Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 31502

Directory

In message <3217BCB1.3A5C@ix.netcom.com> - Judson McClendon
Sun, 18 Aug 1996 20:00:33 -0500 writes:
>>
>A speculation I find interesting is based on Genesis 10:25 "To Eber
>were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth
>was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan."  I think Peleg was 
>about the second or third generation after Nimrod and the tower of 
>Babel.  Could it be that, after Babel when people were spread out over 
>the earth, that the earth was then split up into continents?  It would 
>seem to answer a lot of questions about how people got to all those 
>continents in the first place.
Ho hum. Again, we have a creationist proposing an incredibly fast
rate of tectonic motion. He is claiming that continents moved
thousands of miles in just a few years, when real science tells
us it took hundreds of millions of years for them to get to where
they are.
The big problem is that we can observe the motion of the tectonic
plates today, and see the effect. A movement of only inches every
year is enough to cause earthquakes all the way up the richter
scale. These quakes cause tsunami large enough to swamp cities
and break up previously solid rock. Imagine the effect of quakes
a few thousand times more severe, as would be the result in
Judson's hypothesis. Mountains would crumble into rubble. The
energy released would probably melt the entire crust.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- Robert A.
Heinlein.
The t.o. FAQ file is at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
Saulius Muliolis   muliolis@en.com 
http://www.en.com/users/winderi/index.html

In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, Hwei Yin (yin@ssdevo.enet.dec.com) wrote:
>)In article <3211946C.2D1B@dfd.dlr.de>, "George Ellis (OpsCon)"  writes:
>)|>BTW, I'm not too happy about the way the space business works, and yes, the
>)|>government should not run everything, but to think "just let it be run by The
>)|>Coca Cola Company and we'll have interstellar travelling real soon" { O.K.,
>)|>I'm exaggerating ;-) } is naive, IMO.
>)Coca Cola could never fund a mission to Mars: they don't even have enough 
>)money to fund Olympics in their own home town!  
	Ah, but unlike NASA, Coke has to /earn/ its income. This is an 
important difference, never to be lost from sight.
--
Words of the Sentient:
The little I know of it has not served to raise my opinion of what is vulgarly
called the "monied Interest;" I mean, that blood-sucker, that muckworm, that
calls itself "the friend of government." -- William Pit The Elder
        mailto:kaz@upx.net | http://www.kaz.org | telnet://umb.upx.net:22
       See also #Polyamory, #Heinlein, and #Libertarian on the Undernet...

John Shimeld wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'm coding an algorithm that calculates formation water resistivity and
> salinity using geophysical logs. The algorithm is based on Archie's Law
> but differs somewhat from conventional Pickett Plot type approaches.
> I'd like to test the algorithm in an area where salinities are well
> known, but have been having difficulty finding an appropriate dataset.
> Ideally I need the following:.....
Some GSC resources have been wisely used to build just such a database. 
You should be able to get a good start by contacting:
Abercrombie, Hugh     403 292-7039         abercrombie@gsc.NRCan.gc.ca
___________________________________________________________
Jim Letourneau, P.Geol			letournj@hpcl.com
Hydro Petroleum Canada Ltd.		www.hpcl.com
1000, 441-5th Ave. SW 			Phone(403) 531-2194
Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2V1		Fax(403)   531-2199

Replying to web@spiderman.unx.dec.com (Wayne E. Barlow) 
: |> I would think that we have many examples of this
: |> phenomenon in our midst out of the tens of million different species on our
: |> planet. 
: 
: tens of millions is probably an exageration.  There only is slightly over
: 1 million currently classified.
I believe in the region 1.2 - 1.5 million species have been described;
noone knows for sure exactly how many. Estimates say that 20000
species are described each year, 5000 out of which are later rejected,
usually because someone has already described them.
Estimates of how many species there might be, total, range from 5
million to in excess of 100 million species. Although the 100 million
figure is the only one based on actual experimentation it is
considered too high; best current estimates is in the range of 8 - 30
million species.
: Regards,		-- Standard Disclaimer
: Wayne.		
MVH: Mike Noreen       |"Cold as the northern winds 
Net: ev-michael@nrm.se | in December mornings,
                       | Cold is the cry that rings
                       | from this far distant shore."
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to 
any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!

Replying to web@spiderman.unx.dec.com (Wayne E. Barlow) 
: |> I would think that we have many examples of this
: |> phenomenon in our midst out of the tens of million different species on our
: |> planet. 
: 
: tens of millions is probably an exageration.  There only is slightly over
: 1 million currently classified.
I believe in the region 1.2 - 1.5 million species have been described;
noone knows for sure exactly how many. Estimates say that 20000
species are described each year, 5000 out of which are later rejected,
usually because someone has already described them.
Estimates of how many species there might be, total, range from 5
million to in excess of 100 million species. Although the 100 million
figure is the only one based on actual experimentation it is
considered too high; best current estimates is in the range of 8 - 30
million species.
: Regards,		-- Standard Disclaimer
: Wayne.		
MVH: Mike Noreen       |"Cold as the northern winds 
Net: ev-michael@nrm.se | in December mornings,
                       | Cold is the cry that rings
                       | from this far distant shore."
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to 
any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!

In article ,
   singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>In article <4v8s23$f08_004@mel.dit.csiro.au>, d.jensen@geel.dwt.csiro.au
>(Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>
>>In article ,
>>   singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>>>In article <4uvc9b$489@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov
>>>(James G. Acker) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Charles Cagle (singtech@teleport.com) wrote:
>>>>: In article <4ut4j9$c5a@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>>>>: bcadle@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Brad J Cadle) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>: >        You mention above that you have seen nonsensical ideas emerge
>>>>: >and accepted as Dogma.  Which ideas are you referring to in particular?
>>>>: 
>>>>: The BCS theory of superconduction.  The Big Bang.  Planetary accretion. 
>>>>: Planetary Magnetic Field Theory.  Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, 
>>>>: Plate Subduction.
>>>>
>>>>        I give up...  Which of these ideas is "nonsensical", 
>>>
>>>All of them.  And since that much was made evident by the post; asking
>>>again makes me think that you might want to become an apostle.  Is that
>>>it?
>>>
>>>and 
>>>>why do you classify it as such? 
>>>
>>>Oh, come on.  I'm not interested in educating you.  Study the history of
>>>superconduction from the fifties on and you will see where top men were
>>>making statements like 'Oh, I never pay attention to that theory because
>>>its predictions are always wrong"  But when the Nobel was given to the
>>>three in 1972 most dissension stopped and it became entrenched in acadmia
>>>as dogma even though there was experimental data that demonstrated that
>>>the BCS theory was clearly wrong. Only in the last several years have top
>>>researchers been coming forth like ex-drunks at an AA meeting and fessing
>>>up to the fact that they are practically clueless about
>>>superconductivity.  This is the first good sign in the field in a long
>>>time.
>>>
>>
>>Here we go again. The BCS theory of superconductivity still works very well 
>>for "conventional" superconductors, and phonon-electron interaction has been 
>>the demonstrated mechanism in many experiments is just proof of this. 
>
>You are so utterly full of crap.  This is typical modern science.  Make
>everything far more complex than it is.  Sounds like you invested a lot of
>time learning the false crap and now can't get it out of your poor little
>pumpkin head.  The important thing right about the BCS theory wasn't even
>theory but rather experimental evidence that closely bound electron pairs
[snip]
Well,you are showing that you do not even have a good idea of the BCS theory. 
Read it on a weeties box, did you? The paired electrons are bound, but they 
are DEFINATELY NOT closely bound. Have a bit more of a read, and try to 
understand what is actually written, rather than trying to fabricate a reality 
based on what you thought should or should not have been written.
It appears to me that when you do not have a good, logical argument, you 
resort to personal invective. Maybe that is why there is so much of it in your 
posts.
Dennis

