moosetracker

Stosh - I think you are reading too much into "The Origin of Species"..  So humans originated from Neanderthals who originated from something else, who originated from something else.. But at some point it ends with some long ago extinct living creature and no one will explain where that came from..  The cat came from long ago extinct barbourofelis, who came from Dirk tooth who came from the Saber kitty.. But where did the Saber kitty come from?? (and yes I looked that up, I knew they were ancestors of the saber Tooth, but was not sure if we jumped from Saber tooth to kitty and it appears we did not..) Anyway, the origin of Species from those now deceased, will still not answer the origin of life..

As for the differences of races, perhaps Packsaddle can point me to some good articles when he is done with grading his final exams..  I would be interested in learning more about it. Remember Pack, not too techie... Yes we are all considered human, but remember what Professor Packsaddle posted earlier.. "any change in the gene frequencies in a population counts as some level of evolution."   So for Orientals to have dark hair and almond shaped brown eyes, and Europeans to have fairer color skin, eye color and hair color etc.. although it didn't make a new species it did meet the criteria of gene frequencies in a population.. (I think, Packsaddle can school me if I am wrong.)

As for Polar Bears, yes they are still Polar Bears but being forced to adapt will not cause changes overnight.. What changes will happen as they eat different things, need to live in warmer climates, I think I read one Polar Bear was found living in the habitat of another bear (not sure if it was brown or black or what), could they procreate?.. They still could go extinct, but there is hope for them to survive if they can change to meet the needs.. If they do though change would be gradual.. Don't expect a  totally new species in 5 to 10 years..

Yeah I admit not a heavy lifter of boring stuff.. It has to be an article of interest, for me usually dealing with history so mummy's and buried cities rediscovered, and some evolution when they find very old mass graves, or bones that predate what they knew before, or are found in an area further then they new the animal was commonly known to be, or interesting old artifacts found locally.. Perhaps those interesting articles are not totally accurate??..

Just to let you know my religious beliefs are not threatened by any science. Your scientist pals can create man-made life and I am still good. Because it will not prove that that is how life really began, just that you can recreate life in this way.. Also to do so you would be using elements of the earth and it's atmosphere to do so.. Then there still is the question of who created the combination of those that allowed the ability for you to create man-made life?..

I was just pointing to some sciences that might come closer to explaining the creation of life then sitting around waiting for the science of evolution to explain life from studying the relationship of one set of old bones to another.. And stating evolution is poppy-cock until it successfully can do so..

But hey, if I have made any of your students look intelligent on their final exams compared to me.. I am happy to do them the favor, tell them I will except flowers & candy for their gratitude..

Out of class briefly and I can tell you...this whole discussion does not give me great confidence in our scientific literacy if this forum is representative of the general public. 

 

Professor says back to school... 

Well I know I can't sit down with a full fledge scientist and talk turkey.. My limited understanding of science comes from reading articles (that interest me, I admit to me most scientific articles are yawners), that have dumbed down the science in order to relate to us average folk.. And yes, some of my understanding of that reading may have strayed, or my memory of an article I read 2 years back may have a little rust on it.

Of course that leaves the whole issue that evolution doesn't even address, what triggered the creation of the universe and everything in it?  Evolution is nothing but a philosophical argument which proposes the premise that when one collects enough mutations in living organisms they might be able to survive and adapt to environmental conditions it finds itself in, such as hot vents in the floor of the oceans that are home to organism that cannot live anywhere else without dying.  Kinda like humans don't do well outside in sub-zero weather either.  But those who evolve into putting on coat, hat and mittens seem to have a longer life expectancy than those that don/t.

 

So where in all of this do we find the convincing argument that some sort of being, outside the confines of the universe didn't have a hand in making it all happen?  (I hope people don't think I meant literally a real hand, just a figure of speech.) Well evolution is our best shot at it at this point? and it's a pretty paltry attempt in my opinion.  Keep it in mind that no matter how good science may eventually get it is always limited to a relationship of time and space, neither of which any religion ascribe to their god(s).  Quote all the scientists one wishes who are knowledgeable in their field of study, once they cross the line out of the realm of time and space, they are no longer operating within their own definition of science.  This is where Socrates and later on Darwin build their philosophical assumptions.

