Fishsqueezer

I think the big problem here is one of perception. Two people can see the same thing yet interpret differently based on their personal backgrounds and feelings. If you have two people watch someone catch and release a fish, one may see a fish instinctively strike a bait, then as it senses the pull of the line it resists the pull and tries to get away. It continues to try to get away while the hook is removed, then successfully swims away as the angler releases the fish. The other may see a hungry fish trying to feed itself that is cruelly impaled on a hook. The fish then tries to flee in fear

Nothing says we can't teach alchemy in chemistry class either, but why would we want to waste their time. The US already lags way behind in math and science compared to other countries. I guess once we are at the bottom we don't have to worry about going down any more.

Rooster7 Posted: Tuesday, 12/20/2005: 9:03:27 PM Intelligent design does not directly support a specific religion. It simply purports that there was/is a designer. There is empirical evidence to support this claim. I guess I passed this one over. OK, where is the empirical evidence? You have asked others to provide proof of their stance, now it is your turn. After all this discussion I would think you would have pulled it out. Empirical evidence of a designer would answer all questions. Kittle Posted: Wednesday, 12/21/2005: 9:06:46 AM Evolution is a theory, not proven fact, b

Sorry Rooster, I guess you didn't notice the bold blue text in the paragraph under 1865 that said: "Some prominent scientists continue to reject the idea of evolution, but only a few years after On the Origin of Species is published, evolution is mainstream science. Magazines and newspapers -- even religious publications -- promote evolution. On exam papers at church-run Cambridge University, students are told to assume "the truth ... that the existing species of plants and animals have been derived by generation from others widely different." This is not one persons opinion and the in

Here you go Rooster http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1860.html c. 1865: Evolution Accepted (Rise of Evolution) (Reconciliation) Evolution accepted. Some prominent scientists continue to reject the idea of evolution, but only a few years after On the Origin of Species is published, evolution is mainstream science. Magazines and newspapers -- even religious publications -- promote evolution. On exam papers at church-run Cambridge University, students are told to assume "the truth ... that the existing species of plants and animals have been derived

Again there is a lack of understanding of evolution. Man did not evolve FROM apes. Man and apes share a COMMON ANCESTOR. How many times have we heard from creationists that scientists just won't look into the possibility of creation? I daresay that more scientists are open to the idea of God than creationists open to the idea of evolution. How many of you have read evolution articles or books from scientists recognized as experts on evolution? I've read the bible many times. I've read ID and creation science articles. I've discussed creation many times with people in my church and other church

Rooster Here are some sites you might peruse. I suppose the key word in your request is "trustworthy" since it is not likely you will trust anything that disagrees. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/index.html http://home.earthlink.net/~jjkeggi/SOSc/ (Society of Ordained Scientists) http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/bowler.htm http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/Darwin/DarwinSem-S95.html http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm You might also read Evolution: The History of an Idea by Peter Bowler and Darwin

ScoutnDad Your quote "I guess my ultimate question would be how do Scoutmasters/adult leaders in BSA that do not believe in God/a Divine entity, provide a well rounded perspective for leadership to the boys within their Troops?" I believe you are approaching this issue with a false dichotomy - either you believe in God or you believe in evolution. There are a lot of people in this world that are much more comfortable with black and white, either/or choices. It makes the world much simpler. Believing in evolution does not automatically negate belief in God. In fact, most major deno

Rooster7 I am not sure that you can say that science totally disregards ID out of hand with nary a look to see if it is possible. Remember that ID or creationism was THE explanation for everything for hundreds of years prior to Darwin. Even Darwin was a creationist. It took him years after his voyage to finally convince himself that the data was overwhelming and he only published then after he heard another guy (I don't remember his name but he did butterflies in Asia) was going to publish the same idea. Two guys on opposite sides of the world came to the same conclusion looking at totally d

From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Theory: The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another; the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art; a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. Other theories that are taught as fact Wave Theory Gravitational Theory Quantum Theory Electromagnetic Theory Theory of Relativity Acoustic Theory Antenna Theory Cell Theory Continental Drift is a theory as is plate tectonics In science something is only considered a theor

Your own quote Rooster7 "Just because one cannot explain the existence of something using their limited knowledge that does not mean a valid explanation does not existence. Until all truth is revealed, no one is qualified to say what is consistent with the true laws of nature or physics and what is not - especially given Fishsqueezer's list of rules pertaining to legitimate scientific theories, most notably rule #6. The bottom line is, while science deserves credit for seeking truth, all of science is still just a house of cards. " Yet ID says that God created it if we can't explain

Rooster7 You seem to think that #6 is a weakness of science. Have you had a science class since high school? #6 is the very strength of science. Science is seeking a provable explanation of some question. To question itself is proof that the field is dynamic. Remember your history - the world was flat, the planets revolved around the earth, all things were made up of the 4 elements (earth, fire, water, and air). Any scientist would tell you that mere fact that we can question and that it is dynamic is its strength. What can you question with ID? To question the conclusion is to quest

Are Christian views really attacked or do those that hold those views feel defensive when their mistakes are pointed out? I am a Christian yet I do not see that evolution directly conflicts with my belief. Most major denominations also do not have a problem with evolution. The problem comes when people try to force ID or creation science into the definition of science. Scientific theories or hypotheses, by definition, are falsifiable. That means that you cannot prove them correct, you can only prove them false. If every bison you have ever seen is brown does that prove that all bison are brown

As a practicing fisheries biologist and a trained wildlife biologist I have read this thread with great interest. From what I read, those that do not hunt cannot understand why someone would want to kill an animal while those that do hunt(me included) find it very difficult to explain why it is such an important part of the experience. I will try to explain some of my thoughts. I have noted a lot of discussion about "modern weapons" and how they take the fair chase out of the hunt. The assumption is that with these new weapons the animals don't have a chance. If you review success rates f

I will be conducting the Troop Leadership Training in January. I'm glad to hear it went well. This will be the first time my troop has done any training. I like the idea of a Powerpoint to help explain ideas. I plan on breaking the training into 3 1-hour sessions. Since our council hasn't conducted youth leader training for over 3 years, I've also developed a number of mini training courses from the NYLT curriculum. They are designed to last 30 minutes or less, have an activity, and emphasize specific leadership topics like leading a meeting, using a duty roster, problem solving, etc. I p

We do not require that they use Mr. or Mrs. but my ASMs and I do try to set the tone by referring to each other as Mr. ___ when talking about each other with the kids. We also address each scout as Mr. when addressing them or introducing them within the group. While we do have a few die-hard first namers in the scout ranks, most catch on pretty quick and begin using the Mr. tag.

Our troop owns a cargo trailer that is essentially a big empty box with wheels. We would like to modify it with racks to stack chuck boxes, tents, and other gear to make it more accessible and easier to organize. We are concerned about balance side-to-side and weight distribution front to back. Are there any plans available to modify a cargo trailer to these purposes? Would we be better off with the strength of steel or aluminum racks or the ease and adjustability of wood? I would appreciate any thoughts or experiences.

I am new to this board and relatively new as a Scoutmaster, so I guess I am a little impressionable. I have had a couple questions concerning the District Advancement folks that I am not sure how to address. 1) I had a discussion with one of the District Advancement people about recieving the rank of scout. He insisted that over his 30+ years of scouting that as soon as the boy joins he is at scout rank. I hold that as soon as he fills out his paperwork and pays dues he is a Boy Scout but he is not scout rank until he can recite the Law and Oath, etc and has a Scoutmaster Conference.