In article ,
   singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>In article <4v9cqc$mna@phunn1.sbphrd.com>, Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com
>(Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
>
>>In article , 
>>singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) says...
>>
>>>My statements which promote the idea that this whole Mars Life is a scam
>>>is not slanderous.  Their conclusions are not 'scientific' but when they
>>>presented them as such then they were either guilty  of fraud or of utter
>>>incompetence because of ignorance.
>>
>>Well, that's right your statements are not slanderous. But they are 
>>libellous.
>
>Nope.  There is no maliciousness here at all.  These fellows are piss poor
>excuses for scientists, that's all.  No doubt they are taken in by their
>own mental meanderings.  But I freely let them pick.  They are either
>incompetent or fraudulent.  If fraudulent then they are scamsters and if
>incompetent they are scamsters because they are masquerading as
>scientists.
>
Charles, from your posts, and private emails, it is very evident what, to you, 
constitutes a piss poor scientist; anyone who disagree with your ideas or does 
not conduct science in a way that would be beneficial to your creationist 
ideas. Furthermore, you seem to have this conspiracy theory that all 
scientists on planet earth are in the pockets of the US government (or some 
other unnamed bureaucracy), all for the mighty buck and the wonderful leading 
edge US technologists, who leave all others in their dust.
Get the blinkers off, my friend, you might be surprised at all there is to see 
in the real world.
Dennis

In article ,
   singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>In article <4va1ps$qh6@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
>(James G. Acker) wrote:
>
>
>>>I'll start with the foundation of the Big Bang and see if it is weak.  But
>>>what is the foundation?  It is conceived that the differentiation of
>>>matter led to an expansion of the general volume of the universe and that
>>
>>        Actually, I don't think it's called differentiation of matter.
>>I think it's an oscillation in the vacuum energy.  But your 
>>terminology is not very easy for me to figure out.  Sorry.
>
>Oscillation in the vacuum energy?  This presupposes a three dimensonal
>framework which without subtantive matter could be called a vacuum.  My
>argument was presented to destroy the framework itself but you use it
>presuppositionally.
>
>
>>        I'm unqualified to critique what you have just written.
>>I can't argue the point conceptually, either.  So let me ask a 
>>question of interest:  if I assume that the Big Bang is incorrect
>>as an explanation for the beginning of the Universe, how are the 
>>3K background radiation and the COBE observations accounted for?
>>Is there a suitable alternate cosmology that accounts for them 
>>adequately?
>
>I'm not required to explain it.  Right now it exists as part of a data
>table.  It could be remanants of processes we are yet to discover.
Point is Charles, you are saying that Big Bang is "crap". Now, most of the 
data we have is in line with the Big Bang theory; indeed, the Big Bang 
predicted aspects such as the 3K background radiation, and fluctuating energy 
density. In order to refute the theory; come up with a better one. Otherwise, 
I could simply say "Charles Cagle is crap, and never existed", and then say, 
despite your posts and emails, that I am not required to prove my contentions, 
despite evidence to the contrary.
Dennis

In article <9i24bkAPl7FyEwMY@kennedym.demon.co.uk> Kennedy  writes:
>>  ALthough the underlying technology of
>>television is an american invention,
>WRONG!
>Television was invented by John Logie Baird, of Scotland...
Logie Baird's mechanical scanning, while arguably the first television,
was a technological dead end, utterly unrelated to modern video systems.
The underlying technology of today's television came from RCA.
-- 
 ...the truly fundamental discoveries seldom       |       Henry Spencer
occur where we have decided to look.  --B. Forman  |   henry@zoo.toronto.edu

In article <9i24bkAPl7FyEwMY@kennedym.demon.co.uk> Kennedy  writes:
>>  ALthough the underlying technology of
>>television is an american invention,
>WRONG!
>Television was invented by John Logie Baird, of Scotland...
Logie Baird's mechanical scanning, while arguably the first television,
was a technological dead end, utterly unrelated to modern video systems.
The underlying technology of today's television came from RCA.
-- 
 ...the truly fundamental discoveries seldom       |       Henry Spencer
occur where we have decided to look.  --B. Forman  |   henry@zoo.toronto.edu

On 16 Aug 1996, Mike S. Nash wrote:
> Has anyone had any experience with the seismo-electric effect?
Don Russel, Prof. Emeritus from UofBritish Columbia was doing some
work on this a few years ago. I have ver vague recollections of the talk
he gave here - but these recollections do center around much earlier 
work being done in the Soviet Union(?) and possibly something published
in 'Geophysics'. Sorry I can't help anymore than that.
--
Michael Burianyk               Office: P534B Avahd-Bhatia Physics Lab
Seismology Laboratory          Phone : (403) 492 4128
Department of Physics          Fax   : (403) 492 0714
University of Alberta
Edmonton, CANADA T6G 2J1       e-mail: buri@phys.ualberta.ca

     Is there any reason why this should be posted to 21 groups?
     No.  That's why I'm trimming the groups drastically.  I'm e-mailing
this to Jerry, so he will find it, and he has the opportunity of retracting
it in public.
In article <321845D4.7537@ix.netcom.com>, Jerry Teach  writes:
[...]
|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
|> be living a bit closer to you :]
[...]
    Not again????!!!!!
    The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
    This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
    Everybody (except for a few crackpots, we always have crackpots
among us :-o) knew that the earth was round (like a ball or a globe or
a sphere) at the time of Columbus.  If they "laughed at Columbus"
it wasn't because he said the world was round, it was because he
was *wrong* in thinking it was so small.
-- 
Tom Scharle scharle.1@.nd.edu        "standard disclaimer"
                                     "In this house, we obey the laws
                                     of thermodynamics"  Homer Simpson

