Home ›

A Winter's Trek to Yellowstone

Submitted by Kurt Repanshek on January 6, 2007 - 1:35pm

Taslonestar_geyser_skiers_copy It could simply be the aura that surrounds Yellowstone, or the remoteness of this rugged park, but a winter’s journey here is like none other in the park system.
Simply watching Old Faithful erupt into the teeth of a snowstorm, strolling the steam-flocked boardwalk through the Upper Geyser Basin, gazing into the azure beauty of Morning Glory Spring, or standing on the lip of the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone are sufficient to enjoy a day in Yellowstone.
Yet you also can lash snowshoes or cross-country skis to your feet and venture into the forest, enroll in a “Lodging and Learning” program that features wildlife viewing and guided snowshoe or ski treks to Tower Falls, build a five-day adventure around daily ski excursions to such places as Blacktail Plateau, the Lamar Valley, and the Grand Canyon of Yellowstone, or sign on for the “Family Winter Holiday” package best suited for families with children 8 to 12. This package, new this winter, blends animal tracking and wildlife watching with photography, skiing and snowshoeing plus a snowcoach trip to the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone.
These and other packages, which start as low as $99 per night, can be found at this site or by calling 866-439-7375.

Comments

Submitted by Scholar (not verified) on January 6, 2007 - 1:51pm.
Maybe the increase in hits is due to the fact that you are presuming that God exists in all of your posts. Just a thought, why not try posting without assuming that God exists. That way people with scientific educations could also enjoy your website. Maybe we don't care about the park as much as you do, since we are sitting here in the suburbs, but when you preach crap about God (obvious to me), expect to get some more hits KURT.
Submitted by Kurt Repanshek on January 6, 2007 - 2:04pm.
Scholar, obviously you need to get a better understanding of sarcasm, spend some more time reading my posts, and get out of the 'burbs a little more often.
Submitted by Crazy Smart Dude (not verified) on January 7, 2007 - 12:55am.
Well I like the fact that you said right wingers don't like you either. You handled my tirade pretty well, that was me posting under all those different names. Maybe I have you pegged wrong, I will take a second look. But in the meantime, prepare your defenses for an attack BY science. Oh by the way, your sarcasm meter is way off, I was kidding about the "primary source" of funding. Try not to talk down to your intellectual superiors. Thanks and God Bless.
Submitted by Ruby (not verified) on January 7, 2007 - 7:45pm.
Now I'll bet all you elitist "scientist" types PRAYED a lot to GOD when y'all were taking those finals!! LOL!!
Submitted by Ruby (not verified) on January 7, 2007 - 7:46pm.
Oh, BTW...Ya don't have to be a "right-winger" to believe in God....
Submitted by Diamond (not verified) on January 8, 2007 - 12:34pm.
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/it06/it06_index.html No insult intended. I may have let my emotions control my posts. Here is a link which may help you understand why we scientists think that you who believe in the supernatural are soooooo NAIVE. Actually, it was only through decades of education that I came to lose faith in the unproven. http://edge.org/3rd_culture/it06/it06_index.html
Submitted by Jim Macdonald (not verified) on January 8, 2007 - 1:52pm.
I am not a creationist, but I'm curious what kind of scientist uses words like "proven" so sloppily. Scientists use induction and therefore always present hypotheses and theories which are probable. That is, they are falsifiable and therefore never proven. Teleological arguments (arguments from design) are often different in that they take the evidence of senses as certain, believe that order is an experienced phenomenon, and believe that order follows from design. I've never liked the teleological argument because it 1) starts from uncertain premises ; 2) begs the question. However, those aren't scientific critiques. The first is ontological; the second is logical. Not all arguments for theism are supernatural arguments, assuming you mean something that is completely beyond natural explanations (there is a school of theism that believes that God is not something entirely distinct from nature but rather that nature is not completely reducible to immediate sense experience). They also don't all rely on the teleological argument. Yes, creationism depends on some form of the teleological argument, but that's not the same as a refutation of all kinds of theistic religion. Typically, there are versions of the ontological and the cosmological arguments that are also offered and various hybrids of those two arguments. I will agree with you about this. I do tire of hearing that because Yellowstone is so amazing in winter that no one could deny that there was a God because of it. It took a tidy sum of money to come to such a belief, didn't it? But, for a wager $99 more than Pascal's wage required, we can come to all kinds of fantastical beliefs. Jim
Submitted by Ranger X (not verified) on January 8, 2007 - 4:18pm.
I can't wait to see Yellowstone in winter! Thanks for the post!