firstpusk

ScoutParent, "FirstPusk, you lose credibility when you attack me on a personal level. I challenged YOU to an IQ test as well as a biology and theology test when you questioned my understanding of the subjects. Are you the reigning king of IQ? Otherwise I don't see where you are drawing that supposition from." Am I playing hardball with you? You bet. I asked you a question that you have never responded to. Your flippant response on Sept. 24 was, "And of course there are always other viable scientific theories--some we may not be aware of yet but are we so vain as to think we have all the answers." I have asked for that theory, no response, ever. Instead, you raise your IQ challenge. It seems you think that if you can only prove you are somehow smarter, you don't have to provide a response. You may have a higer GPA, income and IQ. I don't care. You still have not answered the question or acknowledged you were wrong. Instead, a stream of ever more strident unfounded arguements came from you. "Now I do find it endearing that you are concerned about my college grades but you needn't be. Thanks for your concern and your unbiased answer as always." I wasn't questioning your grades, but your integrity. Is that clear enough for you. You have put forward arguments that are scurrilous. I have corrected you repeatedly. I was quesioning your methods. I asked you a question. Have you read any of the original source documents? If not, that is unethical. Perhaps were you went to school that was acceptable. Everywhere I have gone, that is a good way to buy a one way ticket out. For keeps.

ScoutParent, Back to bad habits again. I am sure that you have read all of those quotes in original context, right? Or are you simply quote-mining again at your favorite creationist web site? Did you grab that one from Answers in Genesis site, or did you actually read the publication it came from? By gosh it matches AIG right down to the commas. I thought maybe you would check two sources and go to ICR, but you obviously didn't cut and paste from there. Did you know that there are college profs that would flunk you for doing your research like that? So howlong would it take a room full of monkeys at internet terminals to produce one of ScoutParent's cut and paste quote mining posts? You of course have the honesty to check all of these publication to ensure that Ken Hamm finally quoted someone correctly and in context, right? Oh wait, I am talking to ScoutParent, IQ Queen who has yet to provide me a scientifically viable alternative to evolution she claimed I might not know about months ago. Yes, she is credible and honest.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

"Aah shucks. Once again we stupid Americans have gotten it wrong. Why cant we be as smart as the Europeans (or in this case, the Canadians) and the rest of world? This line of reasoning never ceases to amaze me..." Rooster, The question was whether or not Christains had to be creationists. You seem to think that because creationism is prevelent in your community, it is so everywhere. I did not say Americans were stupid. You again try to put words into my mouth when you have no other response. This is a question of our ability to integrate scientific information with religion. Most Christains don't have a problem with evolution. You do. What makes you different? Are you smarter than everyone else?

Rooster7, Denominations that are Biblical literalist are much more common in the US. Talk with people in other parts of the world about creationism and they think you are kidding. I have had this experience with Christians from every continent. You only need to go to Canada. There it is viewed as joke. With respect to littlebillie, he was responding to others raising the issue of "atehistic evolution". He has every right to respond. Maybe you should look for the posts he was responding to before you criticize. RobK, I think your understanding of evolution comes from creationist sources and not scientific ones. You speak in generalizations, so I can't address specific arguments. Suffice it to say, creationist sources are unreliable. I believe it is in your best interest to actually understand your opponents position. I don't believe you understand the theory of evolution. If you care to expound on your views I am more than willing to enlighten you. littlebillie, Another notch! I think literalists single out evolution specifically because it makes it clear that the first chapters of Genesis can't be taken literally. Although, the literal interpretation of Genesis is but one approach, they can't accept it. They claim evolution is a religion out of desperation. They are grasping at straws. Alternate views to the interpretation of Genesis have a long history in Christianity. Augustine for example. Accepting the validity of that tradition denies the validity of their position claiming "atheistic evolution". I agree, understanding the beauty of science and the poetry of the Bible both express our uniqueness in creation. I can accept my kinship with the other creatures as a blessing and "it is good".

RobK, I am sorry that your religious beliefs are contradicted by the theory of evolution. That does not make evolution "de facto religion". Nor does it make the theory of evolution atheistic. Most Christians have no problem with evolution. They understand that the theory of evolution simply does not speak to religion. It tells the history of the development of life based on the scientific method. Many states had laws that made it illegal to teach evolution in the public schools. Those were all struck down because the intent of these laws was to support a particular religious position. By doing so, the legislature endorsed a particular religion violating the establishment clause.