In article , dmsmith@io.com says...
>
>    Hoyle and Wickramasinghe have published several books with the theme,
>life (viruses and bacteria) from outer space, i.e., from comets falling
>upon the earth.
>      They argue that life must have orignated elsewhere on earth, owing
>to the toxic effect of oxygen in the atmosphere. Small quantities of
>organic molecules, as well as bacteria, would be quickly "burned up" by
>the atmospheric oxygen.
>      They appear to believe that the atmosphere on earth has always been
>partly oxygen, as we now find it.
>      But, I thought that the conventional wisdom says that the earth's
>atmosphere has evolved; changing, over eons, from a reducing atmosphere,
>consisting largely of hydrogen and methane, to the oxidizing atmosphere
>which now exists. Indeed I believe that it is said that plant life
>generates the oxygen in the atmosphere.
>      Can anyone comment on this?
>Regards,
>Dan Smith
For a start you might try:
Cloud, P.E., 1968. Atmospheric and hydrospheric evolution on the 
primitive earth. Science, 160, 729-736.
Also
Cloud, P.E., 1973. Paleoecological significance of banded iron 
formations. Economic Geology,68 1135-1143.
Dimroth, E. and Kimberly M.M., 1976. Precambrian atmospheric 
oxygen: Evidence in the sedimentary distribution of carbon, 
sulfur, uranium and iron. Canadian Journal of Earth Science,
13, 1161-1185.
John McArthur (jmcarth1@gtn.net)

brian whatcott (inet@intellisys.net) wrote:
: In article <4v2kuh$155@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, 
: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu says...
: >
: > ....  "---" on the other hand is  a
: >youngster prankster playground to manipulate and to subvert ...
: 
------ >8 snip snip 8< ---------------------------
:  How about reviewing the sonnet form ( the World just can't get
: enough sonnets) and unleashing your wide-ranging intellect on this 
: art-form.
:  I think you would be pleased with the response.
: 
But if you ask, request, suggest or otherwise try to enlighten AP,
he will never do as you wish. He won't even do a 180 degree ...
the poor boy always seems to glide along an asymptote.
But, like the rest of us, I suspect he will always be here,
unless of course he's there!

dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) wrote:
>posting off-topic posts is not in and of itself an offense.)
I have to disagree.  Much of the value of usenet articles is obtained by
having them categorized by topic.  A "soup" of unclassified articles would
be utterly useless.
Since usenet articles are categorized by topic, breaking the topicality is
at the very least rude.  In the case of off-topic ads, the advertisers are
using the group's readers to finance the distribution and storage of an ad.
People who read any given usenet group explicitly subscribed to it.  I
believe this subscription implies that readers of a group want to read
topical articles, and don't want to read off-topic articles.
This is why breaking the categorization is rude, and why off-topic ads are
unethical.  Those posting such articles are denying the express wishes of
the readers of the abused newsgroups.
This is why Archimedes Plutonium needs to be rebuked at the least, and why
his responsibility is to NOT post the kind of rubbish that he does post.
Dartmouth needs to accept that Plutonium doesn't have a "right" to ignore
the expressed needs and desires of thousands of usenet readers.
[Note follow-ups are radically narrowed.]
-- 
Try this in a "DOS Box" for fun and profit!!!
echo f 0:0 ffff 0 | debug

In talk.origins "Wm G. Smith"  wrote:
> What I hate is the very fact that any of this technology exists is a complete and
> perfect refutation of their superstition.  The materials technology that makes it
> possible for a Pentium chip to function or for a 3.5" disc to store 2.5 gigabytes of
> information is based on the science of the Big Bang.  It is our understanding of
> particle physics that made solid state technology possible.  Now, according to
> Creationists, God spoke the Universe into existence and there was no Big Bang and
> therefore no subatomic particles.  If the technology works, and it does not manipulate
> atomic particles in order to work, then it can only work because there are demons inside
> the machines running around carrying all this information back and forth.  So to these
> Young Earth Creationists, it is apparently OK to consort with demons if it comports with
> what they believe to be the service of the Lord.
Matt Silberstein replied:
> Computer have two kinds of creatures inside them: Demons (or is
> daemons?) and Gremlins. Simply put Daemons put you bits where you want
> them and Gremlins put your bits where you don't. Programs are
> ritualistic prayers to the Demons so they will help you.
Terry Munger added:
> Who's idea was it to put the smoke inside the computer chips?
> I know that there are two kinds of smoke; white smoke (good smoke?) and
> black smoke (bad smoke?).  Now, most times I see the black smoke, I am
> pretty sure that the computer chip is no longer capable of functioning.
> However, sometimes when I see the white smoke, it MIGHT still function,
> but there appears to be more gremlins evident in the chip.
> My question is this; can we reduce the number of gremlins loose in the
> device if we put some of the white smoke back into the chip, and where
> can I get some smoke?
My two bits worth:
Hey, you guys are really on to something here!  Next we can debate how
many
angels can dance on the head of a 72-pin SIMM, discuss the causes of the
failure
of Prayer WANs (100% missing packets), mull over the requirements of a
"God Server",
or perhaps Christian Broadcasting Network protocols (hint:  "send check
or money
order to....").  We can discuss just who those master and slave jumpers
are, too.
And why the software teams at MicroChrist can't write a version of
BIBLE.EXE that
doesn't cause the system to lock up or spit App Errors and GP faults. 
Their tech
support department has been trying to clear the problems up for almost
2000 years.
If it weren't for their advertising budget, they'd be filing bankruptcy
(moral,
that is).
The possibilities are limitless...but I'm at my limit for today.  :)

I am seeking the correct address, phone number and fax number for the 
Instituto de Ingenieros de Minas del Peru.
Thanks in advance,
R.Spencer Ramshaw
Market Research Analyst
-- 
Canadian Association of Mining Equipment and Services for Export
101-345 Renfrew Drive, Markham, Ontario, L3R 9S9, Canada
tel: 905-513-0046 fax: 905-513-1834  email: 103214.545@compuserve.com
http://www.info-mine.com/camese/

I am seeking the correct address, phone number and fax number for the 
Instituto de Ingenieros de Minas del Peru.
Thanks in advance,
R.Spencer Ramshaw
Market Research Analyst
-- 
Canadian Association of Mining Equipment and Services for Export
101-345 Renfrew Drive, Markham, Ontario, L3R 9S9, Canada
tel: 905-513-0046 fax: 905-513-1834  email: 103214.545@compuserve.com
http://www.info-mine.com/camese/

In article  Kennedy  writes:
>>  Whether or not you believe that
>>the PAHs and carbonate globules were a result of biological life, they
>>still count as evidence -- not necessarily convincing evidence, but
>>evidence nonetheless.
>
>The results of the Viking Lander experiments were just as positive.
>Results indicative of life were obtained, but were put down to other
>causes when the experiments were subjected to more rigorous analysis.
Uh, sorry, no -- only one of the three Viking experiments gave evidence of
life, by the success/failure criteria agreed on beforehand.  (The reason
one agrees on such things beforehand is precisely to avoid the temptation
to interpret the evidence to suit one's preconceptions.)  The other two
gave surprising and confusing results which strongly suggested the
presence of some sort of active surface chemistry.  Furthermore, the
positive results from the first experiment were very weak; in the context
of the results from the others, they must be viewed with suspicion. 
-- 
 ...the truly fundamental discoveries seldom       |       Henry Spencer
occur where we have decided to look.  --B. Forman  |   henry@zoo.toronto.edu

> I don't understand why many scientists cannot see this, or do not
>accept anything but science as valid.
because science is valid. religion is invalid.

