Looks like it's a done deal

[littlebillie]

Scoutparent,

 

So which Creation story gets into schools? Once one goes in, don't all of them need to be taught? After the Judeo-Christian Eden story, don't you also need to add Native American, Hindu, Wicca, etc? THIS IS A SERIOUS QUESTION. And what about those religions which, for lack of current practitioners, we now call myth? Do we need to teach those as well?

 

If you don't teach them all, you teeter on the brink of Establishment!

[NJCubScouter]

Well ScoutParent, since I am a member of my local school board, I actually get to vote on the subject. Assuming that anybody ever brings it up, which I doubt. Fortunately, in my part of the country we can tell science from religion.

[firstpusk]

"I know and I find it ridiculous that you, firstpusk and others continue to try to do that! Please quit using tax money to spread your Godless psuedoscience!"

 

Ha ha ha, very good. Yes I think you have it, too. Because intelligent design is Godless (by design ;^) and it certainly is psuedoscience. You must have read those links I gave you. I am glad you finally agree that the only scientifically viable theory to explain the diversity of life is evolution.

 

I knew I wasn't wasting my time on you. I only wish I would have known before round table so that I could have included it in the announcements, announcements, ANNOUNCEMENTS!

[CubsRgr8]

acco40,

 

The Scout Oath and Law describe very specific values to which Scouts and their leaders are expected to aspire. To use your example, I agree that there are leaders (and even Scouts!) who are overweight, drink too much, smoke, etc. I don't expect any human being to be able to live up to each and every value 100% of the time and accept them as the people they are, short-comings and all.

 

However, there is a world of difference between failing to live up to any one of these values and the total denial of the worth of one of them. To announce "I am an atheist" denys the worth of the ideals articulated in Duty to God and Reverent. The equivalent for, say, Duty to Country, would be to proclaim "I am an anarchist."

 

When you or I join an organization, we voluntarily accept the values specifically promoted by that organization. In BSA, leaders agree to go beyond accepting those values and agree (by signing the application)to promoting them. That, after all, is the reason BSA exists. To quote (yet once again!) from the adult leader application:

 

"It is the mission of the Boy Scouts of America to serve others by helping instill values in young people and, in other ways, to prepare them to make ethical choices over their lifetime in achieving their full potential. The values we strive to instill are based on those found in the Scout Oath and Law."

 

For a leader to deny any one of these values makes them unacceptable to continue serving as a leader.

(This message has been edited by CubsRgr8)

[littlebillie]

"For a leader to deny any one of these values makes them unacceptable to continue serving as a leader."

 

consider this change...

 

"For a leader to openly and publically deny any one of these values, in front of the youth membership, makes them unacceptable to continue serving as a leader."

[DeMann]

 

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and,

 

Ok. I ask you, how can you have an obligation to God and be an atheist?

 

 

Firstpusk, get off the train. You want to defend your evolution ideas? Ok. Try this shoe on for size. As I travel this great state I live in, I find limestone deposits that are ten or more feet thick that contain fossils of mollusks (term used loosely here). Also, contained within (completely!) there are deposits of flint that range in size of several inches to more than a foot thick. My question is this,explain the deposits of flint- were they deposited in a molten state, or were they deposited in a liquid state, and if liquid, what kind? how did they get there and become contained in an obviously aqueous environment that contains living organisms? How do you dissolve silicon in water? If molten, why do they change color/break down when heated, not being able to be melted and returned to their present state of shape, color, and texture? If molten, explain why there is no damage to the mollusks covered by the flint deposits?

Ok. We know that for crystals to be formed, a compound must be dissolved in some form of liquid. Please explain the formation of the granite as found throughout the Rockies. What liquid held the Granite in suspension? How can we redissolve granite today without damage to the granite itself?

You may use punctuated equalibrium if you want to; heck, its ok if you want to use some kind of big bang in your scientific explanation. But remember, in big bangs, the closest thing we can use to replicate it (remember the definition of a fact in the scientific community) is an atomic explosion, and in those, everything is left as powder; all the large chunks are fractured and broken. Please explain the large ones left by the current evolutionary theories of our origin.