Weekender, Unpack that gunnysack a little more often. I don't know that I have seen a longer list of misrepresentations and unfounded gripes. I have volunteered enough in the schools and known too many public school teachers to buy that truckload you are selling. Frankly, I am appalled at your willingness to cast aspersions applenty. It is not enough that question the integrity of everyone involved in public education. No, you have the temerity to ask fellow scouters to leave because they don't buy your theology. I thank God and BP, the movement is more ecumenical than you or ScoutParent are comfortable with.

packsaddle, I agree with you on both points. I have to make the argument even if he won't listen. There may be others willing to educate themselves.

Rooster7, This story was published before he got the nomination. The Bush people have done their best to make sure the facts don't come out. If you actually believe that folks who sign up should serve their tour, let him know. I find it rather interesting that many of the Republicans that were denouncing Clinton for avoiding service see no problem with the current president either going AWOL or worse. I know you want to blame the "liberal" media. However, it was published in a number of places and the Bush people were not exactly willing to set the record straight. If he has nothing to hide, open the records. He hasn't.

"On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with Scouts learning different tent types, how they go up, and their pros/cons (it's part of the Camping MB requirements, too). There's the "pride in ownership" factor, too. I wouldn't object if a Scout wanted to bring his own, within reason..." or my favorite, camping without tents!

Nice post pack...

"We went to the moon? ;-)" Careful now. Are you sure Buzz Aldrin doesn't lurk on this board?

Karl Rove

Yep, I've read several pieces by Gould on Piltdown. A better whodunnit you could never find...

DeMann, Please read what I say. Your carelessness becomes a bit tiresome. I said almost universal. Certainly there were a few dullards like Soapy Sam Wilberforce. But by and large, religious folks were trying to find a way to get the geological and fossil evidence to match their Bibles. Ideas like multiple creations, a million years for a day and other novel approaches were all tried before Darwin. Christians that believe in a young earth are very much in a minority today. Read St. Augustine. He did not hold that a literal interpretation of Genesis was necessary. Augustine was aware of fossils and that these creatures no longer existed. He was also aware the earth was older than a literal interpretation would allow. Although there have always been some who would approach Genesis as you do, the idea of an old earth among Christian scholars is a lot older than you seem to realize. On the point of tranmutation of species, again read carefully. I indicated that it was commonly accepted before Darwin published. I was not specifically talking of the clergy. Although many of the folks that were working on natural history were indeed members of the clergy and they were aware of the problem of extinction. Extinction did not fit with a literal reading of Genesis and a young earth. Therefore, you ended up with a lot of talk about multiple creations, etc. The literal reading of Genesis and an young earth is still held by some clergy members. However, just as with Christians in general they are in the minority.

Actually DeMann, you are the one without a clue. Flint is often formed in nodules that are associated with fossil sea sponges. There bodies contain a high amount of silicon. The formations you are talking about are bands of flint and there is where the notion of transport of microfine silicon crystals come in. I indicated that there is some debate, that does not mean there science has no clue. The fact that melting granite changes it does not mean it did not form as a result of volcanization. In a lab I can heat granite to a melting point. If I take away the heat source and allow it to cool the structure will be much different. Why? Because the conditions I just mentioned are not the conditions under which it formed. "For anyone to believe that God had no hand, or even just a small part, in the formation of life and this earth, is for one to refuse to render to God the just due that is His. I, sir, would not want to find myself filling those shoes." You seem to like to make a lot of assumptions about what I think. Then you don't listen to the responses. Have you ever considered that your exact appoach drives thinking people away from God? I would rather be in my shoes, thank you.

"I agree- except that they did not differ Science from religion; they commonly believed that praying to a dung beetle would change the weather and such. A very obvious mix of science and religion. Since you like to speak of not mixing the two." And how is that relevent? Because I note that they were able to prove the world was round thousands of years before you thought science knew, I must now believe in praying to dung beetles? You claimed that science thought that the world was flat until 1492. I showed you did not know what you were talking about. "ok. Lesson time." Please, don't flatter yourself. Your dates are based on your theology and not on any solid evidence. I am well aware of the fundamentalist approach to Biblical texts. I don't buy the methods or the reasoning. I think the 700 BC date is pretty generous. You don't agree, fine that is just something else on which we don't see eye to eye. I indicated that in Egypt alone there were written text we had that were older. You want to talk about the literary quality of Egyptian texts and date them later. That's okay, move the goalposts. They still are older than the date I have for Job.