 
>An accident with amazing precision... I'm no expert and correct me if
>I'm wrong
you're wrong.
> but I've heard it said that if the earth would moved off it's
>axis by as much as 1/4 inch away from the sun we would be an ice ball..
>and a 1/4 or more closer to the sun we would be a dead planet. 
that must be why mountains and valleys have life, because they are 1/4
inch closer and farther away than earth.

Stewart T. Ewing wrote:
> Science is
> limited in its method due to its inability to explain, measure, or
> express the supernatural or anything else the finite human mind is
> unable to understand.
First, you should define "supernatural" and "understanding".
And second, the fact that the human mind is finite does not mean that
there are phenomena that are not understandable to the mind per se.
You must not assume that humans have the biggest brains in the universe or
that we will never be able to expand the capabilities of our minds.
And if you define "understanding" as "beeing able to use something" you've lost
anyway since we have mathematics, axiomatic theory and all that stuff
to calculate and use things we don't understand intuitively.
As evidence of that you might look up "world equations".
I remember such a thing from Schroedinger. (But I can be wrong
about the name. Was it Heisenberg? Maxwell?)
In that way we are IN PRINCIPLE (but not currently in reality) able to
calculate the whole universe including the human mind.
Obviously there are several things my brain cannot do:
* Simulate itself
* Store the positions and connections of all its neurons in itself
* ...(I hope you get the point)
But they don't change the fact that the human brain is understandable unless
your definition of "understandable" means something of the two points
above.
The philosophy I learned at school (materialism in the marxist sense)
makes the basic assumption that objective reality carries the property
of beeing understandable (again in principle and regardless of practical
limitations such as the number of neurons in the universe). I believe
that more or less the same philosophy is what gives scientists the hope
to tackle things they don't understand at the beginning and leads them
to discoveries people would never make in the name of their particular
religions.
Volker

peter nelson (pnelson@lagoon.ultranet.com) wrote:
:   I just don't see why the government, with its MASSIVE debt
:   and deficit, should be spending money on anything that's 
:   non-essential.   Let's face it, if we don't discover whether
:   there's life on Mars, this is not going to have a big material
:   impact on our lives.   You could argue that there are large
:   "cosmic" or "spiritual" reasons to address questions like
:   that but that's not what I pay taxes for.  
I don't have an opinion on US govt spending, but consider this:
if there can be life on other planets it's quite likely that
some of it is more advanced than us with our limited intelligence 
(natural skill in math is IMO the best measure of intelligence, 
as far as I know we don't exactly shine in this area). Maybe we
are too spoiled by the pleasant conditions on this planet. 
The universe is estimated to be 10-20 billion years old, at a 
minimum twice the age of Earth. There is room for earthlike 
planets that are at least a few billion years older than ours. 
Imagine what evolution can achieve in that kind of time! Maybe 
they have already discovered interstellar travel (they should have 
because the star of their home system will start to behave erratically) 
and have by now created vast empires spanning thousands (or millions) 
of star systems. Maybe one day a stray expedition will reach our 
isolated corner of the galaxy...
One thing all known life has in common is that it will expand 
indefinetly if there are no limiting factors, as would be the
case here. And they are quite a few years ahead of us.
One would imagine that this should at least impact on the nuclear
weapons debate and the star wars project funding, after all we couldn't 
let that expedition get away and tell about us, could we? :)
cj

Department of Geography
Concordia University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
NEEDED URGENTLY
A hydrologist or water management specialist to teach an upper level
undergraduate course in Hydrology to 30 final year students this Fall
starting September 4 until December 4.  The course meets twice a week on
Mondays and Wednesdays from 10.15 - 11.30.  
The content is flexible. It could focus on an introduction (not too
mathematical) to geographical hydrology: including the properties of
water as they affect pathways in the hydrological cycle and distribution
in the environment, especially storage sectors in the cycle and an
introduction to practcal methods of locating, surveying and assessing
water in terms of a public use resource.  Or it could be a course in
applied hydrology such as water management --catchments, channels and
regions from the point of view of single and multiple uses.
This is a part-time contract which pays approximately $4,400.00
Canadian.
Anyone interested or who might have suggestions please contact:
Dr. Patricia A Thornton, Chair, Department of Geography.  
Tel: (514) 848 2058; FAX (514) 848 2057; e-mail
THORPAT@vax2.concordia.ca

Mike Lopez  wrote:

>Jesus even says that the Bible is not 100% true. Ha. I love that.
Where does Jesus say this - I've never come across it, which dosen't
mean it doesn't exist, it just means  I haven't com across it.
__________________________________________________________________
Bradley J. Kranz , Mildura, Vic,UTC+1000
"Some men see things as they are and say why, I dream things
 that never were and say why not?"       - Robert F. Kennedy
                 [Email me for Public PGP Key]

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <4v24r5$bvf@artemis.it.luc.edu>, msmith5@orion.it.luc.edu (Michael Smith) writes:
: >
: 	... snip ...
: >I am left wondering if this is a version of Pete Wilson's fascist 
: >anti-immigrant policy 
: I can think of no sane country in the world, including 
: those most enlighted and dedicated to democracy, where the idea that 
: people who entered the country illegally don't deserve a right to stay 
: will be considered fascist.
However, Gov. Wilson is entirely interested in denying citizenship to 
children born in this country if they are born of illegal immigrants. 
This, in specific, is what I am refering to as fascist.
: Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
: meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"
Blessed Be,
	Mike Smith
"Rise, hold fast your faith. To lie dormant is certain death." 
		-Slayer, "At Dawn They Sleep"
DISCLAIMER: My opinions do not necessarily, or even remotely, reflect 
those of Loyola University, Chicago.

