packsaddle

"any little crumb of info that Google gets about your computer's online activity will also feed into the ad choices that you see." It really hurts to realize that I must be THIS boring, sigh.

If you think tides, seasons, diel cycles, forest fires, volcanoes, and climate processes are random, then you haven't grasped some basic selective forces. If tsunamis were completely random, for example, Japan would be no more likely to experience one than, say, Iowa. They aren't random. They are constrained by the tectonic activity that produces them and the configuration of the coasts that are affected. The inability to predict is not the same thing as 'random'. (but until there is a coastline fronting on an ocean in Iowa, I can predict with a probability of 1 that Iowa is not going to experience a tsunami.) I agree that the 'intelligent actor' isn't invoked by many biologists but this depends on how you define 'intelligent actor'. This has been particularly true since the Reagan administration. Have I given the impression that such a thing exists? By the way, roaches CAN be killed with gamma rays. They can withstand far more than we can but as Mythbusters showed empirically, 100,000 rads will kill them all. (where is PETA when you need them?) Edit: I almost forgot the comment about species not adapting. They don't and species don't evolve either. Populations evolve and populations adapt.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Ding Dong, Nope, we have no control over those ads. Think of them as a marketplace cost of getting the rest of the forum stuff for free. It's also clear that all of us don't get the same ads. Most of mine are related to travel - there's an ad for a hotel there right now. But I'm still hoping to see that 'bad idea' ad (or whatever it was called).

I've never confronted this situation so I can only answer how I'd like to 'think' I would treat them. I would try to treat them exactly the same as any other boys, while keeping in mind that if their interactions indicate problems, knowing the potential source of the problems might assist in addressing the problems. But until hypothetical problems arise, I'd let them just be boys...and hope that they can. Edit: Almost forgot: what's a seagull poster?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

BSA24, the process is neither random, nor arbitrary. Selective forces wouldn't be 'selective' if they were random. The difficulty with this concept is that it also isn't necessary to invoke external 'guidance' to explain those selective processes. This is not to say that external 'guidance' is excluded by science. It isn't. External 'guidance' simply can't be addressed by science. Science is 'indifferent', for want of a better term to describe the 'relationship'. The problem is that there are some persons of faith who consider that indifference to constitute an active rejection. That's 'their' problem, IMHO. Now, if you want to argue that the circumstances and conditions in which selection operates are somewhat constrained and perhaps independent of the process I agree. The fact that the process is constrained by whatever biological structures which exist at the time of a selective force is applied is obvious. The process has to work with whatever existing material there 'is' as a starting condition and then proceed from that point. Those kinds of constraints prevent the process from being either random or arbitrary. The selective process itself is also neither random nor arbitrary but rather proceeds according to forces such as gravity and under laws such as thermodynamics. Moreover, the external environment is mostly independent from the process Examples include things like climate, solar radiation, and tectonic activity. We just saw an example of that imposed on the Northeast. But that is by no means random. It might not be predictable in the long run but it certainly is not random. By the way, I was impressed by the accuracy of the European model prediction of how that storm would develop and behave. Too bad that accuracy can't be extended much farther out at this time but who knows how it might be improved in the future? I know it's tempting to react to the false dichotomy which is often laid out by creationists: that without external direction, the only option is random chance. But to react by defending your idea in terms of THEIR false dichotomy only gives false credence to their flawed thinking.

Yes, it does seem that way to some people.

Yeah... but who paid for the food?

Yeah, I'm with TT on this. When I first heard about it, I was curious and expected some sentimental, perhaps sanctimonious piece of sculpture. But when I finally saw it for the first time I went into knee-slapping guffaws. I have to give someone, I don't know who, a lot of credit...what a great joke! If we melted that thing down, how big of a bell could we make, I wonder?

Thanks RememberSchiff, I was about to start a thread like this. I hope everyone in your area do well over the next few days. Also, NJCubscouter and I guess everyone in the NorthEast. I wish all of you the best of success and well-being while this storm passes.

Peregrinator, what part of that do you think was an attack? I asked what you think because I was interested in what you think is a weakness for YEC. It's that simple. I asked because you seemed to indicate your ambivalence and I wanted to find out the nature of that ambivalence. But to answer your question, technology is the result of the application of science. This is especially true for many of today's technologies. Science, on the other hand, proceeds through a critical self-correcting process in which hypotheses are tested in various ways. One of the most critical aspects of this process is that such tests must be capable of being reproduced independently by others using the same methods. IF the relationships, physical or otherwise, vary unpredictably with time, then replicability is impossible, strictly speaking, especially at the fine resolution that increasingly dominates our measurements. With unpredictable variation of the relationships, development of the technologies we enjoy today would be highly unlikely.

