny, but given the information available most folks are able to make a personal decision on their own. Withholding information in an educational environment for the sake of protecting the poor stupid children is not what you'd expect to see in a country allegedly based on individual freedom."

Be happy to be near the American, after all the rain this week and more coming, that might be the only place in California to fish re river levels.

Merry Christmas.
 

·
Mr. Mom
Joined
·
625 Posts
NrthFrk16 said:
is the ability for us to pursue such magnificent gamefish (steelhead) in such a mysterious manner (the swung fly w/ the longer rod) on mystical rivers a coincidence or the work of a supernatural being?

everytime it crosses my mind, which is often, it scares me to think that the only reason i have an oppurtunity to steelhead fish is because of a coincidence. also, as i've driving up some old logging road or bushwacking into a favorite run or swinging my fly, i just can not fathom that it was coincidence that put me where i am (rivers) allowing me to do what i am doing (steelheading).

thoughts?
Steelheading with flies proves only one thing. We do have free will, even if we choose to exercise it by doing things the hard way ! :hihi:

This was proven at Humboldt State University simultaneously by the Math and Religious Philosophy departments in 1981 by the groundbreaking "Unified Theory on Self-imposed Limitations in Steelheading During an El Nino Year" and the dissertation "Discourse on Steelhead Method and Meditation: Improbability, Impracticality and impenitence"

Science and Faith, coming together :D We can all get along...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
Hey Sparkey . . .

when They (God, aliens, or some malicious force as yet unnamed) designed you I can only guess that "intelligent" probably wasn't the first adjective that came to mind.:saevilw: :D

And I agree (seriously) - the harmony and interdependant nature of all living things on this earth suggest a higher intelligence behind the mechanism of evolution. :)

Wow - when i opened this i was certain i'd find Flame Central. :razz:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
What do ya mean by " just their fishing - not everyday life only" !!! What is everyday life - without fishing !!!!

In the name of evolution-history - the first human item found -was a fishing hook !!! Evolution, intelligence or whoever, I love that guy/thing who made that first hook - and IT was "almost" barbless !!!

Mike
 

·
JD
Joined
·
3,641 Posts
Why not indeed?

Grampa Spey said:
Moose, this is an an excellent suggestion: "Why not teach both theories and explain that they are 2 separate schools of thought, both having merits and flaws, both scientifically unproven but potentially true. Funny, but given the information available most folks are able to make a personal decision on their own. Withholding information in an educational environment for the sake of protecting the poor stupid children is not what you'd expect to see in a country allegedly based on individual freedom."

Be happy to be near the American, after all the rain this week and more coming, that might be the only place in California to fish re river levels.

Merry Christmas.
Just becuase the Pope says that my ancestors never swung from trees by their tails does not make it any more true or false than some scientist who claims that they did. Or visa versa. Neither one has positive poof of anything. They are both unproven theories.

What bothers me is that someone can teach one or the other theory (not both) without admiting that they are trampling on the rights of the other side to teach their theory as well. And be subsidized to do it.:whoa:

Merry Christmas
 

·
Here we go again!
Joined
·
620 Posts
Hey Steve, that looks like one of those singing mounted fish, only this one does a duet with itself.

Pretty intelligent:smokin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
I'm not sure anyone is saying you can't teach both - just in different venues. There is scientific data backing one and so that should be taught in a science class. There is no scientific basis for the other so why teach it in a science class?

Whoever created trout, steelhead and salmon, not to mention bone fish, tarpon and permit, had a mean streak! Makes your life miserable when you can't be out there after them and when you can, Mr. Murphy often seems to be there also!!
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top