cloud9

Well it really has been interesting but we could go on for years. But I will leave you with this theory for the formation of the Grand Canyon. Finally, several people are now saying that the existing Colorado River did carve the Grand Canyon but did so while flowing in the opposite direction of today. The modern river is just too weird, said Andre Potochnik, a river guide who is writing his doctoral dissertation on deposits related to early Southwest river systems. It does not follow fault lines as most rivers do and it has tributaries that come in at obtuse angles, he said. Mr. Potochnik argues that a much older river flowed west to east down the Kaibab Upwarp and carved the canyon. Later, as tectonic forces changed the land to tilt in different directions, the river changed the direction of its flow and became the modern Colorado. Wayne Ranney, a geology instructor at Yavapai College in Prescott, Ariz., argues that the Little Colorado River probably flowed north through Marble Canyon, a stretch of the river where tributaries come in at an angle that is the opposite of what one would expect, given the way the water flows. "The river system I envision would have flowed north into the Glen Canyon area," Mr. Ranney said. "Every time I see this landscape, I'm more convinced that at least this part of the river went the other way. The beauty of this theory is that it ties together a lot of conflicting ideas concerning evidence for an old river east of the Kaibab Upwarp and a young one west of it." Figuring out the Grand Canyon is like being a police officer called to the scene of a four-car accident, Dr. Reynolds said. "But by the time you get there, three of the cars have been towed away, they repaved the road and washed away the skid marks. You are left with only one piece of the puzzle." Well there is some real precise information on how the canyon was formed. They can't even say with any certainty that the river has always flowed from north to south. Science has its place but much of it is a long way from Fact I leave this thread with this. Should the scientist boycott Louisianna? I'll let you all decide its been fun. God Bless!

Nor would I and I agree, and yes I've read much of the history of religion and especially in England. I have read why the forefathers wanted no laws establishing a religion. However they were trying to protect religion from the government not the Government from religion. If you go back and look at things that were happening during the days when our framers were still alive you will find prayer in school, creation taught in school and yes we were founded as a Christian nation with tolerance for any religion or even the lack there of. I think that's whets been lost. Time to go do my therapy it’s been interesting.

I understand you and I have yet to say that creation should be taught in a science class. But think about this for a moment. The formation of the universe started in one theory as a big bang. Where did all the matter come from to cause and explosion and then formulate the universe? Not unlike creation it was just there and has always been there. In any case there are many Christian Scientist.

Here's a scary scientist: BETHESDA, MD, June 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a world where the rate of scientific discovery outpaces anything ever dreamed of in any other era of human history, the idea that “science disproves God” is perhaps one of the commonest arguments now invoked against the existence of an omnipotent Deity. But according to Francis Collins, who headed the team of scientists who cracked the human genome, the argument is a fallacious one. In the world-acclaimed scientist’s upcoming book, The Language of God, set to be published in September, he argues that science cannot possibly disprove the existence of God, since science is relegated to the natural world. If anything, Collins argues, it may be the exact opposite—science aids not in disproving God, but may help in proving His existence. “For me,” says Collins about his work on the human genome, “the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship.” “When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.” This was not, explains Collins, always his way of looking at the world. Indeed, according to Collins' own description of himself, at the age of 27 he was “a pretty obnoxious atheist”.

I really thought this must be a joke, but if you look at my last post I named quite a few things scientist don't agree on. Here's the short list. Global warming, the universe vs. multiverse, dark matter, the formation of the universe, the formation of earth, the formation of the grand canyon, the extinction of the dinosaurs and the list goes on and on and on. These are all taught in school in some manner. A few more fragments for you