Not only is scouting different for the boys, it is different for the parents. Often they don't understand how the boy scout program works. If the parents aren't comfortable, they are not as likely to support and encourage moving on to scouts. At the same time, they are being asked to give more as athletic programs demand a greater level of commitment.

We also have the SPL conduct the inspections. I don't think you go wrong following B.P. Never do anything a boy can do. Lt. General Robert Baden-Powell (B.P.), Founder of the World Scout Movement, Chief Scout of the World

I know a few troops that don't allow service hour credit for work at the charter partner. I have never belonged to such a troop. I agree with rlculver415 that the charter partner is critical to the troop. But I think that your explanation is a distinction without a difference. A lot of the organization we provide service hours to provide us with benefit. For example a local park we do a clean up in might allow us to hold activities there.

Gee DeMann, I would do a lot less of the personal theorizing and a lot more studying. It has been about 15 years since I took my geology class but there are a couple of things I can remember. One is that the some of the limestone deposits you see in Texas are continuous all the way to the cliffs at the banks of the Mississippi in Minneapolis where we took our field studies. As I recall flint, chert and agate are all made up of superfine silicon crystals that precipitate out of the sea which was responsible for the formations you are talking about. No molten rock is necessary. I am not sure how you got the processes so balled up. The formation of granite is the exact opposite. It is an igneous rock that cools slowly to form the characteristic crystals of mainly feldspar and quartz with some mica or horneblende. Again, you are asking me to explain the formation of granite throughout the Rockies. Granite can vary in composition and crystaline structure. After you asked about these you seemed to go on a total flight of fancy involving the big bang, punctuated equilibria and atomic explosions. Come on DeMann. If you really want to learn, study. I mentioned Cuvier and Lyell on the erosion thread started by littlebillie. These guys started to classify geological formations before Darwin. Modern geology has refined ideas and provided better explanations. In both the cases of flint and granite, there remains some debate and discussion about the specific process that forms these rocks. Just like evolution there is debate on the specifics but the overarching theory is widely accepted. I suggest a couple of science courses at a community college would give you a solid place to start.

littlebillies is obliquely pointing out that a key evidence for evolution is geological basis for an old earth with changing species over the period of natural history. It is a common misconception that Darwin smashed a consensus belief in young earth creationism when he published The Origin of Species. Actually, acceptance of an old earth was almost universal among both scientists and the clergy. Earlier work in geology by men like Cuvier and Lyell paved the way for this viewpoint. Acceptance of the transmutation of species was also commonly accepted. The key to the importance of Darwin was his ability to provide a theoretical framework to explain why species change over time. In other words, in order to establish a Biblical, young earth explanation, you must do much more than simply deny Darwin. You must overcome scientific evidence from many different fields of study. You have a lot of homework to do... You are certainly free to believe whatever you choose. But if you want to truly challenge evolution, you have your work cut out for you.

'Bob White quote: "My question is how will a survey of opinions lead to an improvement of scouting?" I'm speachless...' ASM1, You got it backwards. We were looking for a quote that would leave Bob White speechless ;^)

"I know and I find it ridiculous that you, firstpusk and others continue to try to do that! Please quit using tax money to spread your Godless psuedoscience!" Ha ha ha, very good. Yes I think you have it, too. Because intelligent design is Godless (by design ;^) and it certainly is psuedoscience. You must have read those links I gave you. I am glad you finally agree that the only scientifically viable theory to explain the diversity of life is evolution. I knew I wasn't wasting my time on you. I only wish I would have known before round table so that I could have included it in the announcements, announcements, ANNOUNCEMENTS!

By George, I think he's got it!

OGE, They call it intelligent design. It came about a few years after the last time creationism lost at the supreme court. The idea seems to be to deny that evolution works but don't be specific about how anything happened. Simply say that an intelligence had to design life the way it is. Questions like the age of the earth are not addressed because it would start fights between the various kinds of creationists. The question of who the designer is can not be answered because to say it is God would mean that it is religion. Also, they learned after the embarrassment in the trial in Little Rock that stating specifics opened up their pronouncements to probing by scientists. The leaders of the movement tend to be people with some academic credentials but generally they are not working scientists. Micheal Behe is one who is actually a published professor of biochemisty. He has published a popular book and some articles on intelligent design, but no scientific work. The movement seems to be a response to the defeats of the past. Kind of a stealth creationism. They know if they state what they actually believe in, they loose the argument. So they try to deny evolution but there is no beef in the bun.