firstpusk

"FirstPusk, you can't repeatedly question someone's understanding of a topic because they disagree with you and then feign emotions because they challenge you to tests of your own understanding on that topic. What denomination are you a lay minister in that advocates evolution?" I have asked one question which you have never answered. Instead, you want to settle it by some kind of trial by intelligence test. I am not concerned about a who is smarter argument. In order to move on, I granted you your IQ title. Most denominations don't ask their ministers to adhere to a statement of faith on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why do you need to know what church I go to? If you need to know it, I will tell you. First you need to provide the answer to my question. If you can't provide me with a viable scientific alternative to evolution, admit it. Then I'll even tell you the name of my dog and favorite brand canoe paddle.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

According to the G2SS, the BSA established minimum standards for providing medical info prior to participation in an activity. I think the Class 3 form would apply for you. I would also review the requirements for Trek Safely which mentions the Class 3 form. This will spell out other requirements for leadership, training and safety. Here is the text from an online with changes through April 25, 2002. "Class 3: Includes any event involving strenuous activity such as backpacking, high altitude, extreme weather conditions, cold water, exposure, fatigue, athletic competition, adventure challenge, or remote conditions where readily available medical care cannot be assured. Examples: high-adventure activities, jamborees, Wood Badge, and extended backpacking trips in remote areas. Medical information required includes current health history supported by a medical evaluation within the past 12 months performed by a licensed health-care practitioner. Form 34412 is to be used by youth for Class 3 activities. Adults age 40 or older will use this form for Class 2 and Class 3 activities. See form No. 34414, Personal Health and Medical Record, for more information."

DeMann, That's what happens when you start a thread and go away for a couple of days...I don't want to catch you napping again.

Hey Zorn, You may not agree with ScoutParent and Rooster7, but you don't need to call them names. The 12th point of the law calls for you to respect their beliefs not ridicule them.

ScoutParent, The first thing to note about your last post is that there is no positive evidence for your position. Instead, your position is based on trying to negate evolution. And your list does a poor job of even that. "The cambrian explosion," Here it is clear you read too much Wells and Johnson. Try reading real scientists to get the true flavor of the controversy. Yes there is argument among scientists here, but not over evolution occurs because the fossil discoveries detailed in these books strongly support evolution. Instead the issue is how it works. Try these two books. Gould SJ Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of history Penguin Books, 1989 Simon Conway Morris, The Crucible of Creation. Oxford University Press 1998. "[the] lack of speciation in the last 150 years since the theory of evolution was proposed," These links were given to you by Merle back in August. You should read them now. Then you could take back this unfounded assertion. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html "DNA evidence that suggests common ancestory," Actually, this would support the theory of evolution. Common ancestory is at the center of Darwin's original thesis. And yes, the evidence from DNA analysis does support common ancestory. "...etc all contradict the theory of evolution." Not at all. "It very clearly states that God created each plant with seeds inside unto it's own kind. It also clearly states that He created animals unto their own kind. Your answer to why the scientists think the earth is one age and is actually not is in the Bible too. Take an evening and start reading it. You'll be amazed how many of these questions it answers directly." You always assume that others haven't read the Bible. I am well familiar with the first two chapters of Genesis. No, it doesn't explain the earth or the life on it as we find it today or in the past. Perhaps your church requires that members accept the Genesis creation story as factual. I know a number of churches that do. Most do not, mine certainly does not. I am not saying that Genesis is not true. It simply is not true in the way you seem to think it is.

Rooster7, I never doubted you were a compassionate guy. I just felt your response to me was a bit on the knee jerk side and your support of Zorn's remark was uncritical to say the least. I know you don't agree with me and that's okay. I am sure that you aren't the first guy to give up on a kid. You are right that the drowning remark came later. However, it was not different in character simply more disgustingly graphic. I think of it along the lines of checking for a beam in my eye before I decide a kid is not worth my time. Sorry if I upset you, now let me work on this 2x4...

'So, having said the aforementioned, kindly remove your foot from my butt. I don't find it necessary, nor do I agree that it is an "act of Christian love".' Excuse me Rooster, if there is a foot still there it is not mine. I have a strict rule to apply them quickly with precision. It is always the same. You may not agree now, but some day you will thank me.

