ClimbingPanther

All I'm really trying to say is this: My scientist half does not speculate.

That island just above the northern tip of Greenland actually has ocean ice CLOSER to it than before. theory DIS-missed

No, I'm not unaware that evolution happens and that it's been observed and repeated I guess I should be more precise with my words and claim that even though some evolution can be observed (and is therefore science), our own historical journey from molecular soup to highly sophisticated organism cannot be repeated in a laboratory, and is not, strictly speaking, science. I will never claim something we can repeat (the examples of evolution you mention) is either false or of supernatural origin. Now of course, the person who does not allow for God to exist or create anything will rightly see the proven mechanism of evolution and use it to explain the unobservable past. There is no other way to explain it without divine intervention. Belief in God just offers another explanation; not as you pointed out a scientific theory, more of an untestable hypothesis. I did read my definition entirely and deliberately left it intact, because I'm not trying to hide creation's intellectual problems. Using the supernatural to explain something which can be repeated in a laboratory over and over is obvious foolishness. Using it to explain something we didn't and can't directly observe is, at the very least, not on the same level of foolishness. Speaking of intellectual problems, I like the one you mention about why, if God created everything 10K or whatever years ago, did he create things like stars gazillions of miles away yet with their light already hitting earth? Just to trick us in to unbelief? Frankly, I don't know. Your paradoxes, though good for thought, don't hold if God is a spirit (which is what Jesus taught). Besides, the second "if" isn't even true. We can't know everything there is to know about the physical universe, thank you Herr Heisenberg (lost anyone? google "heisenberg uncertainty"), not that it has much bearing on this discussion though [the "science can't do this" line is a very dangerous sentence, especially for a scientist to utter, but this principle seems to be holding up over time]. What are the mechanics and his role in the physical world today? Who knows. JayB, thanks for the sentiment, and I also appreciate you both being civil and willing to engage peaceably. I find that "hostile receptions" generally sprout from hostile initial remarks, and if the least I can do is play my part in a level-headed discussion, then I've contributed something. Agreed, it certainly must be within God's power to create the world we see today by whatever means and with whatever amount of time he saw fit. He certainly could have used a "Big Bang" to bring the universe into existence. Now it's your turn to tell me how to do it without God I know, I'm being facetious, especially as a scientist, I don't believe it's wise to discount something before you prove it false. OK, signing off for the day.

I will just assume you didn't read my whole post...

Just another off-topic perspective on this, that's all This scientific ignorance you speak of is not necessarily what "vindicates" creationism to all those who believe it. The creationist perspective doesn't seek to invalidate science, it just provides an alternate explanation -- that the world was created with the appearance of age, just as the first man would have been created as an adult, not a baby. A logical analysis based on present-day human experience would indicate that the first man, even one second after his creation, would appear to us to be 20,30,40? years old, and therefore he must actually BE that old. Since this incongruity of appearance and reality holds for man, why not for the whole universe? No rational person, creationist or not, will claim that the universe actually appears to only be 10K years old. That is very clear [how many light years away are the farthest galaxies *that we can SEE*???!!!]. However, the creationist will argue that God did not feel the need to cause the universe to conform to future man's retro-analysis of how it all happened. After all, what would a brand new universe look like, anyway? So don't mistake a creationist for being ignorant or willfully in denial about science. Science is, by definition (Wiki): "Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for developing and evaluating natural explanations for observable phenomena based on empirical study and independent verification. Science typically, therefore, rejects supernatural explanations and arguments from authority." The take home point is that "science" by definition is empirical and verifiable, while both evolution and creation are historical speculations based on contemporary observations. Maybe evolution does accurately describe history, but it is not repeatable and never will be [neither is creation repeatable], given the time frame of the experiment, so I don't believe it is accurately labeled as "science." Whatever experiments and observations are made today, yes, definitely, it's science and therefore unassailable. The great strength of science and the very reason it has progressed so far is because of its rejection of supernatural explanations for observable phenomena. However, history is not observable. Cheers!

Shoot, this is going to win for my thread that fell on its face quickest!

Could you please give me that in cubits?

Ah, the nostalgia? of resurrected threads... They'd be more interesting though if some of us newer folk knew who was talking. Please post/discuss known equivalent avatars, especially banned ones who are using a new avatars

It's not about the issues, FW, it's about the evility of the Republicans But hey, he can bring up whatever stories he wants to, and you're free to do the same. Balance can rarely be achieved by any one person anyway.

BEER. Helping ugly people have sex since 1863.

Hot off the press: "California's governor opposes this new homogenization legislation. He wants to terminate the law, but fears popular support will trigger a total recall effort to remove him from office. Upon leaving his governor's mansion to be relocated to a cabin in the redwood forest, he simply yet firmly said "I'll be back!" -Another Web Source

This just in:

That is absolutely amazing. Just a friendly reminder to "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" The NPS guys have their work cut out for them! Wonder if they'll be ready for trail volunteers next July/Aug? I'm game.

Stupid idealist pig. Doesn't she know anything? Ignorance is Strength War is Peace Freedom is Slavery -Ivan

snopes.com is the best website on the entire www Yeah right, Napoleon, like anyone could actually know that!