In article <4v7s86$ov6@oravannahka.Helsinki.FI>, cjjohans@cc.Helsinki.FI
(Carl J R Johansson) wrote:
> The universe is estimated to be 10-20 billion years old, at a 
> minimum twice the age of Earth. There is room for earthlike 
> planets that are at least a few billion years older than ours. 
> Imagine what evolution can achieve in that kind of time! Maybe 
> they have already discovered interstellar travel (they should have 
> because the star of their home system will start to behave erratically) 
> and have by now created vast empires spanning thousands (or millions) 
> of star systems. Maybe one day a stray expedition will reach our 
> isolated corner of the galaxy...
> 
> One thing all known life has in common is that it will expand 
> indefinetly if there are no limiting factors, as would be the
> case here. And they are quite a few years ahead of us.
> 
> One would imagine that this should at least impact on the nuclear
> weapons debate and the star wars project funding, after all we couldn't 
> let that expedition get away and tell about us, could we? :)
I seem to remember reading about the official position of the US/UN if we
happen to detect a probe from another world:
Be quiet, don't attract attention to our little planet and hope it goes away.
Sounds like a plan to me :-)
-- 
"Say, Rose? Do you believe in Magic?"                   !  Chris Mack
"Not really, no. But that's NOT what you're asking me." ! 'Invid fan'
"It's not?"                                             ! 
"Nope. What you're asking me is, do I believe in weird  !
shit? And the answer is yes. Of course I do. I'd be     !
crazy not to. I've had a weird shit life."       _______!
  - Rose and Carla, THE SANDMAN: THE KINDLY ONES ! Invid@localnet.com

Nils wrote: ....surface deformations? And in the case of Earth, without even
so much as an aborigine legend of so cataclysmic event?
Read about the legends ( with some caution) in : Alexander & Edith Tollmann :
Und die Sintflut gab es doch - Vom Mythos zur historischen Wahrheit. Droemer
Knaur, Muenchen,
1993. Ask the publisher in Munich if there is an English translation. The
author is professor of geology in Vienna, his late wife was paleontologist. 
greetings Roman

medved@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
>That's the wrong question.  The right question is, between biology
>and intelligence, which is more likely to have arisen naturally or by
>chance in any manner.  In other words, did biology arise by chance
>against the fearful probabilistic odds which all are familiar with
>and then develop intelligence (evolution), or did intelligence arise
>in some form or another and then create the biology?  In any realistic
>assessment of things, intelligence is simply an easier trick than biology
>and may in fact be a part of the natural universe.  We will see real
>artificial intelligence within the next five years;  we will not see
>artificial biology within the same time period or anything close.
>Ted Holden
>http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
What are you considering inteligence in either of these cases?  An
interesting book (The Artful Universe) suppositioned to me that all of
these interesting things we are learning about physics, and neato
numbers in the universe, and the theory of gravity are because we are
of it, not above it.  Our minds are responding to the physics that
bind us all my seeing what is there.
Brian

John Breslin  wrote:
>Hello All,
>I'm just wondering if anyone out there has had any experience, or
>can give me leads to any resources, relating to the use of wavelets
>to analyse a set of data, specifically a time series of rainfall
>data.
>Any help will be much appreciated.
>Cheers,
>John.
>--------------
>breslin@physics.uq.oz.au
>http://www.physics.uq.oz.au:8001/people/breslin/breslin.html
>     __o 
>   _ \<,_               
>  (_)/ (_)                         
>John Breslin
>Department of Physics
>The University of Queensland
>Queensland, AUSTRALIA, 4072.
>--------------
 Hi there,
I have been working on the topic of wavelet packet analysis of 1-D and
2-D images to estimate respectively the Hurst of Fractal Dimension.
Check out my reference list which list several online resources
regarding how to apply wavelets to estimate the fractal dimension.
Sincerely,
Cameron Jones
http://www.swin.edu.au/chem/bio/fractals/refslist.htm