Careful Zorn, You never know what kind of test she will demand that you take. ScoutParent, Still waiting for that viable scientific theory that is an alternative to evolution. When you get done reading Genesis 1 and 2 could you get right on that?

"Obviously, I don't agree with everything Zorn has to say. The fact that I may have defended a point made by Zorn, doesn't mean I think he is the model Scoutmaster. If you want to keep your integrity, please try to keep things in perspective." I didn't think you agreed with him. I simply felt it was more than a bit inconsistent that you defend an egregious statement on his part and turn around to pick nits with me. I understand that you have profound political, philosophical and theological differences with me. I accept those and believe that you really don't look for the opportunity to throw kids away. My view of Christ's teaching tells me that I must act, I must try and I must seek to reach these kids. If I can't, someone else is sent. I can't explain grace. I only know that it happens and when it does, it always seems surprising and wonderful. About my integrity, I don't care a rat's behind what you think of mine. I thought you were out of line and I called you on it. I had a moral theology prof that always said, "Sometimes the greatest act of Christian love is a swift kick in the butt." I simply thought you were due.

"The world would be better off if certain children were drowned at birth." Zorn So Rooster, you can call me naive and liberal anytime you want. You can keep defending Zorn, too. Seems to be the model scoutmaster. Let me guess...Safe Swim Defense?

Lightcrow, You are in a difficult situation. I was going to ask if this guy was trained. He is and done Wood Badge, to boot. You need to be careful not being seen as the guy trying to push him out. There are problems in this troop, but will fighting among the leaders help. Troops often have a tough time after a SM transition. Being a scoutmaster can be a very daunting job. Look for opportunities for the boys to take charge and the troop will move in the right direction. One way to do it is to emphasize the patrol method. We ask that each patrol put on one outing a year. They need to come up with the ideas, plan it, ask for adult leadership and carry out the event. I know of a troop that only camps as a troop once a year. All of their other outing are patrol campouts. If you can find even one other adult leader and one patrol willing to take up the challenge, you might save a troop and help a struggling scoutmaster. He needs to know that there is support for him and belief in the program. I have worked on volunteer issues long enough to see the result of trying to force out a scoutmaster. It rarely is pretty and I would rather work to improve the situation than throw away a volunteer that may be capable of better. The patrol method really works when we allow the boys to try (and fail sometimes). I think you can make a believer out of him.

"The fact is that some kids aren't worth the effort. Our society thinks that children are precious but they really aren't. There are children that cannot be saved and will never become a useful member of society." Sorry, all kids are worth the effort. Can you or I reach all kids? No, but that doesn't mean someone else can't. I've worked with too many kids that other adults have given up on a kid that is a great kid. There are some that will not be saved, but none that can not be saved.

acco40, I grew up with 55746 in my return address and I couldn't agree more...

"See the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual pages 24 and 33. " "Bob" must have every manual memorized. When you train, you actually often can give chapter and verse. This is especially true for questions that are frequently asked at training. This is one that is always asked at both leader specific training and committee training. It can be a lot of fun to watch the eyes roll when you can do that...

I realize that finances can be a problem for a small troop. Believe me, I have been there. However, while these boys were scouts they earned the awards and paid their dues at the time they earned their awards. Give them their due. It is not becoming of any unit to withhold earned awards. We should be looking for opportunities to celebrate acheivement not cut costs and push boys out of scouting forever. I have talked to adults who remember their troop doing things like that to them thirty years ago and they are still angry about it. We are in it for the boys.

"'Are these a part of the proscribed JLT program?' Hey OGE, yet another example. proscribe to denounce or condem, to prohibit or forbid." Having served on my council's JLTC staff and aftter answering some angry questions from an scout leader or two, are you absolutely certain that wasn't the word he meant? ;^)

Youngblood, How many scouts in your troop?

