catbirdseat

Creationism and Science are what can be termed "orthogonal", that is literally at right angles to one another. One can't really refute or disprove the other. They are in different planes, and different spaces. Scientists don't try to say that Creationism is wrong because science has nothing to say about something that is not a theory. There is no experiment that a scientist could devise that would disprove creationist ideas. On the other hand there are creationists, and I am not referring to all creastionists, just some, who seek to overturn scientific theories using poorly researched or misguided arguments. Scientists would be content to leave Creationists to their domain as long as Creationists leave Scientists to their domain. Teach Creationism in church and teach Science (and Evolution) in Science class. Don't try to comingle the two and confuse one for the other. I don't have any problem with people who espouse Creationist ideas as long as they stay on their own turf.

It's kind of hard to compare Alex and Fred. Fred never climbed 5.13, but then Alex never had nearly as many first ascents as Fred. Both are truly great climbers.

By teaching Creationism or its more palatable cousin Intelligent Design in schools, we are cutting off a large pool of potential scientists. Some of the kids with religious tendencies (and simple minds) will embrace ID and will be lost to the world as potenial researchers and science and our understanding of nature and the world will suffer. Creationism and ID only have old texts and imagination as their laboratory. Science has the world itself. The story of "creation" is out there buried in the earth and our very cells, just waiting to be told to the scientist clever enough to seek out and interpret what he finds.

I don't buy the Creationists idea that life is too complex to explain via natural phenomena. That's just a big cop out. It is like saying because something is difficult, why try, you won't succeed? Just because every question hasn't been answered doesn't mean that an entire theory should be tossed out. A theory stands as long as it is the best TESTABLE theory around. Creationist "theory" isn't a theory because there is nothing about it that is subject to scientific inquiry.

If it were not for a concrete barrier at the five or six mile mark, you could drive it all the way to at least Three O'Clock Rock trailhead (Eightmile Trail). We did that stretch on bicycles and while the road is quite rough, I could see no justification for keeping it closed.

The Columbia River flows upstream for periods of time when the tide is acting on it, but that is a special case and only affects the portion nearest the ocean.

The foot of slack allows you to tie an overhand loop to the bight of the slack rope and clip it to your harness, so you don't lose it, and then to untie it from the fallen climber. Pull it through the top anchors. Rethread through new anchor you just built. Tie the rope to the fallen climber. Untie overhand and let excess rope drop. Down climb taut rope + slack rope (backup), cleaning pro as you go. Now lower fallen leader.

A gold star to the skinny goof off kid in the back row!

Given that we men have half as many chromosomes as women does that make us half-evil? Considering that all of your mitochondria come from your mother, does that make evil too, or only when you breathe?

Let me guess, were you, or was she from the Midwest or the South. Many rivers do flow south. There is a name for that, where you make a generalized rule from a specialized case. What is it?

I was reading a book about Yellowstone Park and environs called Hawks Rest. There was a part where the author shared a campfire with a backpacker who also happened to be a whitewater rafting guide. The guy, instead of telling him about what he liked about white water rafting, rather surprised him by talking about his clients. He said several times a week, clients would ask him if the river took the rafts back to the put-in point, as though the river flowed in some sort of loop. The guide had to explain to otherwise intelligent people that rivers flow in only one direction- down hill- under the force of gravity. Let's assume for a minute that the guide wasn't laying a bunch of hooey on the author. Have you met other people with big huge misconceptions about how the world works?

She's around, but trying to rehab a tendon on one of her fingers. I expect we'll see her eventually at one of the Exit 38 prAna events.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

A bolt every 15-20 feet would be good. There are routes there with bad natural pro and one or two manky 1/4" bolts for protection. There are routes there with little to no pro that might have been climbed on lead (essentially a free solo) once, ever, and yet appear in guide books.

What are you climbing options in the Tri Cities area? Hope you have a reliable set of wheels, because you are going to be putting on some miles.

Tell you old boss. It'll make him mad.

When you try this stuff, you realize just how nice it would be to climb with half ropes. You have more options. If you have to lower a disabled leader who is more than half a rope length from the belay, the half ropes simply things greatly. It saves a one trip up the rope. Lower leader to within 1/2 ropelength of belay. Tie leader off. Tie off slack rope with about a foot of slack (if lead strand anchor fails, the slack rope will catch you). Ascend to ropes to the leader, build a new bomber anchor just above him. Untie slack rope from leader, pull it through top anchor, rethread through locking biner on new secure anchor and retie to climber. Descend to belay and remove slack on slack rope and tie a Munter Mule to the anchor. Release hitch on the original rope holding fall until it is taken up by second rope (original slack rope). Lower climber to ground using second rope. The first rope is completely released so it can fall through top anchor. Can you think of any "pitfalls" in this system? The way I see it you are depending completely on the piece that held the leader's fall, but that is no different than in the case with the single rope. It seems to me that you get redundancy by having two ropes. Okay here's one. The first rope can possibly hit the victim as it falls.

Oh, Dru.

Hey, I suggest you go read about Tollund man. It is an interesting story. That cord around his neck wasn't a necklace. He had been hung.

The Misty Mountain has all the bells and whistles.

It looks rather like a grasshopper.

First you said it looks like a diaper. Now you say it looks like a girdle. The good old "invisible edit" trick.

Reminds me of the expression, "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it".

Looks cushy, albeit pricey.