Stosh

I put in 7 years as a CS volunteer and that was enough. I can handle BS a lot better. Take that whatever way you wish.

I can see! I can see! Halleluia, I can see! It must be a miracle! Thanks sentinal. Whatever the reason for the password has gone away. Still doesn't answer the question as to how many times a day I get to ding quarse.

I do believe there is a place in this world for science. It is the quest for knowledge to help us understand that which is in our world. It does not mean it can go beyond that premise and speculate, assume, project any agendas in the process. Just like Socrates, Darwin set out to attack the religions of the world by making the philosophical argument that God didn't create the world, it just happened as the course of natural events. Of course there's no discussion as to what constitutes natural events and where and when they came together in such a perfect random way. The key point to remember is that Socrates and Darwin and others put forth their treatises with the assumption that God does not exist. How do we know that? They along with their disciples were all atheists who in fact were promoting their cause.

I'm sure everyone has their own idea what it means.

Hmmmm, peer reviews? Yeah, right like Jesus didn't start out with 12 and end up with mega millions? Lets see, how many did Israel have? Oh, yes, 12, too. That kinda went viral too. I'm not too sure about Mohammad, but I'm thinking his peer-review process is pretty well established. Kinda messes with that validity conclusion. No, people who are not using the correct lingo, don't understand it, can't comprehend it, don't care, do not have to take science at face value and believe it's true. Have I seen gravity work? Yep, check that one as okay. Have I seen airplanes fly? Yep, don't understand, but I've seen it work. I've even seen water change into two gasses. Really cool. But I'm sorry to say, I've never seen evolution nor seen evolution work. But then again, no one has. I'm gonna need a lot more before I buy into that one. If one is going to promote Gnosticism, stick with what Gnosticism teaches. We can only accept as truth that which is known. That will leave out a whole lot of "science" in the process. Otherwise, making up the rules by one's own initiative is all one has to rely on. That's the result of the atheism assumption in the first place. As a matter of fact, I don't believe "science" many times because even in my lifetime that which was touted as true, has come to fruition. Religion can't be wrong, it's based entirely on faith, one's faith traditions might be wrong, but the core truth of the religion has always been the same. Sure, someone thought the Inquisition was a good idea at the time, but no where does Christianity teach that as an acceptable practice, never has. Salem Witch Trials? Again, some off the wall hysterical people let their personal emotions over ride the faith they thought they relied on. Nope, just people being stupid, Has nothing to do with the religion. If radical Islam is so correct in their present day interpretation of their religion, why weren't these people doing these things since the sixth century when Mohammad came on the scene? The real unique thing about religion vs. the knowledge of humans is it is always one step ahead of us because even if we think we have all the answers, there's always one more question that someone asks. A man without hope in something better than what he has is destined to be no better than any other animal that walks the earth. That will always separate the people of faith from those who refuse to believe.

Darwin's treatise's full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species. Rather politically incorrect by today's standards and the focus is not on evolution but on the ORIGIN of SPECIES, which emphasizes natural selection instead of the Church's stand on Creationism. I particularly like the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. So do all the proponents of mass genocide.. This is why I'm not putting any of my eggs in these kinds of baskets.

Humans are genetically quite similar in many respects to an ear of corn. Dogs and horses, too. Starting from that premise, I can prove scientifically just about anything I want and call it evolution.

