packsaddle

"ideas", by themselves, should not be threatening to anyone. In terms of the physical world, there is actually no evidence that they exist outside the minds of people who have them. I think that some people worry about actions others will take as a result of certain ideas. To me the ideal would be a world in which all ideas can be expressed openly, subject to a free market in which ALL ideas can be criticized without fear. And then let Darwinian forces select for the better ones and eliminate those that can't compete. But this ideal is threatened, oddly, by the 'idea' that such a market should not exist, at least not as a free one.

I just thought that the NAS would tend to have more credibility than Wikipedia or I have. But "..yeh just never know." Yes, my point exactly.

Beavah, From the NAS report I noted in another thread (Evolution, Science, and Creationism: National Academy of Sciences Report - 2007), some of your questions are addressed. FYI, this report can be downloaded for free. Long clip... Some essential quotes from the report. Page 10: In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. Any scientific explanation has to be testable there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it. Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing. Because observations and explanations build on each other, science is a cumulative activity. Repeatable observations and experiments generate explanations that describe nature more accurately and comprehensively, and these explanations in turn suggest new observations and experiments that can be used to test and extend the explanation. In this way, the sophistication and scope of scientific explanations improve over time, as subsequent generations of scientists, often using technological innovations, work to correct, refine, and extend the work done by their predecessors. Page 10 insert: Definition of Science The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process. Page 11: Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words theory and fact. In everyday usage, theory often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, I have a theory about why that happened, they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously. One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the Moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik (see page 2) predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory. In science, a fact typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term fact to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. Page 11 and 12: In science it is not possible to prove with absolute certainty that a given explanation is complete and final. Some of the explanations advanced by scientists turn out to be incorrect when they are tested by further observations or experiments. New instruments may make observations possible that reveal the inadequacy of an existing explanation. New ideas can lead to explanations that reveal the incompleteness or deficiencies of previous explanations. Many scientific ideas that once were accepted are now known to be inaccurate or to apply only within a limited domain. However, many scientific explanations have been so thoroughly tested that they are very unlikely to change in substantial ways as new observations are made or new experiments are analyzed. These explanations are accepted by scientists as being true and factual descriptions of the natural world. The atomic structure of matter, the genetic basis of heredity, the circulation of blood, gravitation and planetary motion, and the process of biological evolution by natural selection are just a few examples of a very large number of scientific explanations that have been overwhelmingly substantiated. Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations.

Well, after last night's debate, I have to send Paul back to Tralfamador or someplace. McCain looks even better than before and Romney even emptier, a vapid, empty persona. I think Huckabee has hit his peak. Didn't watch the Dems. John-in-KC, unless you suspect something, heh, heh, I think most of Giuliani's skeletons are OUT of the closet and in fairly public view. I could still live with him though. I kind of like that edgy sense of humor. And I think he and McCain have the most realistic grasp of the immigration problem and solutions.

Scoutldr, tell that to Scoutingagain as well. I know the lines but for some reason the boys in their (perhaps) dyslexic way have corrupted it to 'Scoutmaster', heh, heh. I think it's kinda cute.

Wow, I just watched Paul handle himself beautifully in a very thoughtful interview and on every topic he seemed very reasonable. I may take a closer look. (head-smacking noise) "I could'a had a V-8" Gern, as sympathetic as I am with your 're-elect Gore' quip, the people's acquiescence to the 2000 election was nearly as forceful a statement as a military coup. We got what we demanded and deserved.

While I can only guess about whatever slant, if any, other faculty give to their courses, I do know that among the various campuses in this area the ratio of 'pro-creationist' to 'pro-evolution' invited speakers and similar forums is about 3:1. Not that I mind, of course, and I have only attended a few of them. I note that the NAS just released its new book on the topic entitled, "Science, Evolution, and Creationism": http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876 This site allows anyone to read it online for free. The summary begins: "The discovery and understanding of the processes of evolution represent one of the most powerful achievements in the history of science. Evolution successfully explains the diversity of life on Earth and has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines." Cool.

On more than one occasion, while observing the 'Great Scoutmaster' thing, I've had parents ask me if we were deifying the SM. Impressions indeed.

Beavah, you read my mind regarding Bloomberg. But what smart person would want to take over after the 8-year debacle we've unleashed in this administration? Raisinemright, thanks I almost forgot Fred Thompson. I found him on the web: http://www.cybertronical.com/allsites/starwars/main/aliens/boss_nass/nass.jpg His Hollywood experience is evidently greater than anyone thought.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Acco40, I do recognize the truth of what you write but at the same time, we choose to react the way we do with regard to such symbols. The crucifix is, objectively, just some plastic or wood or something, sculpted and with paint on it. Flags are just cloth. Historic events are not memories if we didn't personally experience them. WE choose to engage in emotional reactions to these things. WHY we do this is another question, though, and I don't have an answer. But we are not forced to feel or react the way we do. If the God Rock was allowed and someone then defiled it in some way to make his own statement, or worse - ridiculed it, would anyone mind? I suspect yes. Regardless of the legal issues, the God Rock wouldn't offend me as long as it didn't cause me to trip and fall during a walk. And it wouldn't offend me if someone used it as an opportunity to plant a Satan Rock next in line...or something like that. Actually, THAT would be interesting.

As usual, my guy (Biden) didn't get squat and now he's out. Oh well, I'm going to have to work on that glass-half-full thing. Wonder who I can jinx next? I don't see Huckabee as having either the experience or personal presence to be a world leader. But he couldn't do worse than Bush. I could live with McCain. Another geezer in the whitehouse anyone? Paul is on some other planet. Romney is made of hollow plastic. Obama is inexperienced and naive but he learns quickly and could do it if he retained much of the current administration intact. TWAJBTW Clinton is divisive but I don't envy our adversaries if she gets it. Edwards is, well, I'm not sure...but he sure is pretty. Giuliani, I could live with as well. He's not out by any means. I have a morbid liking for his way of doing things...it's so....New York. I love NY.