I hope that I do not ask too much of you. I have my own personal theories, but you refuse to allow me to bring them to the table. I am curious what yours are. And by the way, this thread is about God and a guy who told others that he regarded Him as real, when he really did not.

 

[firstpusk]

Gee DeMann,

 

I would do a lot less of the personal theorizing and a lot more studying. It has been about 15 years since I took my geology class but there are a couple of things I can remember. One is that the some of the limestone deposits you see in Texas are continuous all the way to the cliffs at the banks of the Mississippi in Minneapolis where we took our field studies. As I recall flint, chert and agate are all made up of superfine silicon crystals that precipitate out of the sea which was responsible for the formations you are talking about. No molten rock is necessary.

 

I am not sure how you got the processes so balled up. The formation of granite is the exact opposite. It is an igneous rock that cools slowly to form the characteristic crystals of mainly feldspar and quartz with some mica or horneblende. Again, you are asking me to explain the formation of granite throughout the Rockies. Granite can vary in composition and crystaline structure.

 

After you asked about these you seemed to go on a total flight of fancy involving the big bang, punctuated equilibria and atomic explosions. Come on DeMann. If you really want to learn, study. I mentioned Cuvier and Lyell on the erosion thread started by littlebillie. These guys started to classify geological formations before Darwin. Modern geology has refined ideas and provided better explanations.

 

In both the cases of flint and granite, there remains some debate and discussion about the specific process that forms these rocks. Just like evolution there is debate on the specifics but the overarching theory is widely accepted. I suggest a couple of science courses at a community college would give you a solid place to start.

[DeMann]

As I recall flint, chert and agate are all made up of superfine silicon crystals that precipitate out of the sea which was responsible for the formations you are talking about

 

MY POINT EXACTLY! Now, please explain how the shapes got there- there is virtually NO superfine deposits in the strata. Look at it with an open mind. You will see a blob of flint more than a foot thick, and extending ten feet across, and within the strata that contains it there will be no loose formation if flint. Just limestone on limestone. If precipitation is the correct mode of deposit, why is it in thick blobs or balls? In fact, why does it not show the shape of an aqueous deposit? If it is a silica-type microorganism shell deposit, why does it not show (when viewed with a microscope) the shells of microorganisms? If it is indeed a true deposit from an aqueous solution, what is the solvent for rendering it aqueous? --- answer? You have absolutely NO CLUE! Science has no answer I have ever heard for this. In other words, modern science can only discount things like this, not add anything of value to the question.

 

I am not sure how you got the processes so balled up. The formation of granite is the exact opposite. It is an igneous rock that cools slowly to form the characteristic crystals of mainly feldspar and quartz with some mica or horneblende.

 

Again, I ask you, can you melt granite and not change it chemically?answer- NO! in which case, it was not formed in the way you speak of.

 

 

After you asked about these you seemed to go on a total flight of fancy involving the big bang, punctuated equilibria and atomic explosions.

 

ok. You missed it. The atomic explosion thing was to remind you that science requires us to prove something by a test that can be measured and reproduced. The atomic explosion is the closed thing to the Big Bang that man can come up with, and it never renders anything except shattered and smashed bits. Certainly you saw the puntuated equalibrium as a cheap shot- I really should apologize for it. I simply tried to make it obvious that the common beliefs of science defy the common beliefs of how to prove such things. when it comes to the formation of the earth, modern science has way too many loopholes in the purported 'facts'.

Sir, your science cannot and I dare say never will be able to replicate the beginning of life or this world. Your beloved science can not begin to explain the wonder of life, if even found only in an amoeba. And, be sure of this, your science can never explain why life reproduces or dies. For anyone to believe that God had no hand, or even just a small part, in the formation of life and this earth, is for one to refuse to render to God the just due that is His. I, sir, would not want to find myself filling those shoes. One day you will look into the eyes of a human and will see that we are no accident. You will see that life has purpose, and it is much higher than you have ever known. And be sure of this, you will one day wish you had not held to the ideas of a mere mortal man rather than the truth of the living God. Ask any person who knows that death is near.