The hard-sell proof of the atheist's stance that all religions are myths is the "proof" of evolution. That concept is first proposed officially in the writings of Socrates when he made such a statements against the pantheistic Greek gods of his time. Over the years there have been many atheistic disciples of Socrates who have made the same argument. Darwin, an educated theologian, was later in life a converted atheist who in his anger against the Catholic church revived Socrates' argument as the basis for his treatise on the Origins of the Species "proving" his hypothesis on the non-existence of God. When his writings first came out the biggest opponents of this treatise were not the members of the religious community, but those of the scientific community. Over the years with further refinement by others, the scientific community has learned to assume a lot of what these ideas represent. All in all over the years, further manipulation of the material continues just as it has since the time of Socrates as the basis for the non-existence of any kind of religious god(s). Dress it up, give it a new "scientific" emphasis and name, and run it up the flagpole. While I do not argue against the proven scientific evidence of mutational changes within species, i.e. Minnesota's three-legged frog population (those ponds can be dangerous places) and 20 years of not being able to identify the mutational trigger, does not give evidence to evolution of the species. Since his appearance on earth, how many different species of humans have there been? Just the one Homo Sapien and that hasn't changed for how many years? and how are those years measured? There are some who say God can't create the world in six days, but they can't measure the age of a rock. Carbon dating has it's problems too. For those who are interested, the Greeks had a title for those who supported Socrates' philosophical stance against religion, It was called Gnosticism. The premise behind it was the knowledge of humanity and it's collective insights have negated the need for humanity to retain it's reliance on god represented mythology. It is of no surprise to anyone that such "mythology" hasn't gone away no matter how convincing the atheistic disciples of Socrates have tried to be. I don't think it's necessary to teach the Judean/Christian/Islamic teachings of creationism in public schools because that would establish a state religion, but teaching the anti-Judean/Christian/Islamic teachings of evolution in public schools does just that. I don't really like the idea of Gnosticism being the religion of America and will speak out against it as they continue their attempts to squelch main line religious distracters. Moosetracker: maybe I'm a bit out of the ordinary when it comes to comparative religions, but I am also very well read on the topic and understand it more than the average person. So until the proponents of Gnosticism can come up with a better more reasonable argument for their cause, I'm sticking with my beliefs. I'm open to change, just show me the evidence. The problem is, there is no evidence to support their non-religion as there is to support my religion. That's why Gnosticism and it's evolution dialog are really a faith based belief system and not a true science. And by the way, scientists have been able to replicates the 3-legged frog phenomena of Minnesota over and over again in scientific labs using the pond water the frogs live in. But after 20+ years they haven't figured out what it is in the water that is causing the mutations. So how long is it going to take before scientists say that 3-legged (and other deformities) frogs are a new species? I don't see many jumping on that bandwagon. http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/mystery-freaky-frogs

Gravity is a known force of nature, evolution is not. Which brings us full circle. How can any of the evolution tradition believers out there be qualified to determine the "correctness" of my creationist tradition beliefs? 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.

If science can be taught without creationism theory, why can't it also be taught without evolution theory. It was done so for billions of years before Darwn.

Cini Bank...

Is that why there are men in black suits wearing reflective sunglasses sitting out front of my house in black... canoes?

The first couple of times yes, but then it became more and more obvious I wasn't her little boy anymore.

The machines that process checks read the routing, account and amount information that is printed with special ink at the bottom of the check. Nothing else matters. A signature is only a formality that is used as Rick_in_CA states.

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the source of all truth in this world. People can put whatever junk they want on that site and call it the truth. So, I'm, incorrect because "many people believe evolution is compatible with religion" as documented by Wikipedia, makes it acceptable? Does one really believe a statement like that can be taken as fact? Sorry, but one has to come up with a more convincing point than that to convince me because there are "many people who believe man has never walked on the moon", too. It was all staged. I will concede that there are a lot of people who believe man has walked on the surface of the moon even though I have only been told so and watched what I considered unaltered video of the event. It doesn't mean I'm right though. Sorry, I'm just not going to buy into evolution or evolution as somehow torqued into being compatible with a religion of some sort. I am one of the many who for 2,000 years believe that Socrates and his anti-religious disciples just haven't come up with a convincing argument against religion, which the vast majority of people actually do believe in. It always reminds me of the idea that if everyone in the world is crazy and you're the only sane one, you might want to rethink your premise.

And to think, all I did was ask a question....

