Rooster7

The people who left that garbage out in the woods are idiots. But folks, who are "less than enthused" about LNT, are not guilty of condoning that behavior.

Conversely - You dont find it to be a little obscene that folks get upset when somebody wonders off the beaten path and steps on a flower...or picks a flower? I know the NLT rational, but its overstated. The woods are not going to disappear or become devoid of its plants and animals because some folks don't embrace LNT with the same fanaticism.

GB,

Your straw man argument is also ridiculous. There's a huge gap between treating national parks and forests like a junk yard, and trying to remove all trace of a human presence like combing the grass and treating it like a hair restoration project. That is what I clearly meant, but I know how some folks like to create their own reality. So if you think the opposite of LNT is to scatter condoms all over the place, I guess there's no changing your mind.

Brent

I understand your point. But I hope you see a little of what I'm referring to. For some folks, scouting is a religion and LNT is its cultic equivalent (i.e. those who dont believe in LNT condone dumping trash everywhere).

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

If you ask me, LNT is a crock. The lengths to which folks will go to prove how much more "they care about nature and the environment" verses the next guy is ridiculous. Im waiting for someone on this forum to declare that they refuse to fart in the woods. A path through the words is just that, its not a scar. Get a life.

Sorry - but really, you guys go much too far.

Ozemu,

The emu on the road would get much the same reaction out of me as a Scout. I would say a prayer for both. I would remember with horror both images for the rest of my life.

If youre saying that your sense of loss for a Scout (i.e. a person) would be no greater than that of an emu, then no its definitely not worth discussing.

Heres a horrible image that I have in my headIts of a Scouter who cannot discern the difference between a hairy bird that mindlessly eats grass and bugs for most of its waking hours, and a young boy with hopes, dreams, and aspirations, which no animal has the mind to comprehend (and alas, apparently some humans dont have this capacity either).

Just to throw my two cents in...

Anyone who refuses to put human life above that of an animal's deserves to be first in line if/when that standard is ever applied.

PETA is absurd. However, those who refuse to see that absurdity are even more so.

Fishsqueezer,

My comment about fish growing legs was sarcasm. Still, inevitably, the evolution argument supports the idea that species can significantly change over time. I'll accept the idea that a species of animal may acquire thicker skin over time (due to those surviving the winter better than others and passing the trait down to future generations). I accept the idea that a species will become faster (collectively) because the faster animals are better hunters and survive to pass on this attribute. It's "the rest of the story" that I don't buy. I remain unconvinced that over time "a deer will become a water buffalo", or that we evolved from an ape like man, or that all of life started out as a microorganism in a pond somewhere.

As for personal attacks, you surely exaggerate. If anything, I offered a retort to your comment that I was incapable of seeing any view but my own. Other comments I made were not directed at any particular individual and contained no noteworthy rancor. I dont see justification for your assertion. So relax, its not personal, at least not to me.

As for empirical evidence for ID, I can point to various web sites, such as this one - http://www.ideacenter.org/about/mission_beliefs.php

Or this one

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/legalopinion.htm

But whats the point. You seem no more inclined to changing your mind on this issue as I. And this is growing tiresome. So with that, I think I will attempt to bow out of this fray. In the meantime, keep on squeezing those fish or whatever else it is that you do.

Scoutingagain,

The issue is not about Christmas colors. The issue is about who gets to control our culture. There are public officials throughout the country who are ignorant about what separation of church and state means and/or have taken it upon themselves to eliminate public signs of religion. Either way, I disdain the systems that allow them to exist unhindered. No government body should smother your right, and your childs right, to publicly express one's faith whether that means offering a prayer for a friend in a hallway between classes, reading your Bible during lunch, or bringing red and green napkins to a school "holiday" party. Look at the bigger picture.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Packsaddle,

Despite your proclamation concerning my knowledge or lack thereof, I know enough. I know enough to realize that those who embrace evolution are blind to the possibility that there could be another cause (for life as we know it). As OGE pointed out, I can understand how certain characteristics have become dominant via survival of the fittest, but I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for evolution (i.e. organisms adapting to new environments and changing their physical appearance over time, through future generations). How do new permutations of a species develop? What innate mechanism recognizes the need to change? And how does it transpire and initiate the change?