In article , 
singtech@teleport.com says...
JGA
>>        No, I'd be more interested in a cogent criticism of them,
>>whereby you indicate their weak points.   If the points on which
>>the theories are weak appear to be unsupportable and untestable, 
>>then I might lean toward your characterization.  As it is, you 
>>are launching rhetorical diatribes without actually making any 
>>serious attempt at criticism.
>>        Example:  the Big Bang. 
>
>OK.  I'll only tackle the Big Bang for now and leave the other subjects
>for another time.  If I can demolish the idea of a Big Bang then will you
>desire to become my apostle of a new physics and a new approach to
>'science'?
	Demolish first, proselytize after.
>>One of the problems with the 
>>theory even after the discovery of the 3K background radiation 
>>was the uniformity of the background.  If it was completely 
>>uniform, then galactic formation was rendered unexplainable.  
>>COBE showed that the 3K background was non-uniform, adding 
>>supporting data for the theory.
>
>First of all, data doesn't support theories.  Data is data and doesn't say
>anything.  We might say that the data is consistent with a theory but we
>cannot in good conscience anthropomorphize data and say that it supports a
>theory.  Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking and then to sloppy
>'science' which in the end may not resemble the ideal science we set out
	O.K., rephrase that to read:  "adding additional data that
was consistent with the theory."
>to do.  Such concepts as the Big Bang are not falsifiable in the true
>sense of the word unless fundamental assumptions can be examined.  The 3K
	I don't agree.  If the 3K background had not been found and
it had been a prediction of the theory, then that would have been
data _inconsistent_ with the theory.  An accumulation of data 
inonsistent with theory can be enough to falsify a theory.
>blackbody background radiation may have another source and there may be
>other reasons for any anisotropy.  But you would that I should give a
>cogent criticism of the Big Bang and I suppose that I should be able to
>provide such without a great deal of thought.  The easiest approach would
>be to get you to agree that 'science' in general has an underlying
>principle which implies that all of physics should at a fundamental level
>be a 'whole cloth'.  Wouldn't you agree to such?  I'll assume that you do
	I.e., the "Theory of Everything"?   There may be such a 
thing -- I doubt I'll be able to understand it!
>and then surmise that then any attack of a theory ought also, for it to be
>convincing, be also an attack on the whole cloth from which the theory is
>ostensibly woven.  If I can show that a component of the 'Big Bang' is
>unsupportable, then it should immediately be removed from consideration as
>a serious description of reality, wouldn't you agree?  Again, I will
>assume that you would.  
	Your definition of "unsupportable" may not agree with mine,
however.
>I'll start with the foundation of the Big Bang and see if it is weak.  But
>what is the foundation?  It is conceived that the differentiation of
>matter led to an expansion of the general volume of the universe and that
	Actually, I don't think it's called differentiation of matter.
I think it's an oscillation in the vacuum energy.  But your 
terminology is not very easy for me to figure out.  Sorry.
>there was no ponderable background vis-à-vis to establish a relative
>expansion against so that the expansion could be conceived of merely
>consisting of an increase in the magnitude of the one dimensional
>relationships which became established between bits of primodial matter at
>their point of differentiation.  Taken isotropically such an expansion
>could be conceived of as a three dimensional expansion, however, we have
>not yet arrived at three dimensionality but must establish it as part of
>the 'whole cloth'.  So, at the beginning we have particle trajectories and
>such trajectories are not established with respect to a ponderable
>background but can only be established with respect to each other. That
>is, particle motion is relative to other particles only and not to three
>dimensional space which we have yet to establish.  Now we can arrive at
>three dimensionality by differentiation of these trajectories; but what
>happens when we do this?  Well, as a mathematical function we reduce the
>degree of the polynomial and lose information in the process but we arrive
>at a continuum or three dimensional background.  But this is a mere
>mathematical trick for which can be offered no intelligible reason for the
>necessity of itself.  Nevertheless, this is what we have done to establish
>the idea of a field.  So then it is evident that the very concept of a
>field cannot find a basis of support but has merely been an invention that
>has no foundation.  Surely we violate the principle of relativity and of
>causality in allowing it to emerge.  So the whole cloth of a Big Bang is
>found to be less substantial than the Emperor's New Clothes.  The very
>idea of a three-dimensional expansion of the universe cannot be supported
>because the idea of three dimensionality cannot be supported.  The posited
>trajectories of particles must themselves be the media of propagation for
>both ponderable matter and light quanta.  Since quanta acts like particles
>then it cannot but propagate along relative trajectories just as particles
>must.  The implication is clear that quanta does not propagate randomlyh
>through what is conceived as a three dimensional space but must actually
>have a target before it can be emitted.  Between the trajectories there is
>nothing ponderable, not even dimensionality.  Wheeler and Feynman both
>puzzled over the idea implicit in Maxwell's equations that there must be
>advanced waves emitted from the target in the future to allow the
>propagation of the retarded waves.  This all points to a superdeterminism
>and absolute causal universe.  But more particularly with respect to this
>discussion we must toss out the very idea of a Big Bang from serious
>scientific consideration understanding that the future pre-exists, as it
>were, and that there is no three dimensionality; both of these ideas are
>contrary to current ideas associated with a Big Bang.  Q.E.D.?
	I'm unqualified to critique what you have just written.
I can't argue the point conceptually, either.  So let me ask a 
question of interest:  if I assume that the Big Bang is incorrect
as an explanation for the beginning of the Universe, how are the 
3K background radiation and the COBE observations accounted for?
Is there a suitable alternate cosmology that accounts for them 
adequately?
JGA
>>:  (I'm particularly intrigued that
>>: >"plate subduction" is on the list, considering by your address
>>: >that you've got one underneath you, and the heat generated by 
>>: >the process causes volcanic activity that is fairly obvious 
>>: >if you look out one of your east-facing windows!)
and
>>        Give me an alternate idea to consider.  The epicenters of deep
>>quakes define the leading edge of the subducted plate, down to the 
>>point where theory indicates the plate will start merging into the
>>mantle (about 300 km). The penetration depth is precisely that modeled 
>>by theory and in the lab (by high-pressure mineralogy).  So what is
>>your alternate idea regarding the distribution of earthquake epicenters at 
>>subducted plate margins?
>
>More rationally you might say why do we have deep earthquakes at places
>*we think* are the leading edge of a subducting plate?  To say that they
>*are* at the leading edge of a subducting plate puts a straight jacket
>upon possible acceptable answers.  Rephrase your question with respect to
>the locale and geomorphology of such deep earthquakes.  I can't answer a
>question in a manner that might suit you if you have the answer you want
>already built into the question.
	O.K., let me try.
	"At certain areas of the Earth, generally located inland of
continental margins, the epicenters of deep earthquakes are found 
to be distributed from 50-300 km in depth, with the shallower
epicenters nearer to the continental margin and the deeper epicenters
further inland, such that an approximately 30 deg. angle is defined.
The loss of "signal" deeper than 300 km coincides with the melt
boundary of crustal material under those conditions of temperature
and pressure.  How can the distribution of these epicenters be 
accounted for?"
>>        Well, I wouldn't characterize it as a hidden agenda.  Scientists
>>do research and observers worry about the theophilosophical 
>>implications.  The main hidden agenda I'm aware of is trying to call
>>interpretations of Christian scripture "scientific" in order to
>>get them taught in public school science classrooms.  I teach 
>>Genesis at my church school and I don't claim it's science -- and
>>I'd rather no one tried to teach Genesis in a science class and 
>>claim that it's science.
>
>That is certainly a reasonable approach in my view.  Even if the Genesis
>account of creation is fundamentally true so that Creation sprang up at
>the Word of the Intellectual or Spiritual Being we call God - such is not
>'scientific' nor subject to experimental verification by normal
>'scientific' means.  
	That's good!   I am always concerned by an anti-science 
attitude when the only alternative is religious.  I am somewhat 
concerned by anti-"common science", but if such criticism is 
pursued along scientific lines, then it is not as bad.  So far, 
you've demonstrated a critical attitude toward current "common
science" in many fields, some of which I can't address and some
of which I think deserves further thought.  However, your 
attitude isn't the same as other classes of "common science"
skeptics (as far as I can tell so far).
	I was really responding to your classification of 
plate subduction as "nonsensical", which would essentially throw
all of plate tectonics into question.  That's the main thing 
I'd like to pursue (and since this is a geology newsgroup, it
seems appropriate, amazingly enough).
>Science is a process we follow to obtain a consistent data table but it is
>not that data table nor is it in and of itself that which we call 'truth'
>but rather a process we rather hopefully use to gain access to the truth.
	I think we agree there.
	Jim Acker
	New .sig under construction.  

Inligtingstudies 9, in <4upnp7$8p4@misty.rau.ac.za>:
>Evolution should disprove the existance of a controlling intelligence
what on earth gives you such an utterly ludicrous idea?
go read the talk.origins FAQs.
-- 
 "look on the bright side, is suicide"     -- Nirvana

>In the area of origins, the use of science is very problematic.
yes, but it is valid.
>How do we observe things before there is an observer?
we make assumptions, like if there was no gravity, then people
wouldn't invent the wheel, or some such thing.
>How can we with intellectual honesty formulate a theory based on so few
>observable facts?
like above.
>How do we provide a control and test group?
you don't have to. unless you're a solopsist, which means that you
wouldn't even be having this discussion.
>How do we live long enough to evaulate our theory based on perdictions
>which require "geologic ages" to transpire?
oh you mean like the life span of bacteria?
geologic ages?
nice troll.
>I frankly do not see how any theory of origins can truly be called
>scientific, be it Creation, Evolution, Panspermia, or any other.
it's better (as in has more evidence) than claiming that the holocost
didn't happen.
>Do not blindly accept "science" any more than you would "religon".
you can't blindly accept science. science sits right in your face and
says if you drop this book on my foot, it will hurt.

>|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
>|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
>|> be living a bit closer to you :]
>    The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
>    This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
that must have been why in all those 2000 years, no one had a good map
of the journey, evidence from other cultures,or evidently managed to
sail there and back.

