CatHouse Chat

Continuing the uranium debate

I was contacted yesterday (in the comments on my Virginia Uranium post) by Gregg Vickrey, who is associated with Southside Concerned Citizens - Chatham, requesting me to contact him to set up another interview. It may be as early as Friday, or it may not be until the week of February 4th (next week is a bit busy for me, guys!).

I have advised both Virginia Uranium and Mr. Vickrey that all e-mails from now on on this subject will be considered by me to be available to publish and discuss. I want to be open and transparent with my readers both in my communications and in my biases, and I feel this will help keep us all honest.

Secondly, I have proposed to SCCC and VUI that we set up some meetings which I will videotape and publish. I think it would be good to get both sides together in a small group and discuss the issues, one by one, scientist to scientist, person to person, without all the trappings of political maneuvering.

My main concern, whatever decision *I* make on this issue, is to do my best to make sure each "side" is given their chance to speak and make their case. I think it would serve our community well if as much information as possible is available for them to review and consider as they make their decisions.

I have requested and will continue to request information and documentation from all parties that I can post for public review. Although I will give my personal impressions of the people I meet and interview and of their arguments and evidence, I will neither stoop to ad hominem attacks, nor will I tolerate them from either side.

Evidence, people. Data. Links. Hard, cold facts.

The truth will always take care of itself, in the long run. So let's get the discussion going, let's keep it open, public, and civil, and we will all benefit!

UPDATE: Walter Coles, Jr., has just e-mailed me and said "Kat, we want the truth/facts/science to prevail.  Therefore we will gladly participate in whatever format that you have in mind."

Let's get this puppy rolling! ;-)

Technorati Tags: Virginia Uranium, Southside Concerned Citizens, uranium mining, mining, energy

I do not change

My blog brother, Jerry Fuhrman, has a link to an interesting article about human evolution this morning and remarks:

We knew what we knew. Now what we know isn't what we knew. And what we're soon to know may be completely different from what we now know. But, by God, we're sure we're right.

Man's theories and opinions can ebb and flow like the tide. Even our most proven laws of physics and such are subject to further refinement as we learn more and acquire technology that helps us observe our world more closely.

And that's a good thing! God gave us minds to use in exploration, learning and worship. Even though our minds, along with our bodies and spirits, have been contaminated with sin (or "entropy,: if that makes you feel better), still we have been made in the image of our Creator. He wants us to use the faculties He has given us, to "think His thoughts after Him," so to speak.

However, we also need to be cautious - God has also given us His written Word, which has some very specific statements about how God created things. No, He doesn't go into exhaustive detail, but when it comes to the creation of the world and of man, God is quite clear on how it happened. After all, He was there - we weren't.

And so, I prefer to trust in the One who has always been there, who is perfect in all His ways, who knows everything, is omnipotent and omnipresent over the vacillations of fallible man, who is imperfect, weak, and not all-knowing.

As God says,

For I am the Lord, I do not change...

Yeah, but it's still a FISH, isn't it?

So four million years of "evolution" didn't give it time to develop into a salamander.

The discovery of the new fossil means scientists can no longer make inferences about the evolution of limbs based on living coelacanths and lungfishes.

"To understand the developmental evolution of the limbs of tetrapods, we shouldn't be looking at the fins of our nearest living fish relatives — lungfishes and coelacanths — because they're far too specialized," said co-author Michael Coates, a University of Chicago biologist. [link]

Specialization - loss of information, not a GAIN.

A fish is a fish is a fish, folks. And a fish will never never never, not in a billion years, turn into a  salamander or a bird or a dog or a human.

Micro-evolution: changes within species - proven.

Macro-evolution: one species (or type) of animal changing into another - nope.

Simmering on the back burner...

I've been thinking about this for a while - not terribly long, perhaps a few weeks - and this post from my blog-brother Rick Moran appears to be what I needed to get off my rear end and actually write. Actually, although Rick's post is the spark, there are a few other topics I wanted to write about, so I'm probably going to start with what he has to say, and then wander off into my own territory... So... read on if you dare!

Walking on a volcano....

This, for me, is now Sunday evening, and we've flown out of Hilo and arrived at the Hilton Hawaiian Village on Oahu.

