The Official Treehouse Articles Thread

Imo, the article states that the hardwood timber industry in appalachia area is in dire straits because :

Appalachia’s hardwood industry comprising loggers, sawmills, truckers and manufacturers is struggling to survive. The industry, a fixture of the regional economy, has been in decline for decades. A series of shocks since 2018 has accelerated the decline: a trade war with China, a collapse in exports due to Covid, China’s real-estate slump, and falling U.S. home building.
 
Regulation has about killed logging out here. Now there is more squeaky wheeled shite going on around Yosemite called the Edge of Light project or something like that. Huge chunk of Sierras will be off limits to cattle, logging, motorized trail riding etc. One of their slogans is Cowboys Not Cows. Grazing saves a lot of forest up in the higher country below the tree line. So here we go again .
I call it Forest Mismanagement my self usually with the BLM folks. .
Bureau of Land Mismanagment is more the proper label.
When I find the link about it again, I'll post it.
 
Range of Light National Monument. Over a million Acres.
There are some videos from the activest.
Kind of a rabbit hole as there are tons of videos as she showcases special spots in the zone.
Under Unite the Parks on YouTube.


They use the word Restore a lot. Once you get to know the movement, they pretty much want the mountains back to before man got involved. Yet say controlled burns are going to be allowed. I think we would really have to see a plan of action there.
Logging removes a lot of dead and dying etc. Harvesting is always under great scrutiny. You really need a Forester to go in and desinate what to remove. Then the LTOs move in. Private lands are the exception and that would mean imminent domain into those effected. Land that is generational.
A lot of opposition.
A point I will just raise for consideration. Yosemite you need a pass to get in anymore made by reservation. This was to cut down of too many vehicles and visitors in the park.
So, what will we need for the whole area.?
Again. I want to see the studies etc. And a plan of caretaking.
 
Interesting

 
Or not. Faith/belief is not very definable...almost by definition :).
Google's result says Faith: complete trust in something or someone. Sounds pretty clear and well defined to me.

The problem with scientists is the bias of their view of the world, which is subjective and can vary while they try to discover and define objective truths. True objectivity is then unlikely to be achieved unless one has the correct view of the world.

I think no matter how close and detailed scientists look at cause and effect, the direct connections between cause and effect will still elude them until they admit that the Creator of all things gave all things certain powers, which are mostly what scientists call laws. The laws are not as difficult to figure out as how they work, because the details of how they work are apparently done through smaller parts with their own laws, likely ending in the fact that the Creator effects the outcome caused by a previous event according to the laws given to the system in question. Think of it like a dream. You do, and make other things do, what you want in your dream, but you don't consider the exact details of how you do it. It's just an act of you will and imagination. All things that exist are known and held in existence. Should the Creator forget or stop thinking about any one thing, it would cease to exist.

It would be interesting to learn what scientists would say if they had a world view that considered God the creator of all things. Modern society doesn't want there to be a God, or has developed prevalent philosophies that have turned people away from the thought of God or the want to honestly and humbly consider God.

Interestingly enough, there are many patterns, "finger prints", and signs that indicate a particular personality in all of creation, and personality suggests the presence of a mind.
 
Last edited:
I will just have to go along in my own way on this...the whole idea of a "God", or any of the many other gods, is non-sensical to me.

I have no rub with anyone else finding the opposite to be true. If it works for you, great. Now if we want to get into the pros and cons of organized religions, we will have to look at good done vs. bad done, and on that score, I have a very hard time finding more good than bad. But that is certainly a different subject than the existence of gods, or lack thereof.

If a god wants me to believe in it, it will have to make itself more readily apparent than a god ever has done in my life so far. Perhaps some would say that attitude shows a level of ego I might be better off without, but I do not think so.
 
Well, if you're bored, I have a little wall of text :). And now I'm off to read that article Cory posted to see if it makes any sense to me.
I will just have to go along in my own way on this...the whole idea of a "God", or any of the many other gods, is non-sensical to me.
I think 1 makes more sense than many, but I guess it depends on how a person defines a god. It is also not surprising that it is nonsensical to you, because that is the trend of modern philosophy. The ancient Greeks have proven the humans can be advanced in the field of philosophy and science even long ago, and they believed in many gods, though those gods are laughably human. Interestingly it seems their idea of Zeus somewhat resembles the single God of some monotheistic religions. Whether right or wrong, many people seemed to not have much problem with believing in gods until relatively recently. I think many people long ago would eventually conclude or suspect the existence of a god/gods just on their own. I think that in part modern scientific discoveries have raised so many more questions than were originally set out to answer, such that we discover reasons to doubt the existence of God due to the difficulty we face in seeing the big picture, especially when there are unanswered questions. Basically, I don't think science disproves God, but I think that the process of learning about everything leaves one to jump to conclusions in an impatience to know everything which will eventually prove God. Granted I'm biased, but I am also convinced of God.

The way we seem to think of things suggests that we first choose to believe something, then explain it. Our choice of faith may be influenced by an explanation first, but it is still a choice to have faith in the concept and the evidence/explanation given so far, which could still be erroneous. If someone honestly seeks truth, it would probably be best to try to defend and explain both sides of the issue, in this case believing in God and not, then make a conclusion. The main problem being that the research into both beliefs will in most cases far from sufficiently complete before most people choose to quit and make their choice.

I have made my choice, and I have held onto it in the face of doubt and contrary evidence, to later have information and reasoning come along that supports and strengthens my choice more than the contrary evidence so far.

I also think that there are evil forces than tempt/influence us to choose to not believe in both God and such evil spirits.
I have no rub with anyone else finding the opposite to be true. If it works for you, great. Now if we want to get into the pros and cons of organized religions, we will have to look at good done vs. bad done, and on that score, I have a very hard time finding more good than bad. But that is certainly a different subject than the existence of gods, or lack thereof.
I'm not surprised you have a hard time finding more good than bad. Part of the reason being what the religion sees as good and bad being different that a person of a different philosophy, but a big part of the reason is that human being have proven time and again that they can mess anything up, even if they have the best of intentions while doing so. So we have to be careful not to judge a religion by what the human beings who try to follow it do, but judge it by its principles and what the outcome is when the human element does not mess up the intended results.
If a god wants me to believe in it, it will have to make itself more readily apparent than a god ever has done in my life so far. Perhaps some would say that attitude shows a level of ego I might be better off without, but I do not think so.
That is a loaded topic as well, involving much more than I am able and willing to go into at the moment. God works in mysterious ways. It seems He wants some to look for Him, while other times He seems to show Himself clearly to others. Ego can go many ways: determining to find Him, demanding to be revealed to, determined to avoid Him. Study the fundamentals of a religion, and you will probably find its god. Mentioning ego is an interesting point, because in the case of what I believe to be the one true God, finding Him starts with humility, because it is said God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. On that point, it is also found in the Bible that the angel salutes the soon to be mother of God incarnate as "full of grace", suggesting she has a fullness of humility, which is proven in some of the verses following. But that's a whole other topic.
 
I got distracted. Anyway, halfway through the article, and I conclude that the author is unqualified to speak on that subject as they are doing a poor job of making sense, while sounding smart. The author appears to me to be dancing around certain conclusions he refuses to consider worthy of consideration, thereby leaving himself to circle around in nonsense.
 
I was wondering if it were just me :O
 
Back
Top