slontwovvy, I go back to my example of our eagle who also was captain of the football team. If I used the 50/75 % guideline used by that troop, we wouldn't even talk with him. As it was, I had a guy I could point to when younger scouts said they didn't have time for scouting. He would sit down and talk with them about the things you get from scouting that are not in athletics. If attendance is considered a problem, it is time for the SM to have a conference with the scout. They should come to a mutual agreement on the level of participation. This is what happened in the case of our football captain. He came to us during his junior year. He told us that he missed scouts and wanted to participate. He agreed to attend a number of outings and meetings as practices would allow. His family had a number of eagles and they were telling him he had made a mistake by not following through. We agreed and came up with the plan. We were flexible, but he did not ask for many changes along the way. We got a leader that inspired many of the scouts that we have at life now. They are sophomores and juniors many of whom are also in high school athletics. I think standards and guidelines for attendance are fine. But I think it is more important that the scoutmasters of a troop respond to these guidelines and are involved in seeking why a kid is not attending. If he has come to the decision scouting isn't for him, go forth with our blessing. But try to find out if changes in the troop's program would make a difference. It is easy to come up with a number, it is harder but much more rewarding to understand where a boy is coming from.

maddoro, I am sorry to hear the troop was in such turmoil. I can understand why you are upset. The SM's remarks show a lack of grace. Is this guy trained? I have to agree with k9gold-scout. If you can find a way to have your boy meet all the requirements with the new troop, go for it. A point on the letters, you or your son should not have possession of them. They are confidential. Have the advancement chair of the current troop ask for any letters that the SM of the old troop might possess. When boys leave a troop to go to another, it can be a sore spot for a scoutmaster. I say this not to excuse the behavior. It was wrong - especially the remark about being done with this and having other boys to care about. I just want you to use productive avenues that with end the conflict. You asking could be viewed by this guy as an attempt to rub it in. You don't want to appear to be a "stage mother" for your boy's effort for eagle. Let someone that would be viewed more neutral make the request. This is your son's to earn and you don't want to do anything to taint it. If the request does not work, have it followed up by a letter again by an official from the current troop. At this point the CO, CC and UC should be copied. Before that letter is sent the advancement chair should contact each of these people to appraise them of the situation. Good luck and support your son. This kind of situation can be very upsetting for a boy.

"So to determine "active in the troop" you'd rather use some hand waving that is completely subjective?" We had an eagle the year before last that was captain of the local football team. As a senior, a lot of demands were made on his time. We talked with him and used him when he was able to help. The community got a beautiful bridge at the local park (his eagle project), we got a mature influence on the younger boys and he earned the eagle. We knew that with football and other extra-curricular commitments we would not see him much of the time. But when he was there, he was an example of scout leadership of which we were all proud. The key is the SM keeping in touch with boys. He should anyhow when boys are missing meetings to find out if there is a problem to address. These ones can be tough, but the manner in which this troop addresses the problem is untenable. When I hear of troops putting up attendance requirements like the 75%/50% one here, I think you can be sure that there is a problem with the program not the boys. It is especially galling considering the unbusinesslike manner in which the eagle reference letters and the scout account were dealt with. I might start by talking to the commissioner to ask his/her idea on the best way to approach the situation. Not in a threatening manner. Instead look for the win/win. The unit does not want a black eye and your son wants to earn his eagle.

ScoutParent, Thanks, I've read that a few times before. But tell me where is your scientific support for that and is that the correct creation story or is it the one in Genesis chapter 2? It was so kind that you posted it twice. A guy like me might need to read it more than once.

"I didn't expect you to accept the challenge. Then there would be data to substantiate both of our actual understandings of the subjects of evolution and intelligent design; not to mention our abilities to understand." Simply sophmoric and completely off topic. If you want to flash a Mensa card that's okay with me. That is even worse than saying I win the argument because I have these three college degrees. I subscribe to Natural History and read the whole special section. You should, too. It made it clear that Intelligent Design was not science. As I recall the title was "Intelligent Design?" This choice remark from the introduction gives you an idea of the respect the "theory" has earned, "Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science." I suggest you read one book referenced at the end, Pennock's "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism". This will give you a more complete perspective on the problems with this Intelligent Design approach. I would also strongly suggest "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism" by Dr. Ronald L. Numbers. It is a little older but it gives an excellent history that is extremely sensitive to the creationist perspective (Numbers was raised as a Seventh Day Adventist). On the conference at Yale, I was indeed aware of it at the time. It was more a public relations ploy associated with the Discovery Institute's "Wedge" strategy and not a scientific conference. It was not associated with any science department at the University. As far as I can tell it was financed by the Discovery Institute to promote their creationist agenda. Two other sponsors were affiliated with the Campus Crusade for Christ. The Law School did set up a forum to help sponsor it, but it seems to be the only event that the Yale Law School Forum on Cultural and Academic Freedom has ever sponsored. The only three hits I got at the Yale site were from the fall of 2000. Sorry, there is no groundswell from the scientific community for ID. There are a few oddballs out there like Behe, Dembski and Wells. However, they have never tried to present any scientific paper supporting ID. If it took you 12 days to come up with this, you can put a fork in it. Your argument is done.