"I said that a higher speed of light would explain why there is an apparent contradiction between the dates obtained by carbon-14 dating and the age of the earth according to YEC." OK, I get it now. First, given the short half-life of 14C, that particular isotope has virtually nothing to do with the age of the earth...except that it happens to agree with dating that does not depend on radioactive decay. But otherwise that is the old Setterfield argument that at one time the speed of light was infinite but declined rapidly to its present value. What you are essentially saying is that the old geological concept of 'uniformitarianism' is contradicted by YEC. And THAT would be what 'X' is, I suppose. Yes, YEC is incompatible with the assumption of 'uniformitarianism'. And that may provide a link to some of the things BSA24 mentioned in his earlier post. If uniformitarianism is invalid, then there is nothing in science that can be valid. If uniformitarianism is false then we would have none of the technologies that today we either enjoy or regret. In that sense BSA24 is correct. The ultimate test of all this is that those technologies do exist. Some of them even do good things.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Peregrinator, Actually, while you may not be up to it yourself, a virus HAS been assembled by other persons from off-the-shelf reagents. It was subsequently inserted into a bacterium and it did what viruses do. So yes, that one is possible. Setting aside his 'infallible' nature, nevertheless the Pope did say there is proof of evolution. How is that reconciled with YEC? And getting back to 14C dating. How has the speed of light changed and how do you know it did? Moreover, what does that have to do with 14C? You do know that the speed of light DOES vary, depending on the medium it's passing through? Edit: BadenP, what are you talking about, man? To hear my children, I was practically there myself! (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Peregrinator, you mention that YEC does present some difficulties. What are they? I'd like to learn those in more detail. And what do YOU think 'X' is? Edit: and by the way, who is it that is claiming that Catholics do NOT have a right to believe something?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Well, not only DID humans walk with dinosaurs..in fact we WALKED dinosaurs: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSwb6PEzcDAilrUZCf9vv9ARl-C6atdsERREpuKUMNc39fpTrnyXw

Sentinel947, I really mean this in the spirit of friendship and brotherhood. When you ask questions like, "Why does the Earth rotate?" "Why does the sun rise?" "Why is the sky blue?" those are exactly questions that science can't answer. The earth rotates. What science can do is offer explanations for what that rotation means for day length, tides, distribution of fluids on the planet, etc. But it can't answer 'why' except that there must have been some force to consolidate a rotating mass with a certain amount of angular velocity and resulting momentum. As to why the sun rises, is a matter of perception and it only 'apparently' rises, as you well understand, as the outcome of a fixed perspective on a rotating sphere which orbits the sun. There is no 'why' to respond to unless it relates to the aforementioned rotation. As to the blue sky, there certainly is no 'why' at all. There is no 'blue'...only a certain dominant wavelength of light that we translate into 'blue' in our brains. Here's the weird part. Most of us share the ability to sense that wavelength as being different from other wavelengths (red, for example). But we don't know for sure that 'blue' as you perceive it is the same 'blue' as I perceive it. I can't explain 'blue' to another person unless I use a blue subject for comparison, such as a blue sky. The best we can conclude is that we both detect the same wavelengths in the same region of the spectrum. I only know what that translates into in my head. But all WE can do is agree that we both respond to that 'color'. Sensory perception is just fascinating.

Sentinel947, the question of 'why' has many meanings. Some of the more philosophical aspects of that question cannot be answered by science and I suspect that those aspects wouldn't even be attempted by science. So I try to set aside questions of 'why' which have an element of 'purpose' in them and leave those to individuals to work out for themselves in whatever way they find works best for them. Science already has its hands full just trying to figure out 'how'. BSA24, that was quite a stick you just poked with. It will be interesting to read whose eye it finds.

Eamonn, Just before I read your post I saw a cartoon in New Yorker magazine. In the cartoon Satan was seated in his throne in hell, with countless masses of miserable, suffering wretches below him. In front of him was a bagpipe player. Satan said, "From now on, YOU provide the music." Diabolical!