I was able to do one or two photo intense posts about what we'd been doing on the Big Island, as well as several moblogs showing what we've been doing on the volcano. However, now it's time to post the GOOD pics, along with a commentary...

(Don't forget, all of the pics below the fold are "clickable" for larger views!)

Weekly walks with Uncle Charles

The Beloved Husband's uncle lives very close to us, and he's a brilliant man. He taught at Penn State many years ago (I want to say he was the Dean of their Geology department, but I'm sure I have it at least a little wrong...), and he still has a love of teaching. Charles loves his grand-nieces, and is enjoying introducing the Darling Munchkin to all sorts of good stuff, now that we live close by.

Yesterday, we took a walk up to his place to enjoy his irises, and he took us on a little tramp around the property. Unfortunately, I couldn't take as many pictures as I wanted, because my little Sony was in her death throes. Nevertheless, I did coax a last few photos out of her, and I hope you enjoy them, too.

Charles is really a brilliant man; I haven't come up against any topic that he doesn't know at least something about. As I said, he has a love of teaching - he must have been wonderful in the classroom! - and really enjoys answering questions. I'm hoping to do this regularly over the summer, longer if possible, and post about all the fascinating information he gives us. I will have to remember, though, to a) wear my hiking boots for ankle support, and b) make sure I'm dosed up on my allergy medications!

One thing that's blooming around here right now, and which I did NOT photograph (baaaaad Kat!), is the honeysuckle. It's beautiful! The flowers are white, pink, and yellow - sometimes on the same vine - and it smells heavenly! Of course, that's probably what's giving my sinuses fits right now, but... Anyway, I'll make sure to take some pictures when my new camera gets here.

We walked up the Charles' place and gave our co-dependant dog, Tasha, a treat by taking her with us. Of course, you can't see her in this picture, but it does give you an idea of how... rustic our area is! This road runs between our property and Charles' - ours is on the right in this picture, with our house about, oh, 100 yards off this section of the road.

I suppose it's about a fifth, maybe a quarter mile walk to Charles' house. It's lovely; all shaded and quiet and private. That's one very nice thing about living where we do: we've got 18 acres of PRIVACY!!! No one's looking over our shoulder. Mmmm!

Here's a shot of a lovely old wild rose of some type or another. We originally thought that it was a blackberry, since we have blackberries growing all over. The flowers looked just the same, but the leaves were much smoother and less crinkly than the blackberries. Also, the thorn pattern was a little different. Charles said it's no surprise that we confused them, since this rose and blackberries are in the same family.

These roses bear very little resemblance to what you find in a florist's chop. As you see, they're tiny, and only have one layer of petals. And their scent!! My gosh, do longstem roses really even have an aroma any more? These small beauties, however, have a lovely, delicate scent that drifts out from the plant and just lures you in for a deep sniff.

Egad, I hope these guys aren't responsible for my aching sinuses! Yup. Call the Doc tomorrow - time to get back on Allegra, and maybe go for allergy testing... *blech!*

Finally - well, not finally, but for the last photos I was able to take - we got up to Charles' iris patch.

It's very cool the way the leaves of the iris grow out like a fan, all flattened. I wasn't able to get a good shot, but it looks very cool!

Charles also took us over to his little bog and showed us some pitcher plants, several lush ferns, and some water irises (I think that's what he said they were). He also has a gingko tree, and some Mahonia (Oregon Grape). He also has some... horsetail? broom weed?... I forgot what he called it, but it was a little bush, with droopy, willow-like "branches" that had tiny leaves and beautiful little flowers, yellow with dark orange or brown centers. I think he mentioned that he has some papyrus, and I know he's got some lily pads in a little teeny pond...

... Good gracious, Charles has a LOT of stuff! I'm looking forward to my new camera's arrival, because I've got a LOT of pictures I want to take.

Anyway, that's all for now - I've got to take care of my poor, sore nose!

UPDATE: Suddenly I notice that I repeated myself several times (brilliant, cool!) in this post. I blame the Claritin: it can't clear up my allergies, but it certainly confuzzles me!

Awesome interview!

Jonahan Witt, at ID the Future, posts a wonderful and witty interview with David Belinski (also Google here).

