Stosh

Try taking a gal out on a first date and it's her birthday. You go to Texas Road House and she has to get on the saddle and have the wait-staff sing stupid songs FOR her? She doesn't even have to say anything. So, seriously, do you really envision a second date out even in the far future? Yes, singing happy birthday can be embarrassing.... even without the moose hat.... By the way, I took my daughter out to Texas Road House on her birthday and as we were going in, she reminded me that she did have cab fare to get home if I so much as mention to anyone there that it was her birthday.

Richie Cunningham? Heck no! Try Eddie Haskell that fits a whole lot better.

Isn't that the basis for the Big Bang Theory? One minute nothing, next minute the universe? What magical beings pulled that one off?

How to do foil dinners correctly. Brown the hamburger in the mess kit fry pan with the chopped onions. Cut up potatoes and carrots and boil in the mess kit pot. Pour a bit of the liquid in with the hamburger/onion in fry pan, add a bit of flour and thicken the gravy. Pour out the rest of the liquid from the potatoe/carrot pot, separate them, add some brown sugar and butter to the carrots, mash the potatoes and pour the meat and gravy over them. It is a bit to clean up afterwards, but to-date I have never had a burnt "foil" dinner that ended up dry and tasteless. Use sour cream instead of gravy and boil up egg noodles and have Stroganof (sp?) Ground pork and bacon also works well. Dump the potatoes and go with pita bread. Instead of gravy go with ketchup and make a Sloppy Joe and eat the carrots raw. Needless to say, I haven't had a foil dinner for years.

Unfortunately that is a lame excuse in that slavery, while based on race was a social/economic issue, not necessarily a racial issue. It is a lot easier to support slavery when it is based on race and that race is deemed inferior. However, even after the Civil War, all the so-called abolitionists of the north, went on to create far more stringent Jim Crow laws than any of the states of the South. Those states with large metropolitan centers were the worst. Slavery is wrong, but we don't want any of "those people" moving up north here. They can stay where they belong. We abolished slavery in 1860's, but we abolished racism in the 1960's. Two entirely different arguments. One can indeed be an abolitionist and still be racist. This is probably why Lincoln's grand plan for the slaves was to send them back to Africa. Make that statement today and you would be a racist. Lincoln however, did temporarily "free" the slaves as an economic strategy to cripple the South's ability to continue the war. Lincoln (the Great Emancipator) really didn't free anyone. It wasn't until the Constitutional amendment was passed by 3/4ths of the states that slavery in America was abolished. Slavery in Indian Territory did remain. Remember, Lincoln did NOT free slaves in the slave states that supported the North, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. A number of "Northern" states still had legal slaves as well, i.e. New Jersey for example. So to think that if Darwin was an abolitionist made him free of racism, is simply not an assumption that one could automatically make at that period of time.

Well, in that case, besides not believing in a supreme being, he didn't make a good gnostic either.

My boys always have to sing for the supper. Maybe a second verse for dessert.

As a Boy Scout, taking responsibility for advancement is definitely in the hands of the Scout, but in Cub Scouting, I don't think the boys are mature enough to follow through on that. I always was planning some kind of game or fun thing to incorporate the pin requirements into. They had no idea how it all worked. At that age it was all about having fun and getting bling. In Cub Scouts one receives awards. In Boy Scouts one earns rank. Two different animals in my book.

The difference between banter and bulling is the degree of trust and respect between the two.

Whatever would make one think that. Surely the whole concept of recipe competition is a natural selection for evolving into a more superior form of just desserts that one is willing to sing for their supper in order to receive the required reward. Now, granted, such epicurean delights may not all appear equal in a cobbler competition, but a superior cheesecake mutation does cause one to wonder just how to classify such alterations and adaptations or a mutation with a more political agenda than expected one might expect to find at a cobbler competition. Does such entries go beyond the requirement and thus draw the wrath of biased judging officials? And if the resulting dessert is of a heavenly nature in the realm of taste, would it be merely myth or faith that finally tips the judges bias to awarding the sample as meeting all the requirements for First Class.

I'm not at all worried about the atheists in as much as I am concerned about their message and their "hero" Darwin. We're talking about how honorable this anti-Christian racist is in our world today and how he has championed the "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Not really a Dali Lama, Martin Luther or St. Francis type of guy. With that being said, opening the doors to accommodate these people in BSA will in fact negate the Duty to God issue as well as the 12th Law. Even with the community of believers, there are enough misunderstanding that I don't think it can be guaranteed that all scouts will be given a fair shake with a SM who abuses the advancement requirement. This is well known in the scouting community already and I don't think the new requirements is going to do anything to help that situation but may in fact make it worse, kinda like a knee-jerk reaction on the part of someone already "bending" the rule here. BSA does have a history of going with the lowest common denominator when it comes to social and religious issues.