A mind is a terrible thing to waste......but the dumb as dirt and proud of it crowd have made a religion of it. *** The irony in that is most of those so called dumb as dirt and proud of it religious crowd wouldn't insult you for your beliefs they would simply say they disagree. Teach only facts: That’s not practical scientist don’t agree on so many fronts. Science doesn’t know how the earth was formed, or for that matter how the Grand Canyon was formed. They don’t agree on what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs or even if they were fast, slow grey or multi-colored. The laws of Sir Isaac Newton don’t seem to apply to the universe or the multiverse another thing they don’t agree on. The effects of man on global warming is very controversial but you wouldn’t know that listening to Al Gore. So if we stick with facts all of the above would have to be removed from the classroom and even I’m not that conservative. It’s the liberals that are afraid, I want to add to the curriculum not remove. As for me I majored Law Enforcement, I was more interested in keeping my community safe then making big money. Oh and my daughter is in college majoring in education and I’m very proud of her. She has also chosen her community and state over big bucks; I guess that makes us dumb. As I’ve made clear before if the folks out in California, and up in New York want to think of us as a bunch of stupid hicks We’re ok with that. We would have to respect their opinions for it to bother us!

As you can see we have a basic disagreement. I have many others with things that are being taught in our classrooms. Would you have a government class teach only the liberal view or only the conservative view or both sides? So if you take a liberal and teach them conservatives views are you violating them forcing them to be conservative? Or simply educating them that there are more then one belief or one theory about government, the U.S. and the people that live here. We’re going to have to agree to disagree, Louisiana has the right to do what the people want, and again if scientist want to boycott us for that so be it. Personally I wouldn’t live up north because one can commit a felony in New York that’s not even a crime down here. So people tend to live in the state that suits them best. This is why our forefathers were so insistent on states rights.

***Furthermore, it would help to avoid writing in fragments if you want to be taken seriously.*** Great argument for scientist boycotting Louisiana you must have thought long and hard on that one.

Well since 88% of Americans are in stated to be Christian and our kids should have an understanding of their neighbors that would be a good start. Yes I do think that all mainstream religious theories should be taught, as well as Mr. Darwin’s theory and by the way after reading a lot of what he said I think today he would tell you there is still not even close to enough proof to call it dare I say gospel. I also think that what the constitution says has been changed in speech to our children over the years. The first amendment as I’m sure you’re aware says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. There are schools now where the word God cannot be said. Our framers never intended that and would certainly be offended by what we are doing now I believe. I also don’t think that teaching in a classroom that people believe certain things is in anyway forcing it on them, It’s simply educating. I was taught that certain religions used human sacrifice, it didn’t make me want to build an alter and hunt down some lambs.

I understand what you’re saying now and am no youngster myself at 54. Our framers were concerned with the state establishing a religion no doubt. However they were not concerned with interjecting religion in our government. The start of everyday the framers hammered out the constitution was with a prayer. The bill of rights shows clearly they believed that all men were created (not evolved) with certain rights under God. So while they certainly didn't want the government to establish a religion they didn't want the right to practice to be prohibited. In 1960 I was only 6 but I have read about the fears of a catholic president. So valid points no doubt.

Ok I'm truly getting to the end of this conversation. I put in writing some thoughts, theories and facts. Go back up and read I did not say I did not believe in science! In fact what I said was it has its place. I also did not say to teach Creation in a science class, I said in school where there are many subjects taught. As far as creation being BS you are certainly entitled to your opinion however there is a lot of evidence, the bible, as well as many other books that have been recognized as history there are also the dead sea scrolls and I'm not going to go any further with someone that ignores what I actually say and states that I've said things I have not. What I am saying and will stand on is science is a lot of theory, I quoted some great scientist in above post, Bill quoted some others they disagree with one another. Scientist do not agree on many things they are theories, that doesn’t stop our educational system from teaching them. I was taught many things in school that have since been proven to be wrong!

I agree 100%

Proof science has many theories!

It's amazing to me I can put something in writing and a few post down be misquoted. What I said was for you Constitition Fans of which I am one! I swore to protect the Constitution as a Marine and as a police officer and I have a copy of it sitting on my desk! I love my country and have served it in several capacities.