Oh, my gosh - Mr. Berlinski is an incredible interviewee!

Re: Richard Dawkins:

An interesting case, very louche - fascinating and repellant. Fascinating because like Noam Chomsky he has the strange power effortlessly to command attention. Just possibly both men are descended from a line of simian carnival barkers, great apes who adventitiously found employment at a circus. I really should look at this more closely. Repellent because Dawkins is that depressingly familiar figure - the intellectual fanatic. What is it that he has said? "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)". Substitute 'Allah' for 'evolution,' and these words might have been uttered by some fanatical Mullah just itching to get busy with a little head-chopping. If he ever gets tired of Oxford, Dawkins could probably find a home at Finsbury Park.

On Darwinism and ideological systems:

Marxism is an ideological system, or was, and Darwinism is like Marxism. Darwinism, I must stress, the sibilant distinguishing the man from his message. By itself, Darwin's theory of random variation and natural selection would simply be a hopelessly premature 19th century thought experiment, vastly less important than Clerk Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field, which was completed at roughly the same time.

On literary evolution (??!! -- I know, I know):

Why must literature be understood in any terms beyond the literary? Just recently someone named David Barash - an evolutionary psychologist, it goes without saying - published a book together with his wife called Madame Bovary's Ovaries. Her ovaries? Look, set aside the appalling vulgarity of the book and its title, its almost unfathomable literary and intellectual crudeness. To talk about Madame Bovary's ovaries is a little like looking at one of Rembrandt's late self-portraits of his face and wondering whether the man suffered from bunions. What we know of the man is right there on the canvass. Nothing else. To imagine that somehow there is a real woman to be found in Flaubert's nacreous masterpiece is to regard art the way an infant or a primitive regards art.

Of course, these are just tiny snippets - please do yourself a favor and go read the whole thing. It's very rare that an interview is as educational and entertaining as this one! (And, it's only the first part - can't wait for the second!)

Shuttle Discovery ready for launch... UPDATED

UPDATE: *sigh* Well, apparently, not today, it seems. There are some problems with sensors on the fuel tank, according to that FoxNews article. Hey, better to be safe than sorry! I'm glad they caught it and are correcting the problem.

And I hope and pray that within the next two hours, she has a safe and successful lift off!

(source for photo)

Fly, you beautiful ship - FLY!

Evolution vs. Design: but from a different angle

Frederick Turner has an interesting article up at Tech Central Station: Darwin and Design: The Evolution of a Flawed Debate. He brings some brilliant accusations against the evolutionists (even though he appears to be one himself)-

The second sin is a profound moral failure -- the failure of gratitude. If one found out that one had a billion dollars free and clear in one's bank account, whose source was unknown, one should want to find out who put it there, or if the donor were not a person but a thing or a system, what it was that has so benefited us. And one would want to thank whoever or whatever put it in our account. Our lives and experiences are surely worth more than a billion dollars to us, and yet we did not earn them and we owe it to someone or something to give thanks. And to despise and ridicule those who rightly or wrongly do want to give thanks and identify their benefactor as "God" is to compound the sin. (emphasis mine).

I find this statement to be very truthful - but I wonder if Mr. Turner realizes he's walking a well known path:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Romans 1: 18-23, emphasis mine

One of the key charges brought against mankind is the sin of ingratitude. And it is very true: all of us have been given, at the minimum, the blessing of life. Yet how many of us - even those of us who are Christian - live in thankfulness?

To return to the topic, Mr. Turner seems to be quite aware of the "sin" (his word) on both sides. I would like to read more from him on this topic, even though I disagree with several of his statements. I highly recommend reading his thought-provoking article in full.

Stem Cell Research

A blog I just stumbled across this morning (thanks to the Anchoress), The Strata-Sphere, has some excellent information on stem cell research. I've been irritated with all the talk flying about regarding embryonic stem cell research for two main reasons: 1) there's more out there than embryonic stem cells and 2) I couldn't remember where I'd found that information!

It's absurd to push and push and push embryonic research when there are viable alternatives (which also appear more productive) like adult stem cells and umbilicle cord stem cells. I can't believe that the Bush administration doesn't bring this to the forefront of the debate.

