pope

Bird Brain Boulevard looks like the shizzle. Nice report, enjoyed your photos.

Age has not been kind to her.

I think you meant to say "two conflicting propositions", but you're missing my entire point. You describe mechanisms by which simple forms of matter and "life" may combine and/or mutate, and then you offer fossil evidence that simple forms of life and proteins have been around for 3 billion years. From here you conclude that (1) these simple forms, through billions of years of mutation and adaptation, eventually evolved into human and other forms of life and (2) that the process was and is completely independent of some kind of cosmic, creative force or purpose (call it God or whatever you want). My point is that conclusion (1) is a theory that attempts to explain the very small amount of information we have about early life and how its evolution into modern life transpired. Conclusion (2) is not an automatic assumption of conclusion (1), even if it were shown to be true. It may very well be that evolution was and is the mechanism of creation, or it may be that in your hopes to disprove the latter by establishing the former, you have hastily decided to accept this theory as truth. Often the goals of science are noble. Through the history of science, however, you may note numerous examples of intellectual inertia resulting from emotional investment in current theories. For example, J. Harlan Bretz's suggestion of catastrophic events producing the geomorphic features of our state's channeled scablands was repeatedly dismissed because it didn't agree with the uniformitarian notion of infinitesimally small changes over millions/billions of years producing all of today's geomorphological structures. Essentially, the suggestion of a catastrophic event sounded too much like Noah's flood and was met with tremendous resistance. No, and I wouldn’t believe that the money, being composed of complex carbon chains, were able to grow flippers or feet in the middle of the night and just walk out. That’s not overstatement. Anybody who survived stats 101 knows that interpolating data is generally safe but extrapolating data is foolish. “Hey, we observed this isotope in the lab decay so that dM/dt = k*M, and this implies that M(t)=C*e^(kt). All of the predictions of this model hold true for more than 5 months of laboratory studies……and therefore, we know the model holds for the last three billion years.” Nobody can verify that kind of shizzle. That’s what bothers me. You’d buy the theory even if that kind of slop existed. Firstly, the notion that ancient fossil evidence shows primitive life forms which eventually evolved into the life forms we know today is a theory that may very well be true. It is, however, just a theory, an attempt to explain limited fossil evidence and our origin. You suggest that such evolution could occur independent of divine intervention, since matter forms atoms and atoms form molecules “in the absence of any devine [sic] intervention whatsoever.” How do you know this? How do you know that the very physical laws that dictate atomic structure and molecular combinations aren’t the work of a grand architect? You can assume such things just organized themselves. Einstein strived in his physics research ultimately “to know the mind of God”, suggesting he was wise enough to know that simply quantifying matter, energy and force and discovering natural laws doesn’t preclude the possibility of God’s existence or influence. I’m fascinated by “non-life” as well, and where you wish to draw the line between and living and nonliving things is not so important to me. I remain open to the possibility that something greater than we are is responsible for creating the universe. I don’t pretend to know with certainty, I just think it’s fascinating to contemplate, and I think buying into the notion of a godless universe requires (from me anyway) a tremendous amount of faith.

You can believe whatever you want. Yet the willingness to assume that our limited observations of the fossil record are sufficient evidence to dispose of any notion of divine intervention require an equal amount of faith to the belief of intelligent design and an omnipotent creator. Your point seems to be that "magical causes" are not a necessary assumption for explaining our origin. I have no argument with this point, but it's important to acknowledge that even if you believe the fossil record traces our origins back to single cells that existed "3 billion years ago", that doesn't preclude the influence of a cosmic, creative force in the process. Perhaps when we finally understand all of the dimensions of these "physical laws which governed the universe", we will only understand the "mind of God" instead proving God is absent. Please remember that all dating techniques depend on extrapolating an observable mathematical relationship, namely that the rate of change of some isotope is proportional to the quantity of the isotope present in the sample, which leads to a model wherein the quantity of some isotope is an exponential function of time. This is verifiable within the parameters of a very limited range of known dates. To assume the model is correct for billions of years through history is a major leap of faith.

