Stosh

Ever since the beginning of time, humanity has been struggling with the issue of religion and how it should be expressed. When I use the term religion, it is not meant in the normal sense of Christian/Buddhist/Islam/Judean, etc., but as a belief system by which people operate. There are those that believe there is a God and others say they believe he doesn't exist. Most people fluctuate and are unsure because of the nature of the issue, thus they fall into the grey area between. Even the most ardent Christian will feel, usually in a stressful situation, there is no God out there... A few days later he feels close to God once more. It all depends a lot on what day the survey is taken. But generally speaking, the survey might be somewhat accurate, who knows. Stosh

OMG, Here it is with the last days of autumn facing us (not really all that pleased) and at age 63 kinda regretting it. BUT, the survey says I should be in Florida! I can't image a more accurate survey the world has ever produced that can draw such fantastic results! I'm gonna start packing this afternoon!!!!! Hmmm.... I wonder where my wife should be? Stosh

I feel bad that this thread basically got hyjacked a bit. 46 sub posts on one comment, geesh. There are threads out there that don't carry that much weight. Packsaddle, I'll try to address your comments here and maybe jump to the atheist thread that Skeptic started. I really don't know what a young-earth creationist is. All I know is we don't have scientific evidence to indicate how old the earth really is. I don't know if we ever will. We have no way of knowing. If one were to listen carefully to the statements made by scientists, and none ever agree, the age of the earth is estimated. Assuming that the linear model of estimation is used, it doesn't take into account catastrophic events, for example, i.e. asteroids which would put a MAJOR glitch in the estimation process. Whereas the Grand Canyon took "hundreds of thousands of years to erode", might have occurred in one day due to a major earthquake. The sides of the canyon showing erosion of recent history. Two scientific theories, neither can be proven conclusively, both hypothesis and no evidence. There's still an ongoing debate amongst geologists on the Sphinx. It sits in the middle of a long known desert yet shows obvious signs of major water erosion. The debates rage on and on, and no one has answers. So how about a flood as a hypothesis? Heck NO!, that's just a Judeo-Christian MYTH! Well, it explains it just as well as any other guess. The core of the problem and the key to Darwinian atheism is that because it is "scientifically" based it carries more weight. Just isn't true. Natural scientists had a major following back 1000 years ago believing the world was flat. Oops, it just wasn't true. Scientists at one point taught that everything in the universe revolved around the earth. Oops, that wasn't true either. So where does science get it's credibility with a track record like that? But somehow it does, and Darwin, a theologian by training uses this questionable track record of credibility to attack Christianity of his day. Historically that is a fact that can't be denied. Out of that hypothesis, people over the past 200 years, and with the Church buying into the premise compromised away it's teachings. Even the Missouri Synod in it's recent decision shows how easily this can happen. Historically, which is much better at dating things than scientific guestimations, we can see that the civilizations that were not atheistic fared better than those that had no god(s). As a matter of fact most history, including even Norse Sagas all revolve around religion, not science. Up until 200 years ago when the religion of "Darwinism" came into vogue, science was used to understand the existence of God, not disprove it. Natural laws were identified and thus further developed, not with the purpose of disproving God, but to help understand what he had done. Darwin and his teachings is not science, it is a treatise promoting the non-existance of God and does so by using evolution to show that the world was created without any outside (God) involvement. It sounds convincing, but the proof just isn't there. Historically this heresy and anti-god stuff has been around all along and just uses different means other than guestimating science to support it. The "You don't want to go there" comment is because there are some pretty nasty conclusions that were extrapolated out of Darwinism that has caused major negative impact on the world. I'm not saying that Darwin was the anti-Christ or something like that, but there are many out there that have been building a fairly substantial case for it. I'm not in that camp, but there are those who are. I do recognize the problem and speak out on it on occasion. Merlyn just tripped my button otherwise I would have left it alone. But it does raise the question of why he's on the board of traditional principled non-atheistic forum like this Scouting forum unless he is either here to cause disruption or proselytize for his cause. Don't know, don't care, but I'll address his issues and absorb his bullying/personal attack comments. He has already shown his colors quite well. Civility levels are determined by one's morals and faith structure, more of a religious thingy rather than some scientific conclusion. Stosh

You really don't want to go there. Stosh

But of course, if there are no "gods" then you get to be your own god! That's gotta be a great feeling to be able to play god! There are a lot of people that have taken that line of thought to some pretty "questionable" conclusions. That's the one and only reason I'm not an atheist. Stosh