Of course it's a pretty paltry attempt, when they are not attempting to do what you are accusing them of they aren't going to do a good job at it. They are explaining how humans and other living creatures evolved (or became extinct) by studying their bones / fossils & for humans artifacts.. How you think they are suppose to jump to explaining the  spark of life or the soul from a bunch of dusty old bones has me scratching my head..

Now if you want to fear some science maybe someday possibly being able to recreate manmade life (rather then life from the reproduction system of life) and therefore maybe showing the world that life was created without the need for any god being involved I would look at the science that currently create test tube babies (currently they can't without the egg & sperm) they are only simulating the womb).. But, could they possibly advance to do so?...   Also I read somewhere recently that some scientists are discussing the possibility of recreating the dinosaur from DNA matter from their old bones.. Ok the evolutionist may use the bones to study the evolution and extinction of the dinasaurs, but I do not think they are the ones trying to figure out how to recreate Dinosaurs.. (and really who wants Dinosaurs roaming around today? Jurassic Park in reality? How about starting with something nicer like bring back the Dodo bird..  Anyway, there wasn't enough in the article to state how they thought this possible. Would they start with and egg & sperm like say an elephant, and alter the DNA? Or do they propose they are going to find a way to create a manmade spark of life (Frankenstein style).. 

But, if DNA research starts to worry you, then do we need to throw out our trust in using DNA to find out a rapist, or free an innocent person?.. Can DNA no longer be tested to figure out if the bones of someone deceased is your missing son or mother? Of course now you can discount evolution because it does base some of its facts on DNA testing..

So then is each successive generation of healthier children the result of evolution or technology?  Obviously the variety of rabbits the SSScouter talks about tend to be more technological as with a lot of domestication of plants and animals.  But one can't attribute that to evolution.

Evolution today is mostly being studied on the changes in animals due to changes in our world.. Like how polar bears are adapting with the melting ice caps, and other animals with loss of forests or swamps etc..  I kind of wondered something similar a few days back in respect to humans.. I don't know if it was considered evolution or what, but when our ancestors migrated out, different communities took on very distinct features.. European, Afro-American, Asian, native American.. This was not only visual, but anthropologist can study human bone and depict what culture the bones came from..  Now with travel so easy and inter-racial marriages (or coupling) the distinct feature over time will start blending together (at least I would think) in a few hundred years will there even be any distinctions? You discuss technology.. I would think that what it plays on our  evolution is not something they would distinguish as a different study.. I believe the ability for our ancestors to live in caves, build fires, create tools and find ways to travel and migrate all over the world, played a part in our evolution in the past studies, so why would modern technology not be considered a factor in how we evolve in the future.. In some ways I would imagine we may evolve less due to the fact it is no longer a survival of the fittest.. But who knows what the future will hold.. 

So the Scout comes to his SMC and when asked he says he's an Evolutionist.  Has he answered that on religious grounds or scientific grounds?  If there is a difference then why are the evolutionists all that worried about creationism?  I wonder if science ever gets caught up in politics?  Just a thought.

Since evolution is a science and has nothing to do with religion this would be a weird thing for a scout to say.. It would not answer for duty to God, now during the course of conversation maybe something in the conversation may spark the scout to go off in this direction, just as it did with you.. But this would really be going off the subject of his religious belief and more into a discussion of if his religious beliefs allow him to embrace evolution or run contrary to it.

Honestly I believe the tin foil has gotten crappier over the years.. Normal tin foil is now good only to cover a dish, but not to either line a pan or do aluminum cooking with.. Heavy duty Tin foil is what normal tin foil use to be.. You can line a pan, but I advise wrapping twice if using for aluminum foil cooking, because using a single sheet can lead to tearing when picking up the packet... Grill foil I put at where heavy duty foil use to be..

I have not found a person who did not like this yet, and I have used with different groups at trainings.. Even my son likes it (all of it) and there isn't a vegetable he does not like.. He made faces at me the first time he saw me cooking it, but did a complete turn around once he tasted it, and now asks for it.