If you believe God is the intelligent designer then perhaps you can answer why other ID supporters use the term 'intelligent designer' rather than simply acknowledging God? I see this is part of the deception (so did the court) as well as a refusal to acknowledge God.

I already admitted that I believe in God as the designer. But if one wishes, one can embrace ID without believing in God. Are there not religious faiths which dont accept the concept of a monotheistic God? Is the idea of a being, far superior to the human species, incomprehensible to you?

Because what happened prior to the "Big Bang" is thus far unpredicted or at least unobservable, one can do little more than speculate on what caused it. To my knowledge the 'cause' of the "Big Bang" is not taught in public school science classes.

Arent you being just a little hypocritical? If the Big Bang can be taught as science without recognizing a cause, why not ID? They are both theories whereas the source of the event cannot be identified by observation. And while we may be able to observe rocks and animals, we cannot say with any certainty (by observation) how they were created or evolved. That is to say, evolution is also a past event, which is unobservable.

Fishsqueezer,

I saw the blue print, but I fail to see how that translates to "the general public and most churches". So you found an example where a university supported the theory. Good. I didn't doubt that you'd be able to find an example. I do doubt that you will be able to demonstrate that it was a widely held viewpoint by those in the general public and in particular in most churches. And this manure about how I will never bend to any view other than mine is a poor substitute for reason. I could just as easily throw the same stuff on top of your posts (or should I say composts).

Fishsqueezer,

I see examples of individuals accepting the theory of evolution. But what I don't see is - a statement from one of these individual's indicating that the general public and most churches in 1865 accepted the theory. Some people...some churches...that I believe, but not most. There is a profound difference.

Packsaddle,

Thanks for the clarification. We now know that all supporters of ID are either ignorant or liars. Again, thanks for that enlightening rebuttal.

There is another problem for the faithful, however. I challenge all persons on this forum to come forward and state who or what the intelligent designer is, if it is not God.

Okay, I believe God is responsible. Someone else could say little green men. A third can claim some other source. What difference does it make? Science does not claim to answer every question.

Now its your return. Tell us exactly what caused the big bang. If you cant, perhaps you should abandon that theory.

Fishsqueezer,

I appreciate the list of web sites. However, since these sites represent hundreds of pages of text, I really dont have the time. Can you provide a quote from a reliable, unbiased source that supports the assertion that the general public and/or the churches of the day in 1865 embraced evolution? Truly, this is an incredible claim.

Firstpuck,

I understand the concept. However, no matter how you chose to parse words, a segment of a species had to adapt to a changing environment. It matters not to me if this adaptation was serendipitous or self-induced as some sort of survival mechanism, whether it occurred in or out of the womb, or if it required one minute or one million years for it to transpire. The very idea is far-fetched and requires a tremendous amount of faith. Truth be told, evolution is more religion than science. It requires one to stretch his imagination at least as far as any other faith, and it gives many the peace they seek - to enjoy life as they please.

Fishsqueezer,

I agree that we should not attempt to put God in a box. However, I think those who embrace evolution tend to do so because they have done exactly that. They cannot comprehend a God so omnipotent that He could create the Heavens and the Earth in seven days. Yet, they can easily imagine a fish crawling out of a pond and growing legs. Go figure.

Please point me to a trustworthy resource that concurs with this thought Evolution, while greatly argued right after Origin of Species, was accepted as mainstream by science, the public, and most religious publications by around 1865.

This is a pretty wild assertion. I doubt that the science community had widely accepted it at that point in time, much less the general public and most churches.

Rule #4 seems silly to me. Ultimately the goal of science should be to discern truth. What about life on other planets? Is this something we should discuss in a science class? How does rule #4 apply to this subject?

Part of the problem with folks accepting ID as a focus for scientific study is their mindset. Since preschool, weve been programmed by public institutions, educational television, and by other trusted sources to view any subject with links to faith in a certain way. We have this notion ingrained in us which says, all things associated with faith must be relegated as a personal matter which is wholly subjective and purely spiritual in nature, and as such cannot be substantiated in the physical world. Many have chosen to close their minds to the possibility that proof of ID exists, and consequently they will never find such proof achieving a self fulfilling prophecy which is entirely contrary to the goals of science. This is very ironic indeed. If we are compelled to summarily assign and confine all such ideas as being religious and unworthy of argument, merely because they may give credence to the existence of God, then we can no longer claim to be seekers of truth. Every good scientist should be willing to suspend the paradigm, if not break it, as he deciphers truth no matter where that truth leads him.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

The fruit of ones faith is works.