Farrgo, you're right about the salt. You have to be real careful with the rate you consume it if you're talking peak performance, but of course you must have it. If you can tell you're ingesting salt, you are at least on the verge of ingesting too much at one time. Sorry I can't contribute to any discussion of hikes over 20 miles in one day, but my drink, supplemented with the occasional PayDay, has proven invaluable for that range. I agree with the sentiment on snacking, and PayDay's are my snack of choice. Again, the day I noticed the most amazing stamina boost was after ~10 miles with 40-45 pounds on my back, then a PayDay and my drink & 20m rest. The next 1 1/2 - 2 miles uphill were CAKE.

+ = Your Solution!!! Also try e-Bay and maybe check out options for making your own from a kit. You may have more color control that way? I wonder if leaving a note that your car is rigged with a bomb instead of an alarm would stop people from breaking in? "Yeah, it's probably a fake, but what if?"

You want energy to keep going forever? Read this. [sorry, this is a post-in-progress, but I think I'm done now] I wanted to create a home-made (read: cheap) energy drink that would keep me going and ideally provide an easy way to get calories if/when your stomach is upset at altitude. I have done quite a bit of research on endurance & related physiology. Drinks like Endurox are unquestionably the best physiologically. The guy who did 50 marathons in 50 days in each of the 50 states downed a liter of the Endurox recovery drink every night, but I'm not sure what he had during the day. The expensive formulations include not only carbs (very specific, not just sugar), but a little protein, tons of vitamins/antioxidants, and electrolytes (and not just plain sodium). However, there's a number of problems for the average Joe. 1 - they are, well, very expensive and impractical to use on a regular basis. 2 - they usually taste anywhere from bad to :vomit: 3 - the best ones, which use maltodextrin, take a long time to completely dissolve the powder. I have solved two of these problems while maintaining a useful formula; unfortunately, the best ones will always be hard to dissolve Solution: just make up the drink in the evening and it will be ready by morning. It takes about 30m-1h to dissolve. Are you ready? 3/4 - 1 cup maltodextrin (kinda hard to find - buy online) 1/4 cup fructose (easily found at health stores) 1/8 tsp sea salt (more than plain sodium) 1 packet of your favorite Kool-Aid (raspberry is personal fav.) Liquid and Carb intake is optimal for 24-32 oz. per hour. [approx. 250-300 cal. per hour] (i.e. this is ALL you need to consume) Your body can't handle much more energy and liquid without sacrificing your physical output. The inclusion of Fructose as opposed to, say, glucose (which may be better, performance wise) is the only way to get enough sweetness for a good tasting drink at 1/8 cup per quart, excluding artificial sweeteners, which I haven't delved in to. I experimented with adding a packet of Emergen-C (tons of vitamins/antioxidants), but it just fouled the taste considerably. I found it better to keep vitamin-taking seperate from the energy drink. I haven't worked on incorporating a small amount of protein yet. I'd like to do this because the theory is that an all-liquid diet is best b/c you don't get your stomach going to take away blood from your muscles. However, I've not found this to be a real problem at the level of exertion I usually find myself. In fact, my most astonishing increase in endurance and capability was (starting) about 20 minutes after downing a Payday and hiking fast uphill for an hour at the end of the day. Not scientific, but anecdotal evidence for importance of protein? regardless of solid form. My drink formula is not an exclusive solution for multi-hour continuous high-level exertion. You definitely need more protein and probably more electrolytes and vitamins. It's good enough for the vast majority of what we all do though. It's not going to make you Superman, but you should notice that you don't completely poop out. You will still feel tired, but won't NEED to rest. You will be in control of your muscles, telling them when to start and stop, as opposed to them telling you when

Thanks for that link, fenderfour. Plenty of good info there. Mike Layton, check this out because it's way better than the slipshod work and assumptions in some of the previous links. It's interesting to note that the lowest drop-test failures are around 10 kN, way more than you ought to be able to produce rappelling. Maybe this goes down with an older sling? Regardless, the most telling result is the pictures of post-failure slings. They're ratty and frayed, not a perfect slice with a tiny fray on one side.

I have been getting a hankering for some winter backpacking, but I really hate snowshoes. Having done the Wonderland Trail this summer, I couldn't help but wonder about skiing it during the winter, or at least go somewhere to do some ski-backpacking. There's a lot of issues that winter brings up, but I'm sure somebody has done this before. Anybody have suggestions for this type of thing? HWY 20 in the N. Cascades? etc?

I probably don't need to tell you this, but remember to consider the cost of ammo as part of the equation. If I packed heat, I'd want to be very good with said gun, and would go through tons of ammo (=$$$).

FW, maybe you need a new job. Many (most?) respectable companies pay their employees for weather-related absences. Maybe this is a little different in that respect, but it's different it a lot of other ways too. Especially since those MRNP workers are only there because we want them to be there in that volatile environment and make a nice park for us to play in, the least we can do is not abandon them when they're forced away from their jobs by the environment we want them to work in. I appreciate that these guys are willing to take jobs in an uncertain place. If the government/people screwed them when the going got tough, what quality of people do you think would work there?

Buildings are also good at keeping the rain off. Of course you have to get used to seeing the same scenery every hundred yards or so. You might feel like this --> Oh, and another solution is to live in eastern WA Come to the dar.... uh, actually, the LIGHT side

Though I'm not one to make broad medical generalizations in a subject I am no expert in, my two cents: My great-grandpa had something probably similar or identical to what you describe. He kept pushing it back in for the rest of his life. He didn't believe in doctors. That had nothing to do with his death, so I think you'll be OK for the weekend, personally. If constriction is supposedly a problem like the above post mentions, then stay loose man! No pull-ups and ab crunches until after surgery

So you believe electronic data is metaphysical?