Peregrinator

I'm reminded of how writers described the Hitler Youth. Srsly?

Another option would be foil cooking. Sure, didn't even think of that. You could put the foil packets right on the embers of a fire.

The statue of the "woman" has awfully big biceps.

Heck, I would even pre-cook chili because everyone knows (don't they?) that chili is better after it's rested overnight. Same with beef stew - the natural gelatin from the connective tissue sets and produces a thicker stew the next day. [beef stew is my favorite thing to make in the Dutch oven - my secret ingredients are tomato paste (1 tbsp per lb beef) and molasses (1/2 tbsp).]

AHG membership in other countries is probably tied mainly to the American ex-pat, military, and missionary communities One would guess ... would certainly seem weird for young girls in other countries to join a group claiming to be focused on American heritage!

There is a list of talking points for creationists to follow when they challenge evolution. Peregrinator repeats them all as if from a sheet handed to him by a PR person. All of the points are false. Ah, so it is false to wonder whether a one-celled organism, or even DNA, could be created in a tank through simulated natural processes? It is false to wonder whether those processes were actually present on Earth at the time of its formation, or in the deep geologic past? False. There is considerable proof Sorry, I use "proof" in the mathematical sense. Everything else is evidence. That is not the only method of dating geological and other artifices. I never said it was. I pointed out that it was one of the problems with YEC. I did not even question its accuracy. It is degrees of resolution which lack accuracy, not whole generational misses as you assume. How do you know what I assume from my posts in this thread?(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)

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, it is Setterfield's argument. I don't know of anyone else who has made it. Like I said, it is not mainstream science. X is whatever it is implied by YEC that contradicts the existence of computer technology. I don't know what X is -- that's up to the person who believes that YEC contradicts computer technology to posit. 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. How does that follow? Technology is based on whatever laws of the universe are operating now. It's not based on laws and processes that may have prevailed in the past. By the way, modern geologists and paleontologists, for example, accept that the rates of geologic processes may have been different in the past. As an aside, packsaddle, I find it weird that you would ask me what one of the problems with YEC might be, then attack my posts based on my answer.(This message has been edited by 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. I didn't say that creating a virus was impossible. I wondered whether one might be created by the experiment mentioned by BSA24. 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? I did not say the speed of light had changed. 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. A higher speed of light implies a higher rate of decay of radioactive elements (of which carbon-14 is one). Again, as I said, not mainstream science.

It is indeed you my my friend who is wrong, Tampa T quotes Pope Benedict to disprove your point, the Catholic Church does support evolution. There's a distinction between supporting something and actually teaching it. I realize this distinction is lost on many non-Catholics. Additionally try reading Pope John Paul II's book Crossing the Threshold, it will open your eyes to many other things that YOU mistakenly think the Catholic Church holds as absolute truth. How would you know what I think the Church holds as truth?

Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries particularly the United States and his native Germany between creationism and evolution was an absurdity, saying that evolution can coexist with faith. The absurdity mentioned by His Holiness is the conflict of faith and science -- i.e., it is absurd to say that evolution disproves science (which is what some on the creationist side might say -- science teaches evolution, evolution is wrong, therefore science is wrong) and absurd to say that evolution disproves faith. I think that is clear from his actual remarks: They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other, the pope said. This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.

Take some water and put it in a tank. Give it a methane rich nitrogen atmosphere with plenty of carbon and oxygen. Put a bolt of electricity through it. Are those the conditions that prevailed when the Earth was formed, or when life arose on Earth? How would we know? ZAP! A slime of amino acids will form from the compounds. The building blocks of organic matter. How long before one gets a one-celled organism from those amino acids? Can I create a one-celled organism in my tank? How about a virus?

Peregrinator, you mention that YEC does present some difficulties. What are they? I'd like to learn those in more detail. Well, for example, the whole notion of dating through carbon-14 decay. YEC throws that all out of whack. I know of one explanation for why that might be (namely, that the speed of light has been decreasing since the creation of the universe), but it is definitely not mainstream science. And what do YOU think 'X' is? I don't know what X is. It seems to me that there has to be some X that is implied by YEC if one wants to show that modern technology disproves YEC, though. Edit: and by the way, who is it that is claiming that Catholics do NOT have a right to believe something? I wasn't referring to anyone on this board. It's a common misconception that the Church has 'rejected' YEC definitively. BadenP seems to imply that, but implication is not the same as coming right out and saying it.