SeattlePioneer, It is true that we now import 50% or less of the oil that we use and that we currently rank about 3rd in the world in production. The economic recovery, however, is unlikely to accompany decreased demand. Moreover, the cost of the new production is much greater than the 'first flush' that existed for new wells back in the 20th century (this is well-known in terms of EROI). So if you think the cost of oil is going to decline in any kind of long-term manner, you should put your money where your predictions are and start playing the futures market. Because although we rank 3rd in production, we rank about 10th in proven reserves (about 100 bb, estimates vary, the CIA estimates around 21 bb). Saudi Arabia (which hasn't in recent years been a major source of our imported oil anyway) is likely to join the chorus: 'Drill, Baby, Drill'. At least that's what I'd do if I was in their place. If I was a Saudi, I'd even hope for cheaper oil prices for a little while, to keep the junkies hooked while their stash dwindles ever more quickly. I could be wrong. Perhaps we've greatly underestimated vast reserves that we never knew we had. Edit: HICO, I share your skepticism and I agree that the concept of sustainability is implicit in the idea of conservation. I also suggest that 'sustainability' is part of the foundation for 'leave no trace'. Edit: "World proved oil reserves at the end of 2011 reached 1652.6 billion barrels, sufficient to meet 54.2 years of global production. Proved reserves remain concentrated in OPEC which controls 72% of the worlds oil reserves, the highest proportion since 1998." source for this is BP. That 54.2 year figure has been fairly solid despite additions of reserves due to increased rates of usage. The price of anything in a commodity market is usually determined by market forces and in this case, we share the market with some other rather large (and rapidly-growing) users (China, for example).(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

It's nothing beyond what I've heard from pulpits from time to time. He just forgot to include references to mud races, etc. But basically it's same old, same old. Been hearing this stuff since the 1950's. Before that they probably had it on the radio or telegraphed it.

I caught this last night as well. Great project, I wish him the best of success. My thought as I watched it was of my satisfaction that these heroes can be confident about the honesty of this boy and his intentions.

I think the question about Environmental Science is a valid question. I would add that the entire Environmental Science merit badge would benefit from an overhall and if that process incorporated the topic of sustainability that would be just fine. I am a MB counselor for Environmental Science and my observation has often been that boys will opt to 'take' this MB at summer camp where they are assured of an easy pass. It is one of my major criticisms of summer camp merit badge 'classes' in which unqualified teenagers 'counsel' for merit badges such as this one or other nature-based badges or even others like citizenship and communications. Often they 'tutor' their own peers, sometimes even their neighbors with whom they otherwise would be competing on some video game. Sorry for the rant.

WasE61, I think the concern is related to your 'jumping'. Or to put it differently, is the content for this badge going to be the product of some thoughtless fad or is it going to be a thoughtful exercise on how to make rational decisions? If it's the latter, it should be compatible with the business environment. The private industry I started my career with had a motto that they could not sustain the industry if they destroy the very resources they depend on...sustainability. Later during my stint with the federal government working on Army bases, the Army suddenly realized that their use of some bases was destroying the land to the extent that it was dangerous for soldiers to train there...and that they MUST restore those systems for the long term outlook. Again sustainability. That was from the top guy. So while I recognize that a term like 'sustainability' can be promoted thoughtlessly and with shallow thinking, it can also be a deeply meaningful and vital concept at a wide range of levels and for a wide range of interests.

Twocubdad, 'sustainability' is something that appears quite differently to different people but sooner or later, every population will have sustainability-related forces and factors thrust upon them and they will either meet those challenges or be selected against. I have to say that after decades of watching politicians of all stripes, I have yet to find one (with the possible exception of Carter) who actually grasped even the basics of the concept...or else grasped the basics and then ignored them for the sake of political gain.

I wish I knew the content as well. But if I had to suggest something, the top of my list would contain the topic of 'net energy analysis'. This can be applied to anything and IS applied to energy sources under the concept of EROI or Energy Return on Investment. The idea is related to an economic cost/benefit analysis but the currency is energy rather than dollars. That would be a start. Some other useful topics might include recycling, transportation alternatives, renewable energy/fuels. This list could be quite long. If you want to read something that is thought-provoking, read a short paper entitled, 'Eating Fossil Fuel'. It's online and you can find it using Google. It isn't what I would call a definitive analysis but it does consider many of the right concepts and components. The conclusions are scary to some people.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OK, I didn't move the previous thread on this topic but I would have if I had read it recently. I agree with SM_Travis and I hope he picks back up with this thread instead. I'm opening this thread for those of us who want to actually discuss Scouting and the merits of this new badge. AND, in the spirit of the absolute power which has corrupted me absolutely, if anyone tries to hijack this one with political references, I'll delete your posts WOFA. Scout's Promise. Look, I was enjoying the original thread and hoping to see more on-topic discussion. I teach courses related to this topic. I was really saddened to see it taken over by 'you-know-who-you-are' about 'you-know-what'. Try to keep this one on track, please.