Chicken 7-up Stew

1 Onion -- chopped fine

4 Chicken breast halves -- Chunks

4 Carrots

4 Potatoes

+------------------------------------+

1/2 Tbs Oil -- or margarine

1/2 lbs Cheese, Velveeta

1 Bottle real bacon bits (3 oz Jar) or cook and crumble real bacon at home

1 can 7-Up

At Home:

1. Chop the onion into fine pieces. Place in a plastic Put in the cooler.

2. Chop  of the each chicken breast halves into 4-6 large chunks .

3. Peel and slice Carrots.

4. wash and slice the potatoes (only if using potatoes that will not turn brown due to starch like yellow potatoes).

5 Place chicken, carrots (& potatoes if sliced) in the same plastic bag.

Campsite:

1. Preheat the 12"; Dutch Oven to 350°. (25 coals total 17 top and 8 bottom)

2. add oil to a dutch oven.

3. Add the onion and cook until they start to become transparent.

4. (cut up potato if did not do so at home)

5. Add the chicken, carrot slices, and cut the potatoes into the dutch oven.

6. Add 1 can of 7-up. cover and cook until the potatoes are tender.

7. Cut the Velveeta cheese into chunks on top of the mixture.

8. Cover and let cook for a few minutes and the cheese melts.

9. Sprinkle the bacon bits over the top.

10. Serve in bowls sauce and all.

Servings: 4

... (No guarantee that it won't be moved again to Issues and Politics though.  In order to do that, there would have to be an agreement from the beginning that the thread would stay limited to the narrow topic of advancement, including whether the requirement(s) is/are a good idea or not.)

If you agree to stay with "How will you implement it", you may stay out of I & P, but if you allow opinion as to whether it is a good or bad idea, the only way that we don't end up back here is if we have had our fill on this topic enough to keep us happy for a month or two.

Mozart - That is your opinion of science, mine is very different.. When has the religious opened the Bible to be disproved and if disproved is willing to rewrite the bible?..  Religion does not look for proof, it just asks you to believe..  You may point to a resistance for science to change, but a resistance to change is very different then never accepting change or never looking for proof.. Resistance to change is just human nature,  it may take a generation so that scientist who have their egos wrapped up in their theories retire, but if there is proof change it will.. Now it still might not be perfect, but it will become more accurate..  And that is what is wrong with your statement "Oh, and as to who disproved it, yes it was science...but there were others saying science was wrong to begin with...science just decided to listen." Others saying the science is wrong doesn't cut it in the world of science.. You need a way to prove your theory..

I don't know if anyone in the thread is stating the science about something is so perfect that it never can be improved upon.. I know I am not.. But, I will trust that the science that we have currently explains things more accurately then it did 100 years ago or 500 years ago..  As for religion I personally have changed my religious beliefs if it is more right or more wrong, I don't know, but it makes more sense to me, and no one can tell me or prove to me (nor ever will) that what I believe is incorrect..

You are entitled to your beliefs Stosh..

As stated by others, since there are many scientists who can study science and have a religious faith both, since many religions are not threatened by science then I through that I have found my peace of mind.. Different ways different religions have found a way to reconcile the two, but the one I heard growing up which seemed fine by me was that the six days was more poetic or that a day for God was millions of years for us.. If you look the timeline for when things were created then the Bible & science are in sync..

This is not to say your belief or mine or an atheists are wrong it just means there are different ways to look at things, just because an atheist might sight science as proof against religion, religious people do not have to be threatened by their viewpoint..

Science also gave us leaches, plating, an upright walking T-Rex, heliocentrisim, opening windows during a tornado to prevent your house from imploding or exploding due to air pressure and other such things that were all later proven to be wrong. There are many things in which science expects people to take on faith too. Often very long-established scientific principles turn out to be very wrong.

How many of these scientific theory's were disproven without scientists and science?.. You can argue that it took a while to be disproven, but you can not argue that it was not disproven or you would not have these to use for example.. Which basically states science does work, and continually improves and becomes more refined and accurate over time..