/On 13 Aug 1996 11:09:27 GMT, Inligtingstudies 9
 did inscribe into the ether:\
>Evolution should disprove the existance of a controlling intelligence but
>I believe it does the opposite.For an organism or rather a collection of
>cells to realise that it would fair better to have,say,a thick coat of 
>fur to cope with the cold,and then to go about changing its body over 
>thousands of years implies that an intelligence controls it all.The 
>nature of this intelligence is the debate.The procsses of evolution did 
>not come about as a result of rational thinking by organisms (they were 
>obviously incapable of it)and to affect an entire group that was or would 
>become a species would require an action throughout the entire group or 
>species requiring some means of communication to bring about the 
>necessary changes.I propose that a passive intelligence (not the 
>all-hearing\ all-seeing \all-knowing ) must control the progress of life.
>I do not believe that I ,or anyone else,is in a position to make 
>statements about Creation and  God for certainly there are truths and 
>faults in every system that poses to be divine or that claims to know 
>everything (for certainly this universe is to vast to be known from here)
Natural selection weeds out those with undesirable traits. They don't
survive to pass these traits onto their young, hence the traits
disappear. 
Evolutionary biologists use words like 'decide', 'choose', and 'pick'
because we have no other words to use in describing the methods of
natural selection. 
				Mike Turk
"Sir, I protest. I am not a merry man."
Worf, after being put in Sherwood Forest by Q in 'Q-Pid'

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv  Any unsolicited e-mail
|d? H s:++ g? p7+ !au a17 w+++ v- C++++ UL+ P+  |  by a corporate entity
|L+ 3 E--- N+++ K (W+ and W---) (M and M--) V-- |  which said corporate
|po--- Y+ t+++ 5+ j++ R G'' tv+++ b++ D--- B--- |  entity initiated shall
|e* (u--- and u*) h! f+ !r n---- y**            |  shall be subject to a $500 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  storage fee per message.
                                        E-mail sent to the address
                                                   constitutes an agreement 
                                                   to this contract.

/On Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:04:04 GMT, tomspain@ix.netcom.com (Tom Spain)
did inscribe into the ether:\
>Judson McClendon  wrote:
>>IMHO the most serious error that evolutionists make, and they seem 
>>virtually blind to it [probably a necessary and sufficient condition ;-) 
>>], is that they proceed from the assumption that there isn't a God, even 
>>though many will admit that you can't prove that God doesn't exist.
>Correct. Nor can you prove that he *does* exist.
>Don't be so smug, Judson. The only error here is yours in making the
>assertion that evolutionists 'proceed from the assumption there isn't
>a God'. Evolutionists and other scientists make no such assumption at
>all. The assumption they DO make is that the existance or non
>existance of god (or shiva or the tooth fairy for that matter) is
>irrelevant to the scientific study of evolution or any other field
>which lends itself to the scientific method. Deism, among others, is
>not a field which lends itself to study via the scientific method.
>This has been pointed out here many times to you and others. Just to
>make sure you get it...
>*Science, including evolution, makes NO assertions regarding the
>existance of god.*
>Your choosing to ignore this fact for the purpose of supporting your
>'Creation Science' nonsense is, at best, ignorance and at worst a damn
>lie.
>Where you and your Creation Science buddies get hung up with evolution
>is when you try to take science on because it can and does destroy the
>methodology you impose on god for *how* he created the world. 
Don't forget to mention that science makes absolutely no assumptions
at all. Science collects data, after which it interprets the data. If
there is enough data for interpretation, a theory is proposed.
Experiments are performed and data is collected. If this data does not
fit the theory, the theory is rejected; a new theory is proposed based
on a combination of the new and old data. The same process then
repeats.
>>Judson McClendon
>>Sun Valley Systems
>>Email: judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
[snip]
>BYTE-TECH
>technical services for business
>Modesto, CA        209 531-1144
>'first hour free' consulting services
					Mike Turk
"Sir, I protest. I am not a merry man."
Worf, after being put in Sherwood Forest by Q in 'Q-Pid'

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv  Any unsolicited e-mail
|d? H s:++ g? p7+ !au a17 w+++ v- C++++ UL+ P+  |  by a corporate entity
|L+ 3 E--- N+++ K (W+ and W---) (M and M--) V-- |  which said corporate
|po--- Y+ t+++ 5+ j++ R G'' tv+++ b++ D--- B--- |  entity initiated shall
|e* (u--- and u*) h! f+ !r n---- y**            |  shall be subject to a $500 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  storage fee per message.
                                        E-mail sent to the address
                                                   constitutes an agreement 
                                                   to this contract.

/On 7 Aug 1996 21:46:57 -0400, medved@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden)
did inscribe into the ether:\
>kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
>>On 6 Aug 1996 17:34:17 -0400, medved@access5.digex.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
>>>Evolution requires an essentially infinite number of zero-probability
>>>events,
>>Absolute rubbish.  They're only low probability if they're random, and it's
>>trivially easy to show they're not random.  Your entire argument dies.
>It's not my argument;  the probabilistic argument against any form of
>abiogenesis has been put forward by some very serious mathematicians and
>is summed up by Mebane as I have noted.  It's trivial only in the minds of
>the simpleminded such as yourself.
Chemical reactions are not random. Put two things together, and the
same reaction always results. Sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid
in equal amounts always combine to form salt and water. ALWAYS! You
cannot put these together and get sulfuric acid and water. You cannot
get anything but salty water. Do you understand? Put together methane,
ammonia, and the other elements of the early atmosphere of Terra and
strike it with electricity, you will always get various organic
molecules. ALWAYS! CHEMICAL REACTIONS HAVE NO DEGREE OF RANDOMNESS
WHATSOEVER.
>>How do you explain the complex organic molecules found in deep space?  Oh,
>>silly me, God just put them there to fool us.
>You want to talk about rubbish and then claim that you have any rational
>way of knowing that there are complex organic molecules in deep space?
>Did the aliens who kidnapped you and took you out into "deep space" do
>anything else to you?
They are detectable by their diffusion spectrum in analysis of
photographs taken by telescopes.
>Ted Holden
>http://access.digex.com/~medved/medved.html
[huge, ugly ASCII proto-art sig snipped]
				Mike Turk
"Sir, I protest. I am not a merry man."
Worf, after being put in Sherwood Forest by Q in 'Q-Pid'

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv  Any unsolicited e-mail
|d? H s:++ g? p7+ !au a17 w+++ v- C++++ UL+ P+  |  by a corporate entity
|L+ 3 E--- N+++ K (W+ and W---) (M and M--) V-- |  which said corporate
|po--- Y+ t+++ 5+ j++ R G'' tv+++ b++ D--- B--- |  entity initiated shall
|e* (u--- and u*) h! f+ !r n---- y**            |  shall be subject to a $500 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  storage fee per message.
                                        E-mail sent to the address
                                                   constitutes an agreement 
                                                   to this contract.