Fine, but if you believe that the progess of science can someday prove that life and humans did in fact begin on this planet independent of a creator, I say you exhibit an extraordinary quantity of faith. Firstly, you have to believe that science will be able to ignite that spark, to produce life "from scratch", as you say. Then, you have to believe that this is possible outside a sophisticated laboratory, without the creative hand of man and all that we understand. Of course, this is a verifiable belief (prediction, if you prefer): we need only to observe life originating "from scratch" outside of a laboratory. Finally, if and when science does observe this event, you will need to accept (or demonstrate) that such a low-probability event would be likely to occur without some kind of divine impetus. And if you believe all of this is an eventual triumph of science, you have as much faith in science as the people being criticized in this forum for their faith in a creator. If you have faith in the eventuality of everything I described above, your faith is likely the product of a bias you have, for you seem amazingly capable of taking what is presently "known" in science and stretching it to the point of nearly disproving the involvement of a creator in the process, when no such knowlege currently exists. But that is ultimately our greatest obstacle to understanding. People by nature wish to have an answer, wish to arrive at "truth" often before our observations clearly illuminate it. And if you are correct, I guess you and I are just cogs in the evolutionary wheel, a stepping stone to future forms of life. That's OK if you're content with that line of thinking. I personally hope there is something more. But I also agree that in America of all places, we should be absolutely free to search for our own answers and follow our own convictions, without the federal government adopting policies and practices that favor a particular faith.

The two are not mathematically equivalent, if one compares the body of evidence for each. The body of verifiable, observable evidence for cosmic accident is continually growing as our knowledge base rapidly approaches a complete understanding of how life evolved from atoms to us. The body of evidence using the same criteria for a creator, on the other hand, is zero. Adaptation and perhaps evolution are supported. The origin of life without any kind of assistance is not. Think about what you just said. By "not far off" I think you have faith enough to believe in the Easter Bunny, but I'll be fascinated to see the day when man creates life. Then again, by your own words, we won't have reproduced a cosmic accident. Instead, assuming we see such a day, we will have carefully assembled the necessary ingredients after years of research that relies on technology only made possible by profound intelligence and dedication of resources, and then that life will likely only be sustainable under precisely contolled labratory conditions. I'll be impressed when this accomplished but still not convinced. I don't necessarily belong in either camp on this issue. I only want to point out that you and the folks at Bible camp have something in common: faith.

Belief in a creator, a "life-force", that something exists beyond what you can observe...these require faith, but mathematically no more faith than believing we exist by some cosmic accident.

Four solid pages of...... I remember when Petey P. wouldn't have tolerated a half an ounce of this crap in his sacred rock climbing corner. I think things are improving around here. Regarding stars and grades, these are subjective evaluations. I have no problem with a guide book author differentiating between a 5-star Outer Space climb and a 2-star mediocre pitch, especially when hiking is involved. It helps people with limited time find a better climbing experience quickly, especially visiting climbers. I remember one of the first Kramar guides giving low quality ratings to some of my favorite pitches while showering numerous 5.10 slab climbs with 3 or 4 stars, routes that didn't seem special or unique. I remember being irritated by this but later learned to enjoy the fact that routes with few or no stars never seemed to get traffic, and if I happened to like such climbs, I could count on not having to wait for traffic to clear. If you know of a stellar pitch that isn't given glowing reviews in a guide book, consider keeping it private. Develop your own list of "obscure classics" and enjoy the solitude.

I never knew you took a shot at that hill. That's really awesome. You've been around! Back in '89 I was still wet behind the ears.

If the Packers can do it.... Also check out their final three games. I don't think they're the team they were early this season, and they've never had much of an offense. But an interesting stat is that the top NFC seed is 18-0 after their first-round, play-off bye in the last 18 years.

"Yup, that there little jam nut done saved my bacon."

