firstpusk

Zorn Packte said with respect to Justice Black, Everson v. Board of Education 1947, "That is only one man's opinion. The Supreme Court is comprise of men who are selected, not for their intelligence, but for their record of ruling in a manner that pleases the appointer of the moment. The whole system is flawed and like most government organizations, corrupt." Actually, Justice Black wrote for the majority. Therefore, it is not "one man's opinion" as you say but the decision of the court. I think your assessment of how justices are chosen by a president is not only overly cynical, b

Try me ScoutParent. Give me one of those viable scientific theories that I "may not be aware of...". Go ahead, throw me another bone, provide me with your enlightenment. Any thinking logical person should be able to come up with one in no time. I will be waiting. I am sure you won't search in vain. By the way, creationism is not a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

The science that Darwin first explained started with what could be described, the amazing diversity of life. Darwin applied the scientific method properly and avoided pointless speculation. Yes, the creation story in Genesis starts at the beginning and is stirring. I read it like sacred poetry. It has truth and speaks to the heart, but should not be read like a newspaper account or a science textbook. It is the understanding that the people telling the creation stories of Genesis had, not ours. Not that one should belittle them or the story. It answered the questions they asked in

I was trained to fold them like an envelope and set them on their edge. The dinners never need turning (this avoids causing tears and puntures). This has the added benefit of requiring much less space for cooking the dinners. A standard fire ring can easily handle 20-30 dinners. If you build a key, it is even better. Simply wait until they puff out and pull them, open them and eat. Identifying the dinners is easy. Have a permanent marker at the prep table and the scout writes their initial or mark on their dinner. This even works for cubs.

"And the first organisms that started this evolutionary chain came from...?" ScoutParent, A very interesting philosophical question but one totally separate from evolution. The validity of evolution does not rely on a definitive answer of your question. There are of course a variety of different answers depending on to whom you talk. The science that studies the question is referred to as abiogenesis. Evolutionary biology is a science that tries to explain the diversity of life that exists and the history of that life. The starting point was something Darwin mentioned but (w

I use an MSR Dragonfly. It allows for multiple fuels and has a second valve that makes it much easier to actually cook on the trail. The XKG and Whisperlite don't have this feature. Some of the Optimus stoves do, though they may be a bit more expensive. I think the Dragonfly is a bit better choice for most scouting situations when compared to the XKG or Whisperlite (because of the second adjustment valve), but both are good stoves. On old A-bomb, make sure that someone in your troop (registered adult) gains some expertise on operating, cleaning and maintaining the stoves the troop own

Ed, Speculations about evolution go back to the time of ancient Greece. Darwin formulated a theory to explain the process of evolution - natural selection. He explained how it worked in his book by comparing it to the kind of selective breeding done by farmers. Darwin did claim humans had a common ancestor with the apes, not that we were decended from chimps or gorillas. That is why the argument is not valid. Oh, and yes, Darwin was a creationist earlier in life.

Ed, I didn't make an analogy about trees, littlebillie did. I think your argument is pointless. Pointless because no one claims that humans evolved from apes or monkeys but creationists that are trying to misrepresent evolution. I already pointed out that this formulation of yours was inaccurate. Pointless because even if your formulation were accurate, it would not preclude both species from surviving. I disagree with you evolution isn't the issue, the issue is indeed clarity. The problem you have with making points is that you clearly don't understand what you are arguing ag

littlebillie, I kind of figured that was where you were heading with this. I would agree that any biblical sources documenting evolution would carry a lot more weight than the fossil record. However, insects were among the earlier species to develop on land (405 million years ago). The basic body plan three segments, six legs, etc, has been stable for a pretty long time. So I don't buy the argument. However, I do agree with you that what I call evolution adds tremendously to my sense of wonder over the gift of life on this beautiful earth.

littlebillie, We are not just talking about crickets but "...all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." So it is not one species but hundreds of thousands if not millions of insect species. As I indicated in an earlier post, there are no 4 legged insects in the fossil record only six legged ones. The record goes back a long time before the time of Leviticus and they simply aren't there. What you are asking is that all of these many species of six legged bugs somehow change to four legged ones and back again. Ed, I realize the

"Well, an omnipotent, omnisicient Force could have devised a Creation with some amount of decay already in place, if not to show us what was, then the possible logic of how it could have come to be. otherwise - still assuming a Creator - it's a deception." littlebillie, I agree with you on this. Why would a loving God so deceive us? We were given minds with the ability to unravel the mysteries of our world. I think God would expect us to apply that mind. This is a troublesome issue for many biblical Christians and I don't have an answer that will resolve it for them. I think thi

Merle's statements defining the differences between science and mathematics were an effort to explain that science is tentative and does not use "proofs" in the sense one does in geometry. Instead science, working in the real world must recognize real world limitations. You demand proof without doubt that C14 dating is 100% accurate, that humans evolved and the theory of evolution is correct. This is not the way science works. Each of the questions you have proposed are different kinds of problems. Let's just start with C14 dating. When a plant or animal dies, the C14 they cont