Dislike science all you want, but the truth is America is falling behind in educating our youth compared to other countries.. Math and science are both important components of education that all our schools must improve on to ever catch up.. That means not handicapping science because you feel threatened by it...  Who knows the future scientists that we educate today, may take what they learn about evolution and use it to one day either disprove evolution as we know it today, or fill in the gaps to evolution.. 

So for 17+ pages of posts, I have been told I am ignorant, incorrect, etc. because my belief tradition is not the same as yours.  That really doesn't bode well for the future of the Scout is Reverent which is supposed to lead a scout to a level of tolerance and respect for other's beliefs.  Of course my anti-evolution beliefs don't count in that scenario because everyone knows how utterly ridiculous believing what the Bible says is totally irrational and basically, ignorant mythology.  So everyone who doesn't buy into Socrates' philosophy that religion is a myth pretty much has to reject the 12th Law as even necessary or even valid to begin with.

 

All along I have said evolution is a philosophical argument that has rather large gaps which have remained unanswered by a rather large majority of opportunities to do so.  I happen to believe in a tradition that has been around for a very long time and has more of a valid track record over time, religious traditions, and social significance than has Darwin's reiteration of a 2 millennium discussion on the "origins" of humanity that hasn't really made much of a dent in the religious traditions of 3 major religions accepted by people today.

Stosh - I feel bad that you feel we have been calling you ignorant, especially if you feel I was part of it..  I have not seen anyone here calling you ignorant or stupid.. For me, you are simply a rare find of someone I have heard about but never before met..  Then in an open discussion stating what I believe to see where we differ.. But, then sometimes you moved away from religious beliefs to state other beliefs you hold...  The majority of Americans do not believe in evolution. That either creationism theory should be taught in school or evolution not taught in school.. Those are not a part of your religious beliefs, but more a discussion of religion being taught at public schools (and if so whose religious belief).. And a debate over what the majority of this country believes about evolution. Again not calling you ignorant, but definitely feeling a change between an open discussion on our religious belief to being able to disagree with you on these subjects.

Thanks for the info Packsaddle, I knew someone passed that (thought it was a state, not a district), I didn't realize that it was later overturned as unconstitutional.. Every now & then I hear of someone thinking about it, but was not sure if it passed or not..

Since AZMike's comment would shift this from a religious thread to a political thread, I will pass on commenting.. Electing a new president is less then 2 years away and I am sure as we get closer to that we will have plenty of threads that are more political in nature.

Evolution just got discussed within the realm of this thread because of Stosh's view on religion vs science.. So it is not the ONLY litmus test, but it is a valid topic for this particular thread..

I should also add that the trad Catholic viewpoint holds that while evolution can be accepted as a finding of science by the faithful (heck, we owe the science of genetics to a priest, after all), it is not acceptable to believe that the human soul evolved and was not a creation of God, or that there was not an event where the first man and the first woman were imbued with a unique human soul. When that occurred, or what form of human that was or what they looked like, can be interesting to debate but has no real impact on our morality or our salvation. 

 

Catholic doctrine does not require a belief or disbelief in evolution, of course. One is welcome to believe in a literal reading of Genesis, and if the account of Adam and Eve were literally true, it would also have no effect one way or another on my salvation.

Pretty much same with what my church taught.. After all evolution is not in the bible, so you did not need to believe in evolution to be in-sync with the religion.. It was simply they did not draw a line in the sand and say either you believe in the bible, or you believe in evolution but you can not believe in both.. They found a way to reconcile why evolution did not discount the bible.  Since I have never met anyone but Stosh who can't accept evolution except to read about the a State or two that refuse to have it in their science books, from my point of view I would say most people who were religious found peace with the ability to blend.. But, as I have always stated, I live in the east.. NY, IL, MA & NH, never a red state.. So I have never lived in the bible belt.. Perhaps there you have a lot of people how are not able to blend and must deny science in order to keep their religious faith.. So where we live could definitely color our perspectives.

Stosh - What about AZMikes comment?