Atheists don't claim they created anything, but then Christians don't claim they created anything as well. Atheists simply claim that through a series of whatever, the end result is the world we have today. Kinda like it just happened out of nothing. The only difference is that Christians say there was a God that masterminded the complexities of what we have today, that it wasn't just a series of whatevers. I'm a believer in the mastermind theory not just the "something-out-of-nothing-for-no-reason" theory. And the Atheists think I'm drinking Koolaid? Yeah, right. I gave an explanation for the mosquitoes. All species were created at the same time. Might have been more due to the attrition of extinction, because the world declines, just ask any Global Warming "expert". At the very best, radiocarbon dating might get us back 50,000 years, but then with the formulas and all the exceptions, they have been having problems with dating things from the Egyptian Empire. Not really a good track record for them. And of course we have historical records that we can use to date those items so history, not science is the better measurement. Stosh

I don't disagree one bit, but I would think the local governmental agencies would work just fine for this. We don't need a huge wasteful bureaucracy to handle the poor in some small town in central Wyoming. Stosh

My kudos to the SM, well done! Same kudos to your son who had the courage to speak up and set the record straight on boy-led!..Gee, wouldn't it be fantastic if all boys got this chance? Stosh

I'm Christian, not Catholic. (Take that anyway you want.) There are a lot of main-line Christian denominations that subscribe to humanistic/atheistic heresies to satisfy their constituents. It's been going on for centuries. It doesn't come as any surprise. It's all part of the attempt to package their product in a wrapper that will please the market. It doesn't mean their product is any good. To an atheist there is no soul, it's just a contrivance used by the Catholics to package their product. As evidenced over and over again by even science, humans have a tendency to make mistakes. Some bigger than others. Some Christians subscribe to the Bible as the word of God, others simply use it as a guide to be interpreted as humanly they see fit. As with any religion of faith, everyone has a choice as to how they want to believe. Just because the Catholic Church says something doesn't mean I have to buy into it. They haven't had a very good track record over the past 2,000 years in my estimation. I'm trying not to be Catholic bashing, but I'm not making rash statements that counter what they believed from the beginning. That whole issue of "Theistic Evolutionism" counters what they taught for 1800 years and just the past 200 years offered up some disastrous results. Stosh

Totally agree, but evolution is a religious belief as well, it's the atheist's creation story, just the same as all other religions have their creation story. There is just as much scientific support for any of those stories as well. All creation stories are the means by which nations have explained it, it's up to science to prove else wise. Until it does, it's just a hypothesis/theory. Once it is proven it becomes a scientific law of nature. None of which is based in religion. For 4,000 years Judean -Christian Creationism hasn't been proven one way or the other. Neither has atheistic evolution which has been around for about 200 years. Stosh

Caught me on that one. Can't be dangling my participles on this forum. Love it! Stosh

Sounds more like a lame excuse rather than a reason..... Stosh

Pack, sorry for not getting back to you on this. Missed the posting. First of all I don't see evolution as science, but I do see many people trying to use it as if it were. To me evolution is a religion that has used science and whatever minutia they can glean out of it to give credibility to it and bring converts in through false premises. The ability of earth to create itself through natural progression first of all assumes no God is involved which makes evolution atheistic/pantheistic, etc. By establishing itself with scientific credibility it can thus expand itself into such areas as Social-Darwinism, and many other man generated humantheistic expressions. The danger lurks in the fact that it is atheism lurking under the disguise of natural science. Darwin was a trained theologian by training and his #1 supporter Lyell was a lawyer by training. Explain to me how these two were able to come up with a scientific based approach when neither had scientific training. At least the Russians were honest enough to identify their cause properly when they label themselves Scientific Atheists. Sorry, as Christian, I don't buy the program nor it's pseudo-science that attempts to give it credibility. By the way, The Theory of Evolution has been around for say, maybe 200 years??? give or take? The Theory of Creationism has been around for say, 4000 years, give or take?? It has endured the real test of time and still remains the basis for all non-atheistic religions of the world. Stosh

Remember, first of all, it is not a service providing job, the volunteers provide the services of BSA. Instead, it is a salesperson job, you are to promote BSA and expand it in your communities. For those who think it's both, take it from someone who served as an assistant DE, it simply isn't the case. Stosh

You got ripped off!!! You can buy 100 P-38 can openers for $17.99. All your boys can have one and have say, maybe, 50 more in a can. Stosh

I've carried a P-38 on my key chain for years, along with BSA Whittler pocket knife and butane lighter. I guess I carry my chuck box in my pocket. Stosh

The economy is tanking fast enough with the liberal policies of the current administration and the total disregard for fiscal responsibility over the past 5 years. The Tea Party is the scapegoat excuse used to justify their desire to continue the course of complete collapse. The Marxist premise of everyone getting equal share (except for the party leaders who make out like bandits) means everyone has to work to make it happen. Well, we're using Marxist ideals but only half the people are working, and they are having to work twice as hard to feed the slackers and governmental panhandlers. The Tea Party isn't anti- anything, it's merely pointing out the obvious which doesn't seem to be of much concern to many in Washington. If this doesn't make sense, take a course in Economics 101. It'll clarify a lot. Imagine for a moment you make $1 and it takes $.50 to live on. No problem, you're just fine. But the government comes in and takes $.50 so that the guy who isn't working can live on it. Not really an ideal state for economic growth. It's subsistence at best. Okay the Tea Party member who can't afford bombs, or guns, simply sits down and says, I'm not going to pay the government anymore, so arrest me. That's great until the government figures out that now it has no income and twice as many to feed, the slacker on the sofa AND the Tea Party member in jail. Civil disobedience is one thing, but the Tea Party is only interested at this point in fiscal responsibility. Let me re-emphasize, ...at this point... I hope the government is ready for the Tea Party taking a powder some day, for sure, they aren't going away any time soon. Better figure out how to deal with it before it's too late. Stosh