'Firstpusk, Evolutionary theory deals with creation outside of the scope of God, based on that alone it is an engine of evil." No, evolution is a science and as such can be used for good or ill. In and of itself, it can no be good or evil. It is what we do with the science. If I as a scout leader tell a scout, "Evolution is true, God does not exist." In my faith tradition I have committed a grevious sin, violated the Scout Law and abused the science. Evolution does not speak to the existence of God, that is a matter of faith. I have lied to a young person because the science does not speak to God or to our morality. These are choices we make for ourselves. "I wasn't clear on your meaning about you preaching sunday, please clarify." I mentioned that because I know that accepting evolution does not mean you must deny your faith. I have been a lay minister in my church for nearly thirty years. I have been active in the religious emblems program, have led religious retreats for scouters and recieved my church's adult recognition. Scouting is my main ministry and evolution does not deny its importance or meaning.

"FirstPusk: Here's my challenge to you:" ScoutParent, Not interested. I asked for something from you first. Provide me with a viable scientific theory that is an alternative to evolution. We talked about this first eleven days ago. Still no direct answer only slurs and mean-spirited misrepresentation. Is it possible for you to become more crass? I will grant you must have IQ points to spare. I suggest you put those little grey cells to work on the links and references Merlyn and me provided you, instead of the creationist claptrap. Venturer2002, If you are out there. I think you are totally wrong about evolution and I hope you get some exposure to the truth about it in your further education. It is not the engine of evil you have been told. I am cool with you using the Bible. I am fine with you praying for me. We all need a little help now and then. You could pray for firmness and clarity for me from the pulpit on Sunday when I will use my Bible. I would only ask that you pray with me for ScoutParent. She could use to be a little more charitable.

Rooster7, Let's break this down into smaller chunks. "Firstpusk, The compliment (Firstpuck) was accidentally. Nor was any malice intended. Yet, I may have contempt for some of your ideas." I never thought malice was intended. Kinda thought it was funny. I know some of what I write annoys you, sorry that is not the intention. "As for your statement to ScoutParent - "You have been unable to provide an alternative." What makes you think evolution is so viable? Popularity and truth are not one in the same." I don't think that science is a popularity contest. Ideas are tested and those that don't hold up soon are gone. Darwin's ideas have held up to the scrutiny of peer review for nearly a century and a half. If popularity were the deciding factor, you and ScoutParent would be happy. Most Americans want creationism taught. The problem is most Americans are woefully ignorant of science in general and evolution in particular. "The arguments being made by the scientific community (as ScoutParent has pointed out) are logical conclusions based on the theory of evolution." ScoutParent is on a tear that has little to do with reality. She is taking things out of context and using one logical fallacy after another. The conclusions being drawn are erroneous and belong to ScoutParent. They are not based on the theory. I have pointed a couple of examples out, she chooses to ignore all refutation. "You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you believe the theory to be correct, then you must accept the logical conclusions, which it supports, no matter how obscene and/or distasteful they may be. If you refuse to accept their conclusions, then you should reexamine your support for such a theory." I kind of think this last bit is the most ironic of all. ScoutParent thinks she is arguing against evolution by misrepresenting the theory in the most outrageous manner. In fact, she uses the outrageous to frighten people. Do you and her actually think that alcoholism, homosexuality, pedophilia and racism were caused by Charles Darwin. And even if that were true, does that change the nearly century and a half of observation and peer review that buttress the theory. No, I don't have to accept ScoutParents misrepresentations if I accept the theory.(This message has been edited by firstpusk)