 

[firstpusk]

Actually DeMann, you are the one without a clue. Flint is often formed in nodules that are associated with fossil sea sponges. There bodies contain a high amount of silicon. The formations you are talking about are bands of flint and there is where the notion of transport of microfine silicon crystals come in. I indicated that there is some debate, that does not mean there science has no clue.

 

The fact that melting granite changes it does not mean it did not form as a result of volcanization. In a lab I can heat granite to a melting point. If I take away the heat source and allow it to cool the structure will be much different. Why? Because the conditions I just mentioned are not the conditions under which it formed.

 

"For anyone to believe that God had no hand, or even just a small part, in the formation of life and this earth, is for one to refuse to render to God the just due that is His. I, sir, would not want to find myself filling those shoes."

 

You seem to like to make a lot of assumptions about what I think. Then you don't listen to the responses. Have you ever considered that your exact appoach drives thinking people away from God? I would rather be in my shoes, thank you.

[CubsRgr8]

littlebillie,

 

So, you think it's ok for adult leaders to pick and choose which values they will publicly deny, just as long as they don't do it in front of the youth? That can't be your intention, yet it the inevitable conclusion I reach. I stand by my statement as written and do not accept your suggested change.

 

For a leader to deny any one of these values makes them unacceptable to continue serving as a leader.

 

 

[littlebillie]

CubsRgr8,

 

Ok, consider a priest who, while himself having lost his faith, continues ministering to his flock so as not to abandon them or impact theirs. Any thoughts on this person?

 

How about the widowed dad who suddenly realizes he's gay, but keeps it to himself. What if he never acts on it? What if he does and no one knows and he doesn't politicize or proselyetize?

 

What about anyone who occasionally has doubts about their faith, supports the flag-burning decision, drinks, smokes or swears, whatever - who decides never to try to influence someone else on a matter of individual conscience, and never does any of the stuff in front of the kids?

 

 

I personally consider anyone who can be associated with a totally non-smoking, non-drinking, neverdoubting bunch o' folks in a troop or pack parent structure to be pretty lucky.

 

Me, for example - I accept evolution and have no religious conflict as a result, but I am NOT going to mention evolution to my kids while addressing Naturalist or whatever, just because it IS a touch subject for some. Likewise, my Den didn't do a darned thing for Halloween - I don't have a problem, but many do, and I won't impose. Now, given Halloween and evolution. Since some folks think believing in evolution automatically makes you an atheist, should I be kicked out?

 

As far as the pledge of Allegiance goes, i know folks who always omit 'under God', for the same reasons as the recent court decision, but nevertheless say and mean the rest of it - and when the kids are around and might actually hear the omission, they put it back in - for the kids' sake, and their families'. What's your take on that?

 

I guess I see too much gray...

[tjhammer]

Cubs --- that's not just LittleBillie's position, that's the official position of the BSA... for example, they don't ban homosexual Scouts and leaders if they are "closeted", and in the Lambert case, it seems the BSA was perfectly fine with him being an atheist, just as long as he lied to Scouting and said he wasn't.

 

The BSA's official policy on homosexuals is that they must either be "avowed" (or they also have a policy which bans heterosexuals who "avow" that homosexuality is not immoral... the litmus test that BSA established for the term "avowed" is quite simple (and it's everywhere throughout the Supreme Court case text): has someone advocated that homosexuality is not inherently immoral, and have they done so in front of a boy (either a current member of Scouting, or of the age to become a member of Scouting).

 

So you see... it's not LittleBillie that's trying to change the statement... he's just explaining the statement as it is really intended by the BSA (and presumably you, since you strongly support the BSA's troubling position).

[littlebillie]

tjhammer, well said, thanks!

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who will argue against the validity of the scientific process while sitting in their electrically lit, air conditioned home while typing messages on a computer (that is thousands of times more powerful than the computers that controlled a visit to the moon) over the internet. Yes, science is a bunch of bunk! I'm going back to my cave to eat some raw meat. We haven't discovered fire in my neck of the woods yet.

[tjhammer]

We went to the moon?

 

 

;-)