So, on a more literary note, how long would it take an average chimpanzee with a computer keyboard to replicate the entire works of Shakespeare? God only knows! Which proves the existence of God.

I heard once that 99% of all species that ever walked the earth have gone extinct. I have no idea where that number came from or how accurate it is. So, as it's opposite, do we find new species as we search in more and more new places did they arise because of evolution or were they always there? It's not that I don't understand what people mean by "evolution" it's just that 1 a species might adapt to a change in it's environment but scientists don't say that's a new species. They say once a change maintains a certain level of common consistency then this would indicate a new species, like 3 legged frogs. And of course then Down's Syndrome with it's consistent characteristics would indicate a new species. Well, I'm not into accepting that at all. Scientists say evolution is adaptation and other say it's just mutations, how many it takes to get a new species is not defined. Then there's the one scientist that says a fossil is human while another says it's an ape. This of course means that because they can't agree that we have now found the Missing Link. Then in the background the atheists keep their mantra going that all of this evolution stuff is proof there is no God. For science to be of any value it has to provide a sense of continuity and consistency to be of any value and must remain pure knowledge, not speculation of certain aspects of nature based on some political or religious agenda.

As I said, 4 meetings, usually doing some kind of game that works in the pin advancement requirements. 1 Pack meeting, go get your awards 1 Outing that could be just about anything but usually has a cooked meal in it. My boys started a lot of fires if they were going to eat their lunch. This reminds me of the time when I was teaching the boys how to do the fire building. Then we had them do a competition as to who can start a fire first. They all ran off into the woods, came back and built their fire lays. One boy was all set, well ahead of all the others. He sat there with the book of matches in one hand and a match in the other, just staring at the fire lay. I went over and sat next to him and quietly asked him how it was going. He said fine. I asked him if he was done with getting the fire ready. He said yes, and then I said, You're ahead of everyone else and if you light your fire you will win. He looked at me and he had tears in his eyes. When I asked him what the matter was, he told me his Mother told him never to play with matches. I assured him that this time it was okay. As a matter of fact I had problems at one pack meeting. My boys were going up to get their award pins. The CC tossed in a curve on me. He said, Readyman? What did you do to earn this pin? The boy gave him the most perfect "Deer-in-the-headlights" look. He had no idea. I stood up and said, why don't you tell him what you did for First Aid. I don't think any of my boys realized that what they were doing was meeting the requirements for the pin awards. They just had fun playing with flashlights and flags and didn't have any idea what the Communicator pin was all about.

Well, kinda, ya caught me at a weak moment.... There is unfortunately one ingredient which has been left out in case I have to go up against a usurper. I think it's called Recipe Evolution where a new one supersedes the old one. Look at it this way, the Missing Link is the secret ingredient. Don't worry this recipe as is will still beat any cobbler out there. Ever try Hot Hot Chocolate. I can assure you there ain't no Swiss Miss in this recipe.

And it's worth reiterating that Darwin was well aware of the differences of races within the species Homo Sapient. Do you really want to open up that can of worms? It's been done many times over the millenia and never with a positive outcome. It makes the Catholic Inquisition, Crusades. Holocaust and Salem Witch Trials all look like a cake walk. Evolution with all of it's short-comiings still remains the cornerstone of atheistic "proof" for the non-existence of (G)od(s). Man came into being without any help from mythical beings. That takes it out of the realm of science and into religion, and they do it on purpose. And by the way, the polar bear might be adapting to a changing environment, but the last time I checked, they were still polar bears. Homo Sapient as a species has adapted to ever place on earth and his still considered a Homo Sapient. The same one that walked out of history from nowhere and migrated to every land mass on earth.

Depends on how one structures the meetings. One meeting was dedicated to the swimming pin, and we went to the pool and knocked it out during a outing activity. Communicator was done in class playing with flashlights and flags. Readyman was done on a bike outing. I had it organized so that the outdoor stuff was done in the summer and the indoor stuff in the winter months. As far as weekly being an inconvenience for the parents as has been suggested. I met a half hour before the scouts met each week. If the parents couldn't make it for that, they weren't going to make it for Boy Scouts either. The "visit" a Boy Scout activity? Well they just stayed on, we met in the same place.