In regard to death bed conversions, I am not able to see inside a mans heart. God is. So, while its possible, I would not suggest it to anyone as a Get out of jail free card. Belief and repentance must be real its a matter of ones heart, not just an intellectual acceptance. God knows whether or not a man has truly accepted Him and His gift, Jesus work on the cross.

Made Alive in Christ

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressionsit is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Ephesians 2:1-10 (NIV)

John 6:27-29 (New International Version)

"Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

Backpacker,

None of my posts were purposefully composed to communicate hate. I've always tried to support my points with reason (although it's difficult to account for nearly 2000 posts). Still, I apologize if you felt some of my words appeared hateful.

A side note: Most so called "primitive", indigenous, tribal cultures embrace the idea of a supreme Creator in the design of the universe. So you see the whole idea of ID pre existed Christianity by thousands of years, it is not a new idea or the province of just one religion.

Your last words support the argument that ID is not an exclusively Christian viewpoint. Which is one of the reasons, I find this ruling offensive. In fact, there are some in the scientific community that support the ID theory. As I mentioned earlier, empirical data exists which suggests there is an intelligent design to our world and its inhabitants. No matter what the numbers are, pro and con, I've always thought that scientists were supposed to be open to all theories that could not be disproved. Could someone show me the evidence that disproves the possibility of ID?

Fishsqueezer,

My point was not that rule #6 (changes are made as new data is discovered) was a weakness per se. My point was that the existence of this rule demonstrates that the laws of nature and physics as we know them are dynamic not necessarily stable and trustworthy. It is in effect, a disclaimer (i.e. be forewarned, these are the facts as we think we know them until new evidence forces us to make revisions or abandon this theory). Granted, many years of research are often generated in an attempt to fortify a theory, such as evolution. However, other theories are often ignored and/or scoffed at because much of the scientific community has locked themselves into a worldview which does not permit these other perspectives. ID is one such example. Because ID might support a religious viewpoint, it is automatically discounted and ignored. This is not a scientific approach. It is a bigoted approach, which this ruling supports. If the scientific community is truly interested in finding truth, then it should use the same approach to ID as it does with evolution. Assume that it may be valid until evidence can be produced that says otherwise.

Trevorum,

Evolution is a FACT.

Within the last ten years, the age of the universe has been revised several times, ranging from 8 to 20 billion years old. Hubble Space Telescope is partly to "blame". They keep making new discoveries. My guess is - when JWST is in orbit, the numbers will be revised again. Now I realize a few billion years amongst friends is no big deal, but the plain truth is, everyday the so-called facts change. So proclaiming something as FACT does not necessarily impress me.

TheFourGuardians,

While your assurances are kind and no doubt sincere, I don't find them credible. No, I don't believe that a league of secular scientists is meeting in a star chamber to plan their next attack. However, I do believe there is an incredibly strong bias within their community that stifles any kind of thought that can be remotely linked to a religious view, especially Christianity. Science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. To make such an assumption is bad science. It's a conclusion derived without any proof. However, in todays world, this conclusion is quickly drawn and applauded without thought.

To All,

I like science. I trust most of its conclusions and I appreciate the men and women who spend countless hours trying to solve astonishingly complex problems. However, not every scientist comes to the same conclusion. And in the long run, the majority has not always been proven correct. Since science is not a democracy (i.e. the majority rules) or a dictatorship (i.e. only one voice is to be heard), it should welcome speculation from others, no matter the source. And any supposition supported by empirical data should be examined and discussed.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Backpacker,

As someone who purports to know Jesus, I guess I should turn the other cheek and ignore your comment. But I must say, I think the hatred of which you speak is within yourself, not I. If you want to change the nature of this debate to who I am and what my motivation might be, I suggest you start another thread. And if you are going to spew the same nonsense, at least provide some facts that support such a nasty conclusion.

Supernatural: Belonging or relating to or being phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of nature or physics.