Bill don't forget what I already said science has it's place and it's not all theory of course we use it everyday. However what I am saying is if scientist don't want to come to Louisiana because they disagree with us then so be it, we don't want enyone here that doesn't want to be here. By the way I recently had a back surgery fused L4-L5 and L5-S1 and I'm in a back brace so there's not much I can do besides hang out on the internet. The science used on my surgery great stuff. The people that prayed for me though it all great stuff! Here's a little science for yoU Bill Statistics were acquired from the prayer and placebo groups both before and after prayer, until the patients were discharged from the hospital. There were no statistical differences between the placebo and the prayer groups before prayer was initiated. The results demonstrated that patients who were prayed for suffered "less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently intubated and ventilated." Statistics demonstrated the the prayer group had a statistically significantly lower severity score based upon the hospital course after entry (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis of all the parameters measured demonstrated that the outcomes of the two groups were even more statistically significant (p < 0.0001). In science, the standard level of significance is when a "p value" is less than 0.05. A value of 0.01 means that the likelihood the result is because of chance is one in 100. A p value of 0.0001 indicates that in only one study out of 10,000 is the result likely to be due to chance. Table 2 from the study is reproduced below. The remarkable thing which one notices is that nearly every parameter measured is affected by prayer, although individually many categories do not reach the level of statistical significance due to sample size. However, multivariate analysis, which compares all parameters together produces a level of significance seldom reached in any scientific study (p < 0.0001). The author points out that the method used in this study does not produce the maximum effect of prayer, since the study could not control for the effect of outside prayer (i.e., it is likely many of the placebo group were prayed for by persons outside of the study). It is likely that a study which used only atheists (who had no Christian family or friends) would produce an even more dramatic result. However, since atheists make up only 1-2% of the population, it would be difficult to obtain a large enough sample size.

***On the flip side maybe you would support a few pogroms and we could get rid of all these fucking jews.. and the fucking papists and all these assinine muslims that want to convert everyone or kill them. We also have WAY too many buhddists who dont even believe in the same god....taoists....animists....pagans... hell light the fucking fires lets burn some disbelievers... and heretics.*** Amazon I have no Idea where this came from, but it has nothing to do with anything I said.

Louisiana argues that it is their right to teach religion in science class, then why should they be upset when scientists exercise their rights not to go there? Or do you only believe people have rights when they support your views? *** Actually what I said was they do have the right in fact I said if that's what they want to do that's fine we don't need them here!

I've enjoyed the jousting with science, so it brings me back to the original subject should scientific meeting organizers boycott Louisiana because our Governor representing the will of the people wants creation taught in school. He never said take the science out only add to. Here's my take and many others here feel the same. If your going to teach a bunch of scientific theories and we have shown there are many being taught. We also teach kids how to put on condoms and allow them to talk to counselors without parental knowledge. We teach them that homosexualality is an alternate life style. Then why can't we teach them what over 88% of the population believes which is divine design this includes all or most religions that believe in God. Why don’t we teach them tolerance for Christians, Muslims and other religions and of course creation is a theory with a lot of evidence we would only have more rounded people coming out of school. For you Constitution fans the 1st amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibititing the free exercise thereof. So if scientist are so closed minded that they don’t want anything but their theories taught then I think we can get by with out them here. States do have rights and if the rest of the country is going to boycott a state for exercising its rights how narrow minded is that? I didn’t know we had to agree on everything to be a United States!