As a formerly trained Emergency Rescue Technician, the major knot used to secure anything was the double half-hitch. If your life is dependent on a knot on your carabiner, it had better be a double half-hitch. If that isn't secure enough for you, do it twice. For a non-sliding loop, we did not use the traditional bowline, but used the figure-8 loop instead. A double figure-8 loop with a half-hitch could secure an unconscious patient on a rescue line. For securing objects/people, these were the only knots we used. For a hammock the name of the game is to allow for adjustments but no slippage. I would start out with a wide strap around the tree to minimize any damage to the tree, the strap having a ring on it. The rope tied double half-hitch to the ring of the hammock. Then thread through the ring on the tree strap twice, then back to the loop on the hammock and finally anchored to the ground with a stake and taunt-line hitch. All the pressure weight of the hammock is absorbed in the ring at the tree and "block and tackle" restring through the hammock ring, finally with very little pressure by the time it gets to the stake in the ground. The taunt-line is to make final adjustments. I suppose one could use the base of the tree instead of the stake, but that single rope could rub damage to the tree at the base. Just my suggestion. Stosh Stosh

The basic problem I see it is that there is an enormous amount of energy devoted to the "science" of evolution in an attempt to justify it. If it were that easy none of us would be arguing the fine points of whether or not bacteria or mosquitoes can evolve. The experiment only shows that bacteria mutate, so do deformed frogs in Minnesota. One sample of mosquito doesn't make even a ripple of proof for proper scientific methodology. Even when applied to the scientific method the experiment can't be replicated, one of the basic standards of scientific research. What I see is the attempt by the evolutionists to give credibility to their cause by giving it some kind of scientific basis. Anomalies, mutations, and experiments that fall outside the normal process of real science don't cut it for me. I can just as easily make the statement that God created the 16 different species of mosquitoes all at the same time. With scientists all over the place still finding new species, it's not a far stretch of the imagination. It is 100% speculation based on religion. Well, so is evolution, but instead of debating the merits on a religious basis they have chosen to go the scientific route. Biblical creationism has done as well with equally ineffective results. We simply have no way of proving it either way. If some asteroid killed off the dinosaurs at one point in history, why were certain other species spared? And with a constant rate of evolution going on, how does one adjust the time periods to account for catastrophic interruptions sufficient to wipe out huge numbers of species? There is just too much stuff out there to automatically jump to some grand hypothesis in the realm of science. Leave the theological discussions in the realm of religion, after all Charles Darwin was a theologian, not a scientist. He was looking for some concept to discredit Christianity that the straw he grabbed at was evolution. And the debate rages on whether or not it was even a real straw. It captured the imagination of a lot of people, gave false credibility to the movement, but has done nothing to promote or advance the world of science. After 200 years an experiment using bacteria mutation as its basis really isn't going to rock the world of scientists, but may endorse a nod from the evolutionists. Spin offs of this religion have done more harm than a lot of people realize and Darwin has done a lot of damage in his anger against the Church, probably just as much as the Church has. But that's another whole story, but once a religion takes hold under a false guise, it's very difficult to recognize if for what it is. Even after 200 years of discreditation, the movement still has momentum, but it has done very little in progressing the field of biological sciences. A life-form that adapts or even mutates does not mean it's evolving. It just adapts to the existing environment in which it finds itself, or it dies. There is nothing evolutionary with that. It just means we have bears that live on the polar ice cap and bears that live in the jungle. They have adapted, not evolved. Stosh

I took WB at my own expense, but was reimbursed by the troop eventually. I did my ticket on the Webelos transition so I went back for 2 years and was Webelos DL during that time. It helped both programs, which was my expectation. Stosh

Remember, this is the government here. It doesn't have to make sense. Stosh

Yeah, but they're doing it for the kids. Gotta remember that. The ends justify the means when one looks into the sad eyes of all those poor kids. Stosh

There are homeless people who make more money than I do panhandling. I'm not suggesting that as an option, but a little creativity can go a long way. Stosh

99% of what our government does in the area of the nanny state is a Ponzi.... always has been always will be until the people call them on it. They won't though, they like the check coming in each month. It's free money anyway. Stosh

This whole issue is a slippery slope and we haven't reached bottom yet. More to come, be patient, one's true colors will be shown eventually. Stosh