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, but hopelessly simplistic. Before you dismiss everything this man said as corrupt because you don't agree with the quote given, you should probably read the opinion. Understand what he said in the context of the case and all of the various arguments. I suspect you have not done that. You may be embarrassed to find you agree with the decision.

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 their day. Many of our questions, so many centuries later, are of a different nature. For us to try to make our questions fit their answer is to lack respect for our seeking and theirs, too.

Evolution, or the term that Darwin used - descent with modification by means of natural selection, explains the diversity of life on earth quite effectively. The findings of other sciences such as astronomy, geology and genetics dovetail nicely with those of evolutionary biology. The ancient earth, mass extinctions and the development of new species over time all fit the evolutionary model. The alternative you speak of, using the first few chapters of Genesis as a science text can not tell us why the trilobites or dinosaurs are extinct. It does not even speak to the question. It can not tell us if Australiopithicus aferensis was related to us. The ancient Hebrews knew nothing of such things.

Yes, there are more questions. Among them the very beginning of life hundreds of millions of years ago. But in the real world that is how things work. Our minds solve one problem but see in the solution a dozen more difficult questions to ponder. Such is science. You read too much fictional science and not enough of the real thing. If you understood evolution, you would know that at this time there is no viable scientific alternative. But then again, according to you I am not a reasoning or logical person.

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 (wisely?) did not try to explain.

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 owns. Rebuild kits are available for even some very old stoves with a little effort. Read understand and live by the Guide to Safe Scouting when it comes to stoves (VII - Fuels and Fire Prevention).

If your old stove has the reputation it does, have someone competent inspect and repair it. Using something that "...can flare up and is a bit tricky", may not be the best idea especially if it has not been rebuilt for a while.

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 against. You want to define evolution in a way that clearly suits your purpose of denial. You clearly want to find an argument that will dismiss the theory without having to understand it. The monkey argument you make is a rhetorical trick a sound bite that is clearly pointless to the issue at hand. Do some reading.

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 analogy that I used was not clear to you. You are related to your parents, cousins and siblings. Your coming into existence did not mean they had to all die. The same is true about related species. Extend your arguement and only one species could exist at a time.

Your definition of evolution is not correct. It is defined as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. This encompasses both the small changes you grant as "adaption" and the greater changes between species.

You not accepting evolution does not make it go away. You can choose to ignore it on religious grounds, but it does not change the fact that the evidence supporting the theory gets stronger every day.

"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 this is where faith is supposed to come in.

"If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?"

Ed,

I think that you misunderstand the question on several levels. First, the claim of evolutionary science is that we share a common ancestor with the great apes. No one other than creationists claims that we evolved from chimps or gorillas. Second, apes and monkeys survive because they have found environments to live in that suit them. Finally, I think there is a logical flaw in your whole presumption. My children decended from his parents and grandparents. Why am I and my parents still around?

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 contain will start to decay over time. The percentage of C14 and rate at which it decays is a clock that can be used to measure within a certain error factor when it breathed its last. Note that this error factor is always given as part of the age calculated. An example is the trees found lived 37,587 years ago plus or minus a number of years. That number gives one an idea of around when an event occurs. By its very nature all measurement in science has error and one always seeks to quantify such error in order to validate the measurement. Any decent general science course will teach this concept. More than one sample will be tested to ensure accuracy and factors that might skew the date are taken into account. The C14 date alone will be checked against other facts to further validate the date such as a the placement of the sample in the geological strata.

With that in mind, creationism is bunk because a concept like radiometric dating is misrepresented intentionally by some and this is accepted out of ignorance by others. As I indicated earlier, C14 is measured both against itself by testing more than one sample and against other lines of evidence in order to establish a plausible date not an absolutely accurate one.

Given the evidence, one can be fairly certain about the accuracy of radiometric dating, the fact that humans have evolved and that we have a pretty good idea about the factors that influence evolution. Will there be refinements and reassessments? I am more certain about that. Is this the same as religious faith? Not by a long shot. The perspectives are different as well as the aims and outcomes. I don't think theism comes into it at all. The church I go to doesn't tell me I can't accept evolution and still be a Christian. My understanding of God is something that does not stand or fall on the basis of evolution. I don't believe in evolution but I do accept it.

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. That is certainly your right and I respect your beliefs. I simply do not agree that yours is the proper approach to the text in question. I would not agree with the approach of Biblical literalists that the entire Bible is fact. I believe this book provides us with truth. Some is historical, some about human nature, some about our relationship with God and each other, but I can't find any texts that could be remotely considered scientific. That is okay with me because I don't think the people that wrote the Bible understood or care a fig about science.

You can view this as a can of worms if you like. I feel it is simply using the marvelous mind that God gave each of us.

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 weekend. If you are ever in the Twin Cities, let me know and I will find some folks who can show you the ropes.

Link to the MCA boatbuilding webpage

http://www.canoe-kayak.org/pages/plans.html

Good luck. Email me if you want anything else.

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 for all of their camping fees through their own efforts. If you don't credit the boys based on their effort, there are likely a number of scouts getting a free ride. I would think about that before I got too worried about a few dollars from the treasury going to this scout.

The second concern I have is that I have seen a number of boys quit scouting because their parent was replaced as scoutmaster on less than friendly terms. To what extent is the controversy there fueling the dispute about this scout. I have seen a number of scouts that have been deemed severe behavior problems in one troop succede in another unit. It is best if there is someone who can mediate the dispute and allow cooler heads to prevail. The COR and/or UC is always where I would start first. Seek an amicable solution if at all possible.

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. A scoutmaster could also encourage more training as part of a scoutmaster conference. In both cases, they can not require but only encourage not require. I have seen a number of boys that have become discouraged by these kinds of added requirements.

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 you are talking about.

You are claiming to be twice wronged, yet I addressed the issue that you originally complained about last week. You came back to address my post and added the little statement at the end. Sorry, I can't buy it. Especially when you add the little dig at me saying perhaps I will "...eventually understand these words.."

You don't know much about me and you don't know this subject. You have clearly established both points. On top of that, your complaints about being misrepresented are the tears of a crocodile.

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, these new tests also conform to the concepts Darwin put down it the Origin of Species.

It is not just fossils. Evidence from geology, genetics and a growing number of biological specialties to name a few. The results from all of these areas conform with the theory of evolution. You want to reduce it to the notion that both creationism and evolution require faith, so I can choose what to believe. What ever you choose to believe is fine with me. If you want to talk about evolution, find out what it is about. There are plenty of good sources, even on the web.

"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 accepts the validity of evolution also believe in God? You are pretty good at this kind of mean spirited back handed slap.

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, nearly a century and a half has gone by since the publication of his famous book. The research supports his central thesis more strongly today than ever. If you want to back away from the implication of your remark, that might be wise. But I have to ask, what is the point of making it in the first place?

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 not address the mountains of evidence supporting the theory. It only allows you to ignore the evidence.