You and I are in total agreement. By reiterating it, then it's not just you speaking out against such "acceptable" actions by adults and youth alike. After I build up a rapport with a scout, I have been known to do a bit of teasing, but I also allow those boys to offer up their own teasings as well. I had one boy, nice kid, that when he came into the troop was quite shy and quiet. Did what was expected but didn't really socialize. Whenever I was around him, I would always "forget" his name and have to ask him. To which he would smile and say his name. After a while it was obvious to him that I was never going to learn his name so finally when I asked him, "...and you are whom?", he said, "Your Favorite Scout." To this day, I still refer to him as My Favorite Scout, and I always get the same shy smile out of him. One can have a teasing (not bullying) rapport with the boys, but first of all they all have to know that they are respected by you and once that trust is there, one can ease off the "professionalism" that one has to start with.

Or is it just me? It shows that I was the last to post to the forum, but I have no access to it. Must have been a bad boy along the way....

So we're even, you're completely ignorant about "evolution" as well. What you call evolution is nothing more than genetic mutations some of which benefit the species some which don't. However, most become extinct over time. New species are being found all around us. And for the most part most of what we say is extinct is nothing more than mutational changes. But what you call science, I call knowledge. It is knowable. It is measurable, It is provable. One's doesn't have to understand it, just know it. If I drop a pen, I'm pretty sure it's going to hit the floor. EXCEPT in outer space, then it doesn't go anywhere when I drop it. All I know is there is no gravity to count on even though I have never been in outer space. So because of that, I'll just have to believe it. All your evolutionary projections and speculations are simply not substantiated and for the most part don't even start at the beginning, They jump into the middle of the discussion at about the pond-scum stage and mutate from there. The philosophy of the argument is flawed. Has been since the time of Socrates and it was the scientific world that was first on the scene objecting to Darwin's philosophical treatise on the speculation of where humans came from. Explain to me the source of life from an evolutionary perspective? Can't, never has been seen, never has been proven, most scientists don't even know where to begin. But it's here in two distinct forms. As for the Evolutionists... Well, it just happened. Good answer! The Gnosticism part of humanity has always been a day late and a dollar short to the reality that surrounds us. And how did it all start? The Big Bang (now under review) and how long ago was that? And it was measured how? And what caused it? And if one wants to know how all this lays out, just ask an Evolutionist. They have all the "real" answers, just like those who profess the "real" answers of religion.

Under the service project requirement for Star/Life is where my boys document their multiple/temporary POR work if they choose to go that route. I have also used it as a preliminary trial run for the Eagle Leadership Project as well. I'm not as anal as the Eagle Review Committee, but it is a good opportunity to get ready for the "big one". These are the boys that have already done POR work prior to FC, i.e. NSP PL, Instructor, Bugler, etc. and didn't get "credit" for it. If they have done it under these circumstances, chances are they are heading into their Eagle Project anyway. A couple of trial runs will do him better than repeating what he's already proven he can do.

People expect to get an animated response with many things in life. Boy screw up, they expect the adults to scream and yell. What they can't handle is cool, calm and reasonable, in-your-face kind of affront. Scares the heck out of them. They expect one thing gets something else and don't know what to do with it. I had one DE who left and went to another council. When she came back to visit a year or so later, she visited Roundtable to see as many people as possible. I was polite and asked how things were going. She was totally surprised. She said I was actually friendly and nice, rather easy to talk to, etc. It would seem that when she was the DE she was terrified of me. It's how I keep my DE's on their toes....

What's the difference between swiping the card and writing oneself a check. Same thing happens either way. Asking a volunteer to use their credit/debit card and then get reimbursed is assuming an awful lot. If people can't afford uniform pants for their boys, how can they chip in the troop's registration? Troops don't need to prove credit worthiness with a debit card. Debit card usage is no different than a single signature check. One does not need to track down the card when someone leaves, just get a new card and cancel the first. In this day and age of tech savvy people. it's quicker to buy something but to pay someone who hasn't a card reader means getting cash is pretty difficult. It's far easier with a check.