Leviticus is interesting but hardly a required article of faith for a Christian, modern or otherwise. I suppose you won't eat shrimp or lobster because of the prohibitions earlier in the eleventh chapter of Leviticus. I know and understand that many American Christians approach the Bible as both of you do. However, you must understand that this is an approach that is not shared by all or even most other Christians. Going back to the time of St. Augustine it is clear that he did not feel a literal interpretation of Genesis was necessary. I also know that you may not agree with me

Since we have example of insects in the fossil record that predate Leviticus by millions of years, what we can conclude is the author of this did not carefully observe what he was writing about. Insects don't have four legs and the author was simply mistaken. We shouldn't read the Bible looking for scientific explanations.

jps, I have not built one, but have seen a number of them built from the plan on this link. Along with my scouting I am a member of the Minnesota Canoe Association. I have talked with the owners of these craft and they appear to be quite happy with the performance. They are built with plywood (1/4" marine, I think) and aren't as heavy as you might fear. They appear to be a good deal easier and faster to build than a cedar strip canoe. I have been thinking about building one myself. We have a boat show in February at the Har Mar Mall near St. Paul. It is usually the second weeke

Everyone seems intent on denying membership and financial support to the boy in question. I have to ask a couple of questions. One, does your troop have written policies regarding discipline, membership and providing money for camp? Two, did the boy and family participate in the raising of funds and have you kept accurate records of such participation for all boys and families? The money might justifiably be considered his if he participated in good faith. I always feel it is best to grant support based on the effort boys put forth. I have had scouts from families of modest means pay

As much as I like to encourage trained Den Chief and JLT, this is not the way to do it. I have run across this kind of complait more often than I care to think about. Getting more boy leaders trained is always an important goal and I think one measure of an effective troop. But having served on staff for both my council's JLTC and Den Chief training, I can only say the last thing I want is a boy that has been "forced" into my course. It is not fair to the boy, to the staff and to the participants. I love it when a board of review finds a way to rekindle the fire in a boy's heart.

Quixote, Thanks for reading the link. I thought you would agree. I indicated earlier that scientific conclusions are tentative. They should be refined, changed or rejected as our understanding grows. That is the strength of science. As a system, it is self-correcting. If other researchers get different results, the conclusions are not supported and science moves on. I know that this particular field is difficult for certain Christian denominations. This difficulty is far from universal and does not exist at all for those of my tradition.

Rooster7, I would even grant you that you were talking about someone else if you had not put that statement at the end your post responding to me. You respond to my arguments, add the little piece about atheists posting and now claim that you were not making the statement about me. You complain when I predict the position you will take, take that exact position and then claim you have been misrepresented. Here is a little hint for you next time. You want to address a comment to or about someone else in a post responding to another, take the time to clearly identify who and what

Rooster7, Science is not fool-proof, however, it is self-correcting. In other words, I may publish results or conclusions that do not conform to reality. Other researchers read my paper and are free to use my methods to test both the results and the conclusions. Do some researchers take shortcuts? Yes, but in the long run, the problems with their work will be exposed by others that can not repeat their results. It is just this kind of probing that Darwin's ideas have been exposed to for nearly a century and a half. As new methods of testing these ideas have been discovered, thes

"I can't help but address the atheists that occasionally post on this site. Here's a truth that I find rather ironic." Rooster7, I take it that you will take back your statements about misrepresentation. I find it ironic that last week you were upset saying you did not question my faith and this week you imply I an atheist. But I suppose you will claim that you were just making a statement and not saying I am an atheist. It must be the easiest for you. Dismiss the argument and the person at the same time by making an assumption about my beliefs. After all, how can someone who ac

Quixote, When I refer to rock throwing, I am talking about your "didn't get it" comment. I read pretty well for comprehension and will wear your comment as an ironic badge of honor from now on. Read the link about the flat earth. Even if you were right, a viewpoint that is more than 500 years old I would not call modern science. If you could find me some astronomers around the time claiming the world is flat then your statement might on some level be considered accurate. Otherwise, and I will put this as nicely as I can, you are just shooting from the hip. About Darwin,

Science is tentative the reliabilty of a theory is based on the same result being repeated by other researchers. The guys insisting on absolutes are on your side. As for me not getting it, put down the rocks Quixote, thats a glass house you are in.

I don't think you can blame any flat earth talk on science (see link below). The sun revolving around the earth seemed like more of a theological concern. As for Darwin, he has held up pretty well so far. And even if he has been proven wrong on small points, the theory he proposed is better supported than ever. I think your wish that he will someday be discredited is a pipedream. The Myth of the Flat Earth http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm

Scomman, When I talk about the context of the quote, I mean what were the authors trying to say. Creationist websites frequently grossly misrepresent the views of scientists when they are quoted. I am saying that it is your responsibility to read the original document to grasp that meaning and ensure you are not also misrepresenting the author. You are claiming that those who teach evolution doubt the theory. In the original context, that is not what they are saying. Instead, they are claiming that evolution operates differently than was originally thought. Finding a quote does