And that is why I changed my opinion from when this topic first started until now.

With my Webelos boys I met weekly for 1/2 hour, had a monthly activity (hiking, biking, camping, fishing, nature walk, etc... All had a cooking lunch associated with it.), and a monthly pack meeting. My boys earned their AOL as Webelos I and we repeated the pin requirements at a deeper level the second year. We ended with a big canoe campout just before crossing over. All the boys qualified for TF within the first month because they had to repeat the physical fitness part 30 days later.

This will win any desert competition on the planet. 2 Tubes of chocolate chip cookie dough 2 Eggs 2 Packages of cream cheese 1 cup of sugar 2 9" pie pans 1 whisk 1 mixing bowl 6 small stones of equal size 2 Dutch ovens Charcoal/wood - looking for 350-degrees Cut one tube of cookie dough in half and pack each half into one of the 9" pie pan bottoms. It should cover the bottom completely as well as the sides. Put cream cheese, eggs, sugar into mixing bowls and with the whisk stir until your arm is about to fall off, then hand off to the next patrol member, and continue until ever patrol member has a sore arm. Pour equally into each cookie dough pie pan. Cut the second tube of cookie dough in half and use them to sprinkle bits of cookie dough on the top of each cheese cake. Put 3 stones in each of the #12 Dutch ovens and put the pie pans balanced on them so they don't touch the Dutch oven anywhere. Put on lid, cover with 15 briquettes on top, 9 on the bottom for 35-40 minutes or until golden brown. One pie goes to the competition, the other stays with the sore-armed patrol. If the judges want more, too bad. This recipe is supposed to be a secret. Anyone on this forum can use it with the caveat that if my patrols are in the competition, you can't enter this recipe in the competition. This recipe also works in a 9"x13" cake pan in a regular oven. Which is a clue. Any thing that can be prepared in a 9"x13" cake pan can be done by splitting into 2 9" pie pans in 2 Dutch ovens. 3 up/3 down on a Dutch oven give an approximate 350-degree oven. 3 up/3 down means if you have a #8 DO = 11 top/5 bottom, #10 DO = 13 top/7 bottom #12 15 top/9 bottom, If you are using your mess kit as a Dutch oven, it's 3 on the bottom and 4-5 on the top. Bon Appetite!

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. 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.

All living organisms have DNA. There are certain strands of DNA which are similar enough to basically identify the difference between an ear of corn and a homo sapient, but they share many of the same chromosomes. I guess in some ways they are cousins. However, on the other end of the spectrum, one must realize that every living organism has unique DNA, no two are alike. So, it's a bit like fuzzy theory, How many DNA changes must take place before ones has a different species? One must also consider how these DNA structures change due to environmental factors. Obviously the pond water was causing a change in the frogs of Minnesota and now 44 states and one Canadian province. Another form of DNA alteration can either be by hybridization and by modern genetic engineering. So when humans bred a horse with a donkey and got a mule, is the mule a new species? I might be mistaken, but I don't think the mule made the cut because it can't reproduce. It is also interesting to note that when hybrid plants are able to reproduce they go back to their original natural state. Which eventually leads us to the problem of how and how much DNA changes need to occur for mutations. I'm thinking very small amount can cause what we would call a mutation, A few more changes one might call an adaptation, and if a lot changes maybe one would call it "evolution" of a new species. All three definitions are arbitrary made up classifications that are left open to speculation and questioning. It is on this premise I'm supposed to believe in evolution? So then we are to accept that since the Big Bang, which all scientists don't believe in, the mathematical probability of getting everything all together in the DNA strand, the basis for all living organisms would take longer than the best "scientific" guess-timate since the dawn of the universe. 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. Like I said, it's enough smoke and mirrors to fool a lot of people, and if one needs proof on that they're going to need to consult with people like P. T. Barnum and David Copperfield. So riddle me this Joker, how did primitive humanity of 4,000 years ago, when still living a nomadic lifestyle, come up with a myth that would someday be supported by science as the correct order the world would need to be created in? Either these people were really, really lucky, pretty scientifically sophisticated or someone tipped them off. And I'm the one accused to drinking the Koolaid?

I was kinda in favor of the idea posed for the advancement requirement, but if a consensus of how one does that and the types of discussion this generated, I have switched my opinion. There's just too much "stuff" going on in the background to think the boys will be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

I only recommend he fun MB's as well. If the Scout wants Eagle he'll have to bite the bullet and go after it based on his decision, not my recommendation. I'll support him in his choices, but I give him the heads up it's not going to be "fun".