What you do is, put Eiger Solo or something comparable on the boob, then get your Frau to rattle a tray of ice cubes around in the Freezer, to simulate the sound of collapsing seracs. Then drink a quart of Odwalla carrot juice, followed by a couple of shot glasses of Vicious Viper hot sauce. Make sure all of your loved ones are standing at a safe distance. I know what you're going through. It used to be all I needed was a cup of coffee and the sports page.

Where do I start? First of all, I'm offering an opinion about whether using a leash on your tool is "cheating" or "aid"; I'm not dictating what I think everybody else should be doing. I think I stated it well enough...all ice climbing relies on technology to make ice climbable. Leashes are just another component of the technology, no more of a "cheat" than sticking a pick in the ice is. If you want to use leashes, spurs, a graplilng hook or a jet-pack, I really don't care, because none of these things is going to affect the experience of the next party, and the entire climb will be gone by April or May anyway. I also think losing a tool is a hazard I'm not willing to risk, so I choose to use leashes. I've climbed plenty of mixed pitches with the tools dangling from my wrists. That's the way I like it. If somebody else prefers another method, have at it. I have offered an opinion to which I believe I'm entitled. You don't have to like it or agree with it or even read it. You, Mr. Bob, have largely countered by calling me nasty names. Ouch. I could return the favor but it's not my style. Regarding my resume, I have climbed just enough steep ice and mixed ground to have an opinion on what equipment I wish to use. I'm not an expert. You guessed correctly that I'm not terribly active in ice climbing now. It seems excessively dangerous for a father of three and my family deserves a father who isn't careless. They come first. When I wasn't so obligated, I climbed plenty of dangerous cliffs. Often without a rope. Ask around and you'll find out. You seem to be pretty annoyed by me. I suggest that you cease reading my comments. Or if you wish to discuss some aspect of mountaineering with me, you will need to omit all of the trash talk. I think you're capable. Actually, leashes were kind of a new thing when I started so I've climbed without them. What is somewhat new are the crazy bends and grips on tools today. No...I haven't tried them. I like to have at least one tool that can be shoved into firm snow for a self-belay. I use two straight-shaft tools, one 45cm hammer and one 55cm axe. I purchased these on the advice of a climber I know who got up Cerro Torre. Maybe you want to argue with him.

Nobody on your list is immune to the possible hazards of climbing with tools that are not in some way clipped in. The greatest danger is not in dropping your tool on somebody else (like your belayer) but simply losing something that you need to be mobile. Anyway, here's an anecdote (courtesy of Mike Adamson) from a top-flight alpinist who should have been in your hero list.

It's just ice climbing. My point isn't really that ice climbing is aid. My point is that ice climbing is completely dependent on equipment. Leashes, drooped picks, bent shafts, mono points, rigid crampons....these all fall into the same category. They are devices that make ice climbing easier. I think it's a joke to pick on one of these devices and claim that, by eliminating it, you're suddenly "eliminating aid". But if that makes the young tigers feel special about their generation's contribution to mountaineering.....whatever.

You seem like a smart guy, but honestly, the very premise of this thread (look what the Euros are doing...maybe we should catch up) just makes me wanna puke. Why do you care? Emulating the Euros got us into the ethical mess that we're in today. Why do you need those A-holes to be your role models? THERE IS NO WILDERNESS IN THE ALPS! "Dude, drill those bolts, chip those holds, put on your crazy 1-piece lyrcra body suit and cut your leashes....CAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THEYS DOES IT ON THE CONTINENT!" Think for yourself. Are you talking to me?

Let me ask you this: suppose you climbed an C1 pitch without using etriers, but instead, you just clipped some big handles (the kind you might find on a hack saw) to the little brass nuts and micro cams. Would it still be aid climbing? Of course it would. But that is the essence of ice climbing. You have some mechanical device that gives you purchase and these devices have handles. That's aid climbing, with or without leashes. Wrong forum, pal.