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. Every time someone pulls the wrong card (i.e. dispels an assumption), many of the cards fall and need to be reconstructed. We have no way of knowing confidently whether or not a foundational card is truly stable and can be trusted. We assume it to be true because it has stood the test of time. However, time is infinite and given that we've only been playing this game for a few thousand years, I think the so-called test of time is shaky at best. And alas, if this is not reason enough, one cannot ignore the incredible bias that individuals may possess. So, even if the explanation for "supernatural" events turns the current laws of nature or physics upside down, a good scientist is open to truth. The truth does not have to validate previous assumptions, it only must be.

Ironically, many of the same folks who attack people of faith for not being more open minded, defend the conclusions made by secular scientists as if the possibly of misinterpretation of the data is inconceivable.

EagleScout316,

The explanation for your username surprises me a little. If faith in God is important to you, why adopt a username inspired by a man who chose to mock Christianity? Even if you dont like people who proselytize, do you want to join the culture that makes fun of believers? This seems counterintuitive your values, and most in particularly to your faith.

I dont watch the 700 Club, or at least not as a planned part of my week. I have seen it occasionally, but I couldnt even tell you if theyre still on the air. However, Id be willing to bet that most of what some folks perceive as judgment from the presenters of that broadcast is really just the message of the Bible being proclaimed. That is, theyre probably not expanding on the Gods Word, just relaying it to others as they know it. People tend to feel like they are being judged when they realize a few truths such as - their own sinfulness and Gods righteousness.

Fishsqueezer,

Don't put a box around God through the limitations of the human mind.

This is an interesting statement, in which I find agreement. In fact, I was thinking this very thought as I read most of your post.

By the way, I love number six on your list. It's a convenient out every time someone punches a hole in the theory of evolution. Ironically, few secular scientists would afford Christians that out in regard to the theory of creationism. In short, there is plenty of evidence of ID - the existence of God (a.k.a. a superior being) as an intelligent designer - if one is merely willing to open his eyes.

Also, evolution has plenty which it cannot explain. But because secular scientists and liberal educators embrace this theory, they collectively give each other an understanding nod and speak of bones yet to be discovered and/or "minor" adjustments that may be necessary. When creationism encounters a gap in evidence, the same community nods but they quickly turn the conversation to the stubbornness of conservative Christians and the need for "superstition". Ironically, while these people the scientific and educational communities - are supposed to be the most open minded, they in fact, are hypocritically embracing a double-standard so their own narrow-minded illusions will not be discredited.

Fishsqueezer, consider jumping out of your tank and looking around. I doubt that you will grow legs, but on the other hand you may find a new world, one without walls.

Would you be any happier if the federal judge went so far as to say, "God is a myth"? Or is it the season that brings you so much joy?

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. So, it is a theory. This judge, by singling out Christianity, is clearly showing a bias. And he is clearly showing his ignorance by supporting evolution as valid science while discounting intelligent design, simply because if true, it indirectly supports the claims of creationism.

Do me favor. In the afterlife, feel free to associate me with the "bad guys". I prefer to be standing with that group, then a federal judge that goes out of his way to try to abolish any logical debate that might remotely support the existence of God as purported by the Bible.

Merry Christmas!

EagleScout316,

Is that 316 for John 3:16?

I dont know anything about you. If I was forced to characterize your post, two possibilities present themselves to me

1) Youre a thoughtful young man, who believes in the values taught to him by his church and his family.

2) This is a big charade and youre simply looking to stir the pot and have a little fun.

Im going to stick my neck out just a little and assume the former vice the latter. So, given that your faith is important to you, and assuming that youre a Christian, I respectfully suggest that you read the Bible, mediate, and pray to God about it.

Despite the assurances offered to you by a priest, I cannot help believe that you are entering a world in which you do not belong, nor should embrace (even if just for employment).

And while DanKroh and I are perhaps polar opposites in regard to spiritual matters, I agree that you should not be there as eye candy. Even if you have no intention of being persuaded by anybody to engage in anything but bartending, you know that there will be plenty of men there who will think otherwise. Even from a worldly viewpoint, its not wise to put yourself in that position. As a believer, Im convinced that God calls us to reach out to others, which might put us in places and amongst people wed rather not be near. But if your only goal is to make money, Im convinced this is not where God wants you to be.

Ephesians 5:2-4 (New International Version)

live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.