firstpusk

DeMann, I never gave you my four answers because I wasnt sure you were addressing them to me. 1) Who is to know for sure? We are talking about something that happened billions of years ago. The fossil record is going to be incomplete in the best of circumstances. In this case it is miraculous that we have anything. You are asking for certainty, science doesnt work that way. This is probably an intellectual puzzle that folks will always argue about. 2) I think the question is when did man become man. We are obviously remained animals. In the creation story man ate from the tree

DeMann, Thank you for acknowledging that I was correct on Nebraska man. I am sorry if studying evolution was emotionally tough for you in your school days. I am not insensitive to the struggles folks go through when confronted with these ideas. "You, sir, are full of some stinky stuff. There is not proof anywhere..." If you hated every minute of it, how likely is it that you would be able to accept any evidence regardless of how compelling it may be? Is that discomfort still not allowing you to look at the evidence? I apologize if these questions are a bit too personal

"Sir, it was in my school textbooks! I was forced to take tests on that trash many long years ago!" So DeMann, Just how old are you and where did you go to school. The claim of Nebraska man, although always dubious, was withdrawn in 1927. You must be in your 90's!

Ed, I understand and appreciate your position. As you said, you have stated it before. I have also stated mine. Evolution is not "just a theory" in the every day sense of the word your statement implies. It is an extremely well-established and suppoted scientific theory. In terms of adaption/evolution, individual living things do not adapt or evolve. However, the populations they belong to do. The evidence is there in the laboratory, in the fossils and in the genes the creatures carry.

The theory of evolution is not an explanation that can claim to have been subjected to empirical testing or critical observation. This is simply false. It is one of the most well supported theories in science. It has been tested for nearly a century and a half and is stronger than ever. You need to read something other than creationism. The evidence is seen through the eyes of those faithful to Darwin and the absense of God in the creation of the world and all within it. In the zeal to continue the idiocy of macroevolution, evidence for previous forms of man include a pig tooth...

'Or as it was approprialty put in a Month Python skit "I don't like spam" Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10' Ed, You deliver that line so convincingly. You wanna try it again? Here put this old kercheif on your head first ;^)

I am a believer that the Wood Badge beads should be worn with the field uniform as much as possible. I always want to encourage scouters that have not gone through this experience to have a taste of Gilwell. The neckerchief and woggle I wear for special occasions. Although parents pins are not part of the official uniform, I have never called anyone on it. Don't think I have it in my heart to do something like that.

Would you cook it on a rock? Could you cook it in your sock? Can you cook it in a box? And then serve it with some lox? Not on a rock, not in a sock, Not in a box, not with some lox. Ed don't like this talk of SPAM, Ed won't eat his eggs with SPAM. SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, Lovely SPAM, Wonderful SPAM! Hey, were those Minnesota Vikings singing?

DeMann, There is a reason I gave you the link on the modern synthesis, you needed to understand what you were arguing about. You want to define evolution in any way that is convenient. I asked you to start your education there. I wanted you to understand that abiogenesis is not part of Darwin's theory nor the modern synthesis. "Now, I have not seen any evidence (as you stated) of an organism with a different number of chromosomes from its parents and it being a viable, living organism." You need to read carefully and for comprehension. Look, this is what I said about your ch

littlebillie, How do you get those cricket legs from between your molars? I've got one...

"read my post "we got fired". urban scouting is a joke and a PC smokescreen for councils to swindle money for their own agenda." I am sorry you had such a negative experience. I hope you find a way to deal with what happened. However, your single experience does not mean that someone else cannot have a tremendous positive impact on youth by working the scout program in an urban setting. I have seen too many success stories to dismiss the program's potential in this setting.

DeMann, First things first. I am not responsible for all that you are responding to in your last post. You stated water was water. I said it is pretty simple to get them to separate. It takes a little energy. We get it every day from the sun. The attempt to use the second law as an argument against evolution is a threadbare old argument. That dog don't hunt. "Again, you need to find the real definition of the second law." Actually, I was waiting for you to articulate the law and explain how it precludes evolution. It is the accepted theory now, the burden is yours. I

littlebillie, I finally figured out why you are the only one promoting 4-legged crickets and where they went. You consider them a delicacy and you ate them all. This just in, NCAA men's ice hockey final score from Durham, NH (3) University of New Hampshire 5 (1) University of Minnesota 5 ot It was a great game. I was so nervous I probably ate one of your crickets, too.