In my sarcastic, insomniac-beaver accent, "Lisabob, did you just say 'hissy fit'?" Heh, heh, Warhol's soup cans just made me salivate like a cow. I'm with those others of you who have unsophisticated, troglodyte artistic senses. I still enjoy art in the Hudson River School genre, the Thomas Moran types and others. And I like the Italian and other old European masters. I know...I'm boring but that's what I like. Sometimes I still sprawl out on the hillside and watch the clouds too. Sad confession, I know, but it had to be said. But if people can make a living by selling stuff I don't understand, then it's OK by me if it's OK bayou. Scribbling, splashing, and defiling icons of all sorts doesn't offend me. I don't 'get' it but I'm not offended.

Venividi, from my vantage in academia I appreciate what you say. As I understand it, the most feasible solution is that those problems won't be solved until every student is armed with autoloading weapons. Ahem, grade inflation might get worse.

Wow, I think I asked for one of mine to be removed a long time ago...and it sure deserved it. But that's the only time, as far as I know, that the fickle finger of fate singled me out. I guess I need to try harder.

Gold Winger, it would take some searching but at least twice in the past, I have recounted a Jewish family in our area who objected and were subsequently ostracised by school, sports, job, etc. They eventually moved. Your blanket statement on behalf of all those other groups might be a bit overstated.

Would it be too much to ask, what is this really all about? I never could understand why the other thread was closed.

I've never had this problem but I think you did the right thing for exactly the reasons Beavah mentioned.

Ed, it promotes any religion that BSA accepts for its membership requirements. That is the problem.

Ed, OK, I figured out what you were asking about. Would it be ok if you were hearing our government promote the great God, Brahma?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Moth to the flame...in my best Captain Barbosa accent, "Why...WHY is anyone offended by 'Happy Holidays'?" I'm not offended if someone says it to me. If I address my friends in Turkey and wish them a 'Happy Holiday' they are not offended. Same for my friends in Costa Rica, the Caribbean, and even more exotic places like India, Indonesia, or New York. So please explain how that is offensive. Now, if I were to wish my friends in Turkey and some other places a 'Merry Christmas', they probably wouldn't be offended but then, it wouldn't mean as much to them as 'Happy Holiday'. I could probably even find someone who would respond, "what's that?" if I wished them a 'Merry Christmas'. I sure know I get that response once in a while in the South when I mention Hanukah (however it's spelled). After I explained the basic myths of Christmas they might understand but I doubt they'd be offended by that either. Now it probably wouldn't be advisable to say 'Merry Christmas' in Sudan. But then I don't have any friends there. Yep, they all, every last one of them, hate me. But the concept of a holiday is fairly universal. I don't get the offensive part. Unless someone is like a Scrooge or something and doesn't like holidays at all and thinks no one should celebrate them. Is THAT what you mean?

This unit has gone with the old standard Eureka two-man Timberline model because of the nearly universal use, utility, price, and spare parts. It is a little heavy for backpacking but manageable, and far better than the stuff we had when I was a boy. Two guys can share it and the cooking stuff so it works out.

When I was the CM years ago, the troop and the pack understood that the equipment was the property of the CO. Therefore, although the troop maintained the equipment and were usually the only ones using it, the pack and at least one other youth group were able to borrow it if needed, assuming schedules allowed it. The parents who didn't have tents usually had access to loaners.

I've never seen it but I've heard of it on these threads. While I maintain that parents are free to make such decisions with regard to their children, I think there must be a better approach. It isn't exactly the kind of positive motivation I would hope a boy would have for pursuing rank, any rank.

I am trying to maintain a glass-half-full attitude. If things have gone terribly this year, at least there's less of a chance they'll get worse. Anyway, I hope with you that the chemo was successful and you can get on with happier lives. Your comments on OJ hit home with me. I remember the friction between me and my father. It has taken decades for me to understand what was happening there and the depths of emotional trauma from WWII and some other stuff had hit him. I vowed to make it better with my son. But I think it's almost inevitable to have friction and so it was with mine. At some point, I guess it was high school, I decided to let him make some major decisions for himself and he did a really good job. I backed off some more. Whenever he stumbled I offered suggestions, he started to listen. He's not quite completely out of the nest yet but he's set for a wonderful life, barring something completely unforeseen. And as I backed away, he seemed to begin to see things differently as well. Now we have a very warm relationship and I know we have a strong bond. I suspect you and OJ will as well, it may take some time. As for resolutions, I sympathize. I'm told I'm slim enough but I have resolved to get into better shape. I'd like to be able to do pull-ups again but a shoulder injury may limit that, we'll see. To me the key is resolve to do something realistic. And then take your approach, go ahead and follow through. You're right, it's another election and I have been tired of sound bites for some time now. I'm still undecided on both party and candidate but if they'd all just shut up for a while, I might make a decision. Oh well, one of those unrealistic expectations. I hope you and yours have a warm, safe, Happy New Year in 2008. Me, I content myself with the knowledge that 50 years from now aside from my family, I'll practically be forgotten and hopefully mostly anonymous. Anyway, I'll be a long way from caring by then. Oops, this is supposed to be glass-half-full, isn't it? Happy New Year Edited part: another oops, forgot about that part on 'what if'. That sounds suspiciously like a favorite motto of mine, "Be Prepared". Yeah, that's the one. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I'm with GopherJudy on that one. Great story.