From the traditional Catholic viewpoint (which, with the Orthodox, comprises about 2/3 of all the Christians in the world, so it's not an outlier position), natural selection is one of the many natural processes by the natural world is shaped, just as volcanism, tectonic plate dynamics, atomic degradation, and so forth are. In Genesis, God is referred to as both the maker and shaper of creation, and the Hebrew word for "shaped" is used in connection with much of the creation narrative.

 

I know the liberal protestant churches I grew up in were just fine with blending science and religion together also.

Also since most of the united states but a few red states have accepted teaching evolution in their science courses, that to me says the majority of people in this country are fine with accepting this science..

For me religion is pure faith.. Evolution has thousands of fossils that show changes over time, it offers me more then faith.. If my religion wanted me to have pure faith in it, while part of it's belief system was to tell me evolution was a myth because to believe in evolution discounted religious faith, rather then finding a way to blend evolution with faith, well...  my religion would have basically told that my religious belief was something I could no longer have any faith in.

What's wrong Stosh? Isn't this the typical way we answer a question... It seems the loop de loop is as per normal.

Ok, I will stop obsessing.. I also did not note that in the post where you asked Stosh & Sentinal to point out the thread in question, you later knew exactly which thread it was.. Also confused over the use of the word locked, rather then password protected..  Yes, that one is password protected on me also, and a weird one to be password protected since it seems like it should be a help guide to newbie members.

I know I can read, but not post.. But Stosh & Sentinel both state that they can not access it at all (If this is the thread in question.)

I am not sure if this really is the one Stosh is talking about, but Stosh  was one of the last posters to this thread, and it is in Issues & Politics.. The full titile is "Pin Heads Vote to Remove Flag" the posters on this thread were  TwoCub, Skeptic, TAHAWK, qwasze,  dcsimmons, Stosh, NJCubScouter, RememberSkiff, (you) Packsaddle, Merlyn..  It was locked on March 9th, so if this is the one, no one noticed it being locked for quite a while..

It has a little lock symbol on it.. I also am confused why I can get into it, but others can't.. Seems when you locked it, you were under the impression that people could come in and still read it.. If not, you wouldn't of bothered removing Merlyns comment, and posting a (sortof) comment on why it was closed.. Normally I am used to explanations such as "This thread is off-topic for this forum", "Posters are not following rules about being considerate and respectful", "Rules state posters can not comment on the actions taken by the moderators" etc..

Packsaddles closing comment is as follows : "I should send a couple of you to the corner as well but I'll merely close this one out."

Are you talking about the "PinHead" Tread.. I can read it, just can't post to it (which is what I am use to in other forums that lock threads..).. I think Packsaddle tsk, tsk a few of you (not anyone by name, just a general tsk,tsk to the lot of you), but what ever Meryln wrote I suspect was the tipping point, not your post Stosh.. You posted, then Merlyn posted.. Pack removed Merlyn's post, verbally shook his finger at everyone who posted, and locked the thread..

I am not sure where I am can double check the forum rules.. Other forums have a rule against discussing on the forum the actions of the moderators.. So I may be deleted for my comments and this thread tsk, tsked to if I am breaking that rule here..

I am not doing so to gripe or anything.. I have no opinion one way or the other, sometimes threads get locked if the moderators see the topic sliding into a state of unfriendly conduct.. I am just attempting to explain to Stosh as for some reason it sounds like he is unable to get it to read the locked thread and see this for himself (which if so, I don't understand why I can read the thread & he can't.)

So let me ask you this, what makes a painting a masterpiece?  The quality of the canvass?  The oil in the paints?  The hair in the brush?  Or the "life" the creator breathes into it? 

Ok, but then why is it stated "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."  Why not all life, did God not breathe as much life into a cat, bird or lizard (painted canvas wise)?

Still think it must be my sunny disposition.. Cat's can sing as well as I, and birds can sing better..

You are assuming of course that God is done creating.  Maybe evolution is simply the method God chose to create.

 

I suppose it also assumes "created in his image" is a physical attribute and not some other say spiritual attribute.

 

Only the arrogance of man would assume such.

Ooops, you changed your post.. Darn those cross posts..

Perhaps evolution Is his way, still can work on those kneecaps for Packsaddle.. (Got your back Packsaddle.)