Why hasn't Bush said something like, "Not only are there enormous moral problems with using embryonic stem cells, but there are excellent alternatives which we can use without the moral quandries." I love George W. Bush, but there are times when his "strategies" really make me scratch my head in puzzlement.

Strata-Sphere refers to this article in particular, out of Australia, which states:

“Our experiments have shown adult stem cells isolated from the olfactory mucosa have the ability to develop into many different cell types if they are given the right chemical or cellular environment,” Professor Mackay-Sim said.

“These adult olfactory stem cells appear to have the same ability as embryonic stem cells in giving rise to many different cell types but have the advantage that they can be obtained from all individuals, even older people who might be most in need of stem cell therapies. Stem cells obtained from and transplanted into the same person would not be rejected by the immune system,” he said.

“Another advantage of adult olfactory stem cells is they are readily obtained from the nose and relatively easy to grow and multiply in the lab. In a few weeks we can make plenty of cells for transplantation or for studying their biology. We can get them from people with diseases and study the biology of those diseases as they affect the stem cells or the differentiated cells derived from them.”

All right. Now, if there is an excellent alternative, why is there such a huge push to use embryonic stem cells, hmm? Why isn't the other side even thinking about looking for different options, considering the deep moral revulsion we so-called Pro-Lifers have to destroying embryos for the sake of convenience?

Could it be that they're not interested in anything but their agenda? Human life - life itself, really - doesn't matter to them. They want what they want, they want it now, they don't care about anyone else, and they don't care if it's right or wrong. The Beloved Munchkin, at two years old, had more of a moral compass than these monsters.

Molecular Expressions: Science, Optics and You - Secret Worlds: The Universe Within - Interactive Java Tutorial

This is cool! Thanks to the Anchoress for pointing it out.

Molecular Expressions: Science, Optics and You - Secret Worlds: The Universe Within - Interactive Java Tutorial.

Third grade field trip day

Yes, I got sucked in. I'll be driving/chaperoning Beloved Munchkin's third grade class while we visit the Virginia Living Museum in Newport News, VA.

Obviously, if I'm there, I won't be here, blogging. BUT! I will be taking pictures, and if I see something especially interesting, I'll have my trusty cell phone with me for moblogging!

Everybody pray for a safe and fun trip!

This takes guts....

Burnt Orange Report - My Moral Dilemma on Abortion.

I don't agree with everything Andrew Dobbs says in this post (well, that would be boring, wouldn't it?), but the thought he has put into his conclusions, and the consequences he sees in those conclusions is deliberate and well considered. I can agree to disagree with a person like this and be glad of the opportunity to learn from him.

Go read the whole thing. (HT Wizbang)

Intellectual Honesty

Dean Esmay has got to be the most intellectually honest person that I've encountered in a long time. Mr. Esmay has openly declared that he is an atheist, yet he is quite open to the arguements presented by the Intelligent Design theorists.

I certainly would not want to put words into Mr. Esmay's mouth (and in the unlikely chance that he reads this, and I have done so, I will more than happily correct/clarify/retract and apologize, if necessary), but from what I've been reading here, here, and here (and I daresay he has more...), he seems to see merits and problems with evolution as well as ID.

DISCLAIMER: Now, as I've already made clear, I'm a creationist. I admit, since I'm not a scientist, that many of my arguments in favor of Creation are phrased Biblically, rather than scientifically. However, I have seen arguments on both sides, and the points scientific creationists have made are very persuasive to me (well, ya think?). In fact, in all honesty, some of the ideological rigidity of evolutionists drive me even more firmly away from them.

But I like debate! I like to see logical discussion to see what everyone else is thinking. Mr. Esmay's posts indicate to me that he does, too.

He's not afraid of arguments which might not fit his world view, and is willing to see valid points in a theory which is far from popular with "typical" atheists. He makes excellent observations, and is willing to make evolutionists look at their biases (and does the same for ID and creationists). He's very even handed, and keeps calm and rational and on-point.

So, I like Mr. Esmay. I'm adding his blog to my list on the right (update - left) hand column. Go check him out!

I'm sure he's wriggling with puppy-like delight at my endorsement (rolls eyes at my own hubris).