Name dropper. "Leashless" is a fad, like tatoos and nose rings. I find it interesting that guys in the "leashless" camp will argue that using leashes is aid, and in the same breath, they'll tell you that "leashless" makes difficult pitches easier. Folks, the fact that you're grabbing an ice tool means you're aid climbing. Period. You wanna go leashless? Go ahead. Please just announce this to everybody below you, something like, "I've got this sharp, heavy thing here and if I drop it, your helmet will be useless."

You're right about THAT difference. But otherwise they're very similar (see my post above). They're both forms of aid because both involve changing the medium and then applying some mechanical device for gaining purchase.

I drop mine all the time! hahhaa! Actually, I dont anymore. The first season (getting used to them) most of the folks I climbed with dropped them from time to time-including myself. Its a rare event to see that happen now. You just learn how to be more aware, I guess. I started climbing with leashes. That lasted two years. I switched to leashless and love them. I honestly wouldnt, and havent, hesitated leading with them because they are more comfortable to me. I did, however, try using some leashes a few years ago and had a hell of a time with them. I think leashes have their place. For me, its important to switch back and forth, so when I feel I need them, Im comfortable. In regards to new folks learning leashless. Thats how I see it here in the midwest. Its actually rare to see someone with leashes on their tools, unless they are pushing their leading level. You can always carry a third tool if youre worried about dropping them. One thing I notice when tr'ing harder routes is that I often hang more than I would if I have leashes. Mostly, because Im so pumped and dont want to drop them or have them 5+ feet above me. Unplanned falls suck! In a sense I guess leashes would be considered aid,because they might be the only thing keeping you from falling - but thats an old debate. Just fricken climb with whatever works best for you. And Pope - I just watched an entire climb fall today, approx 30 min after climbing 10 feet from it. The last thing I am worried about while ice climbing is getting hit by a dropped tool. Random ice chunks are far more frequent. I watched Narada Falls collapse on New Years Day, 1990, about an hour after we climbed it. Terrifying! I've always believed in keeping things clipped in, especially things you can't get by without having. Whether you use a leash or some kind of keeper sling, it seems important to not lose your tool. Same thing with a wall hammer, which I keep attached to a sling around my shoulder when nailing. I really like leashes on ice tools. When I started, we didn't have screws with large, ratcheting hangers. You couldn't place a screw with one free hand. The technique was kind of cool: from one well-place tool, you would shove your arm through the leash all the way to the elbow, then you could hold the ice screw like a nail while giving a few taps to start it. Then you would stick the other tool's pick through the screw's hanger and turn the tool like a huge wrench. The technique of hanging off an elbow hooked through a leash is still useful for freeing up your hands when you'r trying to thread a runner behind a large drip, or when you want to take a photograph in the middle of a pitch. But I suppose that means you wouldn't be "free climbing".

Fundamentally the same thing. You creat a hole in the medium, you stick in some metal device, you use the device to pull up and support your weight. Absolutely equal. Absolutely aid. Now do you get it? Do you want me to draw you a picture? BTW, I was climbing steep ice when you were still peeing in your Pull-Ups.

Did you have something to say? 'Cause I kind of like you in your current state. I've done plenty of dangerous stuff in the hills. You don't even know.

I wouldn't belay a guy who climbs without leashes. I don't want to be hit by a falling ice pick. With or without leashes, ice climbing is aid. It's mechanically very similar to drilling bat hooks. Whatever you wish to do to make it harder or easier, who cares? Leashes extend your endurance on steep ice, making it physically a little easier to hold on before losing your grip. Hence, they're really no different in purpose than the modern, ergonomically designed handles, or for that matter, full-shank boots and rigid crampons.

The "statue of liberty play" to win the game. AWESOME!

Actually, everybody and his grandma own a Bosch these days, and a quick survey of the state of our crags suggests that sport climbing is the status quo. If you want to be radical, drill by hand on the lead. If you don't think this is radical, you obviously have never tried. Or, if you really want to try something out of the ordinary, walk up to the line you want to climb with a wire brush and a fistful of tiny brass nuts, chalk your fingers, look up and start going. Trust me, it's radical. It's a cure for irregularity. Oh, so that we stay on topic, welcome back, D.F....who?