So are you saying I take after God with my winning personality?  My sunny disposition? My singing talent? (plug your ears)  My love of chocolate? My poise & grace? (Ha)..

You are assuming of course that God is done creating.  Only the arrogance of man would assume such.

 

Are you saying as God continues to make improvements on himself, my descendants will get those improvements also? If God went in for a nose job, my descendants will all have better looking noses also?.. Well maybe not that superficial, but perhaps God could work on that kneecap problem for Packsaddles... Cool..

I do not recall my sons pack or any of the various troops he was in doing anything like this for lost items.. The closest thing I remember is the troop meeting before a backpack outing the boys would need to come in with their backpacks packed and the SM would turn them upside down and shake them to see if anything fell out.. The first time the SM did it all scouts were taken unawares.. Afterwards, new scouts would be forewarned by the older scouts.. Still if anyone didn't have a tight pack it normally was the new scouts until they learn the tricks to tighten everything up.. I would imagine it was embarrassing to have your stuff lying on the floor, but the boys did learn how to pack a tight backpack..

I can see both sides of the argument.. It really depends on the way the boys in the troop view it..  I can see an environment that Rick-in-CA describes. One of the troops my son was in was into bullying boys to weed out the boys they thought were not up to their standards.. If they had thought of it, I am sure they would have used it to bully.. But, I have also known troops that would have their most popular boys "loosing" their own stuff on purpose in order to get up and ham it up, and the other boys seeing it as just plain fun..  Then there are all the troops that fall in the middle of those two situations, but the outcome of this behavior will run between "a good time" to "bulling" based on the attitudes of the boys in the troop about it.. Because the makeup of boys in a troop is always shifting and changing though, I could see this policy starting off as "a good time" to over time sliding  into "bullying" due to how the most popular boys in the troop viewed it..  I think it would be harder once being used to bully to move it back into being a good time, more often if your popular scouts changed again to boys who want a good environment, they will just see this as a problem and ask that this policy be retired. Or if the adult leadership is attentive, perhaps they can themselves recognize what was fun has slid to bullying and retire it themselves.

Thanks Rick, I feel younger already.. Here I had stopped aging at 21 (yea right!)  But, now perhaps I am only 5 minutes old and God played a mean trick on me..

Well partly. You are also the result of a momentary lapse in judgment by a man and a woman too, lol, same as the rest of us monkeys.

But if what I wrote sounds preposterous to anyone reading this, try this one on: God made YOU in His image.

If God made me in his image as he did all our ancestors, and we have evolved and changed since our ancestors, does that mean God keeps on evolving & changing himself, and then he changes us to have his new traits?...   Did God once look like a Neanderthal ???     Oh, no, could not be, throw that Darwin bum out !    

 And there you have the total confusion for those who deny Darwin's theory of Evolution, no matter how many bones and fossils are dug up to prove it..

Frankly I don't buy the God in human shape & form.. So I can embrace Darwin..  I guess that would be what Eagledad would call my selective Bible reading & interpretation.

There are two types of people who use the bible for gain, those that want to serve the masses, and those that want to serve themselves. I have found that those who serve themselves only use the parts of the bible that suits their purpose. The Google search engine makes it very easy to pick and choose only those scriptures that give an advantage.

 

But the meek only have themselves to blame, reading the bible has become a thing of the past. Predators take advantage of their ignorance and serve their will on them through their emotions because they don't have enough knowledge to resist with reason. 

 

Barry

I would like to see you repeat that to the attendees when one of the churches meet for their annual or semi-annual conferences to discuss differences of opinion and arrive at decisions on which direction the church will follow..

What I will admit is that we only have to read the Bible to know when we are doing it wrong. 

 

Barry

Tell that to those who are today on 2 sides of an argument, each pointing to the bible to prove the other side is doing it wrong.. You will get each side to agree with you, then continue to fight for what they believe the Bible is telling them to do.

All subject to interpretation and what verses we choose to highlight as important and which ones we think are not..

But for anyone who uses the Bible as a reference, the Bible will guide them.. It will just guide different religious denominations and people differently..