I know that dumb hick from Louisiana didn’t even know there was a universe right? Actually the universe is in fact a theory there are many scientist that think it’s a multi verse not a universe they believe there are more then one. There is also belief that there are more dimensions and there are possibly even other us; yes you and me in them. Sounds crazy don't it. This doesn't come from the funny farm but from quantum physicists that are considered the best in their field. Here’s an example of that: The one they have come up with is multiple universes, or "the multiverse". This theory says that what we have been calling "the universe" is nothing of the sort. Rather, it is an infinitesimal fragment of a much grander and more elaborate system in which our cosmic region, vast though it is, represents but a single bubble of space amid a countless number of other bubbles, or pocket universes. A couple of the physicist that claim this theory, Hugh Ross, Ph.D. Dr. Laura Mersini Fazale Rana Ph.D Kenneth Samples Ph.D. Anyway the web is full of this information if you really have an interest. Well enough for one night, I have to put my teeth up and blow out the lamp it’s past our bedtime here in the marsh!

Bottom line evolution is still very much a theory, like global warming, the universe, dark matter and a whole bunch of other stuff. I'm not saying science does not have a place or a voice. I simply saying that there is a lot of theory out there, scientist don't agree and there theories change a lot. With that in mind history has used less written material to prove a lot of history then was written about Jesus Christ so where's the fairness. I'll close and leave this with if you all big city folk think that we're just a bunch of barefoot hicks down here with no idea about the world or of course science. I'm ok with that, think what you will and we will do what the Constitution intended exercise out states rights.

well here's one of the reasons he wants both taught evolution is only a theory. This is just a little piece Speaking at one of two simultaneous press conferences on the project's results, head scientist Svante Paabo said the two teams had sequenced more than three billion sections, or 60 percent, of Neanderthal DNA. Initial analysis of the results has confirmed the teams' belief that Neanderthals, humanity's closest known relative, contributed very little to the gene pool of modern humans. "Our data really shows if there was a contribution, it was very small. It's tiny," Paabo said They used the word confirmed our closest reletive contributed very little IF any dna. Why because they found none they didn't even find a little bit. But you keep teaching in your schools evolution and down here we'll put it where it belongs in theory

Well I have RA and I had to quit jumping. However I did make it to age 50 before I had to quit. I've had 7 orthopedic surgeries the last a shoulder replacement. There's just to much pain and stiffness to jump now. I was on enbrel and am now on Hurmira both are TNF blockers. Seems everyone is a little different so I wouldn't give up yet. Big things tell her to get a packer, don't jump to much and enjoy the jumps she gets because you just never know when its going to be over.

I think BOZO has it right but let me add a little bit. You, Me, Us, We have very little control over our lives. We think we do, but it's just not the case. You drive 70 miles an hour with only a few feet separating a head on collision of 140 mph. You step on your break believing it will work. You cross railroad crossings assuming no train is coming because the arms aren't down. You take medications with no idea if you’re e going to have a reaction. You assume pilots are going to keep aircraft in the sky and that doctors know what they're doing. We assume our co-workers won’t come to work to kill everyone there. Our children go to school everyday and we believe they will come home. Any way the list never ends, we have very little control over our lives and of course skydiving is part of the same denial. We have no control over someone else flying their canopy, or the pilot flying the plane or the weather (dust devils) ect We only control our own actions and the truth is some people even loose control of that. Anyway I hope I didn't depress you too much. So go have fun and control what you can and take precautions where you can and then let the chips fall where they may

We could have just done a 4 way but then who would be reading about that years later! Well the ball jump is still the coolest jump I've been on. But I should tell you all we nearly lost one of our guys doing this. It was quite awhile after I posted the pics. One of the jumpers would deploy holding the ball so as not to loose it. Well one of them deployed and his bag hit the ball the lines went all slack and wrapped around him. So he had lines wrapped around him the ball a bag lock and he couldn't reach his cutaway handle. At about 1000 ft he deployed his reserve into the mess and it opened. He landed safe and that was the end of the ball jumps. So if your going to do it. Don't deploy holding the ball! So have fun kiddies but be safe

I can add me cloud9 I think Chicago Dave and of course there's Merrick with pammi. That was a lot of fun, I remember Dave running around like a crazed animal getting wood for the fire, we had one hell of a fire