"Hi, my name is firstpusk and I - sigh - am an auditor. It all started when I noticed that the other employees were going through boxes of paper clips while I could scavange what I needed off the copy room floor. I knew I was different so I applied for the job in the department of audits. How was I to know that it would lead to. Pretty soon I was taking paper out of the recycle bin and using the blank sides for interoffice memos. I would never tear the tape on my 10 key. Instead, I let it pile up on the floor across from my desk. When the tape came to the end of the role, I would ca

Rooster7, I am not offended in the least. Tradition to me is something I do take seriously and is kind short hand for faith tradition. Something passed down through the ages from one teacher to the next in an unbroken line to Christ. Yeah, I think I take it seriously. Scouting is my ministry and I do that instead of being more involved in my church. My troop meets there, so I feel I am making a contribution to the youth of my faith community. I didn't mean to wave any red flags, although it is clear I generally wave them more than the white ones ;^) I enjoy mixing it up with yo

"by the way..... who came up with Science, and who came up with the Bible? If God wrote one and man the other, who do you think is right? if man wrote them both,then how can we possibly know what God has to say?" I think there is a profound difference between our traditions. My tradition says man wrote but the word was inspired. I think your tradition would have more of a copyist view, i.e., the books were dictated or something like that. The understanding of the people responsible for recording these words must be taken into account. I will agree that such an understanding i

"A scientist, sir, you are not." Never said I was. A student of science with an interest in psuedo-science (creationism) I am, indeed. Evolution would predict the resistance I gave as examples. The population responds to the environmental pressure that favors certain individuals. Certainly, such resistance comes at a cost to the individual and when the pressure is removed the resistant individuals may not be favored. The peppered moth example showed exactly that. The history of the earth has shown a number of longterm changes in the environment that have irreversibly shifted the

"Could you be a little more specific? It's a pretty big leap from that small step to us." That is true. But it is on small steps like this that evolutionary development is based. "Why does bacteria remain bacteria in all laboratory experiments conducted? Of course they were trying to simulate evolution with the fruit fly. The fruit fly is the perfect candidate because of quickly they reproduce." You still won't read those links. They explain alot about speciation. The experiments they do are to UNDERSTAND evolution. The scientists see the evidence for the theory from numerou

"Okay, lets try this, please explain how a one cell creature became more complex." Evolution works by selecting the better adapted individual in a population. The cell reproduces by dividing. Over time a population of these individual cells survive better when they remain connected in a colony. A small step, but one that indicates greater complexity. And this is exactly the kind of thing we find when we go back to the most ancient forms. "Let's see, why is that after applying radiation to fruit flies to stimulate the evolutionary process, the best scientists can come up with is a

DeMann, Finally, on your view of the Bible. Not every Christian reads Genesis the way you do. It is not a requirement for membership in all churches. I see very important truths in Genesis, but I don't believe it is an account of the origin of the earth and life that is historically accurate or scientifically valid. Your view would put every believer on the horns of a dilema. Accept my view or deny God. Sorry, that view does not speak to me or for me.

DeMann, A theory in science has a different meaning than the word does in everyday speech. An idea that is considered a theory in science has been proposed and tested and explains the observations made in the world. Evolution has met all of the criteria and has been tested for nearly a century and a half. It is as solidly accepted as a theory can be. A theory is not fact. It is provisional explanation. The claim you make about science requiring repeatability is a rhetorical trick. It is kind of along the lines of Ken Hamm's question, "Were you there?" It reflects a lack of und

Sorry DeMann, I can't trust you on your reading of thermodynamics. For your argurment to be of any use, you need a closed system and no energy inputs. Get up from the computer and go outside. Look up at the sun. Think. Then come back in and type me a reply that says, "You were right, don't trust me on this one." And I didn't even have to ask a college professor for help...

"3) Firstpusk talks of needing another alternative of science. well.....Louis Pasteur did that. he proved that the idea of spontaneous generation was false." Sorry DeMann, This has nothing to do with evolution. This argument could be applied to the question of abiogenesis, the origin of life itself, but even this would be a stretch. Evolution explains the diversity of life after its appearance. The formulation you present is the classic creationist technique of redefining the term, in this case evolution, into something it is not. Even if I were to grant you that Past

YoungBlood, The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been used by creationists for quite a long time. It has been thoroughly refuted for at least two decades. The argument keeps popping up often in slightly varied form. It sounds like you have been exposed to a variation from the newest form of creationism to evolve, Intelligent Design. This form conflates evolution, thermodynamics and information theory. Don't feel bad, you are the first guy confused by this stuff. I know you won't be the last...

Nice SNIP, ScoutParent, the whole quote should read: "Why do you need to know what church I go to? If you need to know it, I will tell you. First you need to provide the answer to my question. If you can't provide me with a viable scientific alternative to evolution, admit it. Then I'll even tell you the name of my dog and favorite brand canoe paddle." I assume you are admitting that you can't provide me with the viable scientific theory I have requested the first time back on September 24. The day before you said, "And of course there are always other viable scientific theorie