Are you aware that the Catholic, Episcopalian, Anglican, ELCA Lutheran, Methodist, Presbytarian, etc. hierarchies ALL accept the scientific evolution of the earth scenario as truth Actually, I'm not terribly concerned about what mainline Protestants teach about it, and you're simply wrong about what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter. There isn't a definitive Church teaching on the subject except that God created the universe ex nihilo (which some modern scientists dispute by the way). In any case, however, this is simply an argument from authority and can be immediately dismissed (unless you believe that the churches you mentioned above can speak authoritatively about science?). I'll add that I've not said whether I believe in YEC or not. While YEC does present some difficulties, old-universe theories also present certain problems for religious believers that are oftentimes glossed over, plus there can be philosophical issues as well. I am interested in those problems; and moreover I'll defend my fellow Catholics' right to believe in YEC against those who wrongly believe that the Church has a definitive teaching on the issue. That doesn't mean that I am a YEC myself. If we break things down logically, then BSA24 claims that YEC implies a certain belief X but that we now know that not-X is true, because of (among other things) computers. So (in a reductio ad absurdum): C (computers) exists C ==> ~X But YEC ==> X Therefore YEC is false I am interested in the logical steps in between. Can we show that YEC implies X? Can we do it without name-calling?

In order to believe in a young earth, you have to believe that scientific knowledge of the atomic level is incorrect. You have to believe that we can't determine the age of a rock. You have to believe we don't know how fossils form. Why do you have to believe those things in order to believe in a young earth? Please explain.

YEC is illogical and not empirical, it can not be proven, whereas using scientific dating methods science has proven the earth is billions of years old I agree that YEC is not empirical, but illogical? How so? And those scientific dating methods are based on certain assumptions for which there is considerable evidence, but not proof. Assuming the assumptions behind the scientific models are correct, then yes, the earth is billions of years old. That is not proof, not in the mathematical sense. (And even mathematical proofs are based on certain axioms which are themselves not provable. For example, the Pythagorean theorem is true in a space in which Euclid's Fifth postulate holds. It is not true in a non-Euclidean space, e.g., the surface of a sphere.)

The earth is not young. That is a fact. The universe is at least 13.6 billion years old. That's not a "maybe." That's a fact. FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#Assumption_of_strong_priors "Calculating the age of the universe is accurate only if the assumptions built into the models being used to estimate it are also accurate." I am not making light of those assumptions -- I know there is good reason to believe them -- but even a high degree of certainty about something doesn't equal fact.

Young earth creationism denies every science we have. To believe in it, you must deny that we are able to make a computer. It is more difficult to build a computer than it is to determine the age of the earth, and many of the same disciplines and knowledge are used in both. Would you care to elaborate on how YEC denies computers? I don't know whether it does or not but I would certainly be interested in finding out how. In what way is geology or paleontology important to the building of computers? Or is it some other discipline?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration - are these examples of tolerance, or intolerance? Well now you're just lying. You're still mouthing off with no actual examples. I wouldn't allow bigots like yourself who justify prejudice against an entire group because of the actions of one member of that group. So far, all I have is your bigoted raving.

They aren't allowing him to be an atheist when the SA says atheist youth can join, but then turn around and say he has to pretend to be religious by taking a god-oath. I don't see where it says that atheists may join. For example, they specifically mention statelessness but not a lack of religious belief.

Intolerant theists, like the UK scouting association at the start of this thread, are not content to allow atheists be atheists I don't recall anyone's saying that the boy shouldn't be allowed to be an atheist. Furthermore, it seems to me that they gave him every opportunity to meet their membership requirements. Do they or do they not have the right to set their own membership requirements? Oh, that's right -- you don't believe in rights. This isn't the Hitler Youth. No one is required to join. If he likes scouting then he should find some like-minded friends and adults and start his own group. Actually, it's already been done for him: the BPSA.

Last I checked, the internet IS real life. Oh, I've noticed that people are willing to say a lot of things on the Internet that they would never say to a person's face.

Well, what I meant by that is that it was the usual sort of insult that Christians typically use. Tell me more about this. Do you mean Christians on the Internet or in real life? Unprovoked, or after you push a couple of buttons?

What does it mean when a non-Christian says that something is "Christian," even sarcastically? I can't imagine that an atheist would be a good judge of whether something is Christian or not.

Another oddity is that the youth member had been attending Scouts for some time, almost a year, why the wait? Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the powers that be were giving him time (a lot of it) to decide whether he wanted to make the Scout Promise.

But who needs a law to know that they should bring in the police? Penn State is the perfect example of a place where someone should have called the cops, and there are some examples in the files where the police should have been called as well. Isn't there a difference between reporting abuse that one observes and reporting abuse that one suspects? From what I have read about the Penn State issues, there was no mere "suspicion" that Sandusky was abusing boys. It was actually observed. I think some people do need mandatory reporter laws to tell them what to bring to the police. Furthermore these laws provide cover for health care professionals who would ordinarily be bound by confidentiality.