Gvwmoore@netcom.com wrote:
> 
> > I don't understand why many scientists cannot see this, or do not
> >accept anything but science as valid.
> because science is valid. religion is invalid.
Science is testable, (religious) faith not.
The scientific method is based on observations; from these observations
conclusions are drawn, and preditions made for distinct conditions of
new experiments. By doing these new experiments, it can be tested, if
the original conclusions were correct. 
Achim

roamer@global2000.net (Roamer) writes:

> This layer would only need to be a few inches thick to block almost 100% of incoming cosmic rays.
> Cosmic rays entering the upper atmosphere produce C14 which falls to the earth, where the plants
>soak it up and introduce it into the food chain. 
> This would allow for almost no C14 absorption in that first 1000 years which would make anything
>that died during the flood appear MILLIONS of years old radiometrically.
> More?
According to my bio book C14 is only good for stuff less than 50000 years
ago,cause its halflife is 5600 years,so dating something from when there
were dinosaurs uses other isotopes,like potassium-40,based on their ratio
of original to daughter products.Since these don't use C14,and aren't
hypothesized to come from cosmic rays,I don't see how this layer of water
could change anything re: the dinosaurs. I've never heard of cabon dating
for dinosaurs except in arguments supporting creationism,so I would really
appreciate it if you could give me the references that describe this.
Thanx-
Felix

Richard Moss  wrote:
>Hi ya,
>
>hope someone hears this (looks like this newsgroup has gone the way of
>many ...)
>
>I just got back from holidays, where I collected several nice rocks
>from streams that look great when wet.  Is there any stuff (some sort
>of laquer perhaps) that you can paint them with, or soak them in, so
>they'll look "wet" all the time?
>
>
>thanks,
>
>Richard
Any kind of spray-on or liquid polyurethane will work fine.  If the rocks 
have a rough surface you may have to use several thin coats.  Avoid 
varnish or lacquer - they will yellow over time.
Also make sure the rocks are COMPLETELY dry - the finish will trap 
moisture and eventually look cloudy.
Hope they come out pretty!
LG

Richard Moss  wrote:
>Hi ya,
>
>hope someone hears this (looks like this newsgroup has gone the way of
>many ...)
>
>I just got back from holidays, where I collected several nice rocks
>from streams that look great when wet.  Is there any stuff (some sort
>of laquer perhaps) that you can paint them with, or soak them in, so
>they'll look "wet" all the time?
>
>
>thanks,
>
>Richard
Any kind of spray-on or liquid polyurethane will work fine.  If the rocks 
have a rough surface you may have to use several thin coats.  Avoid 
varnish or lacquer - they will yellow over time.
Also make sure the rocks are COMPLETELY dry - the finish will trap 
moisture and eventually look cloudy.
Hope they come out pretty!
LG

muliolis@en.com (Saulius Muliolis) writes:
>The big problem is that we can observe the motion of the tectonic
>plates today, and see the effect. A movement of only inches every
>year is enough to cause earthquakes all the way up the richter
Hey, maybe God quashed the earthquakes.  ;)
>scale. These quakes cause tsunami large enough to swamp cities
>and break up previously solid rock. Imagine the effect of quakes
Hey, an explanation for the great flood!
-- 
                                              ^-----^ 
 Michael Huemer         / O   O \
 http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl             |   V   | 
                                              \     / 

nkoozer@rosenet.net wrote:
>My question to "creationists" is:
>
>Exactly who gave you the authority to prohibit GOD from using HIS method of 
>creation, i.e. evolution?
>
>As if that were not enough, you further command HIM to retroactively not do the 
>creation (evolution) that HE has been doing for billions of years, that 
>culminated in the creation of you!
>
>What if HE would comply?
>
>
I seems to me that the best mark of a false religion is one
which makes a claim to an essential dogma and that dogma is
proven false.  Fundamentalism claims that God created the
Earth and all life in two days of sudden magical conjuring
and that all species present now were present then.
Well that has been refuted in many ways.  We know that many
species predated humans by millions and even billions of
years.  The fossil record shows sequential changes over
billions of years. There are rocks older than the Biblical
6000years by 4 billion years. We know from sea floor
spreading and laser mesurements of continental drift that
Pangaea separated about 240 million years ago. Fossils of
early reptiles were found on opposite sides of the atlantic
ocean in similar rocks in West Africa and Eastern Brazil.
Humans did not arise until 3 million years ago from
Ardipithecus whol arose from Ankaropithecus etc. So
creationism is a proven falsehood.  Any religion based on a
lie must also be false.
If all of the evidence supports evolution and none supports
magical creation, then it is obvious that the Theist must
accept evolution as God's method.  This make fundamentalists
the greatest of modern heretics.
The genuine theist must recognise that nature is God's
revelation uncensored by human superstition.  The Bible is a
superstitious, self-contradictory, obscene, and frankly evil
book that has been blamed on God in an act of blasphemy.
Eolai
Eolai

Well, this may not contribute to the believability of the mars rock,
but it was probably not potato sized when it was blown off mars.  Most
of it would of been burnt off during earth entry.  Of course, that
would mean it would require more energy to release escape velocity...
-Jon
john@mail.petcom.com (John S.) graced us with their knowledge
regarding:
>In article , 
>jacob@omicron.csustan.edu says...
>>
>>
>>Anyone ever try calculating how much energy a potato sized clay rock 
>>needs to have applied to it in order to achieve mars escape velocity? How 
>>about how much total energy an asteroid imp[act releases? My point being 
>>though it may be possible for ejecta to achieve escape velocity, the 
>>energy applied to the material will also liquify it in the process 
>>(perhaps creating a high vel gaseous plasma envelope as well) now, this 
>>piece of clay shows no sign of liguification. Just the normal re-entry 
>>burns associated with any meteorite strike. 
>>
>>Also, just what evedence do the scientists have that these signs of 
>>fossilized bacterial life origonated off earth? I find it more likely 
>>that this rock became infected after it fell to earth. early 
>>microorganisms will then have the time they need to 'fossilize' properly. 
>>
>>This whole episode smells a little to me.....
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>permission for Ted Koppel to quote me given-just dont change the context.
>>
>Hey, I agree totally. Everybody accepts that this rock came from Mars,
>because of what evidence? Maybe it's the same kind as the ones they
>picked up on the last Mars-walk? Or does it have a little 'm' in the bottom 
>right corner? :)  

Your best chance will be through agricultural services.  In the US we 
have the Department of Agriculture, and lots of "extension services" 
through universities.  Mostly they will just show soil type, though, not 
specific chemical content.
LG

In article <4v8ja0$ggi@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, Brad J Cadle  writes
>       Boy, Kennedy you have a REAL problem!!! All I said was that
> didn't know that Philips was a netherland company. I said that 
> as a statement of fact.  It was in response to finding out that
> that philips is a netherland company.  In other words I was 
> admiting to my mistake.  In addition, if you look at my original
> post I was stating that charles Cagle was WRONG in saying that
> all technologie that become standardized, are based on american acceptance.
> ALthough, I did say that he might be right in general.  Clearly my 
> CD example was wrong (At least in terms of where it was invented).
> Indeed the US, ,might not be the litmus test in general. My point is I was on 
> your side on this one.  If you couldn't see that than perhaps you need
> to open your eyes.  Incidently, I apologize on be half of all
> americans for not knowing the country of origin for philips is the netherlands.
> 
>
>                                               -Brad   
Sorry Brad, my patience just snapped on that one ;=)
I wasn't getting at you in particular, I just got pissed off by one
continuous stream of irrelevant, and in the main wrong 'US is better
because ...' postings to a thread which started out quite sensible a few
days ago.  Maybe *we* should have stopped reading when the mindless
masses (CC inc) started posting.
_______________________________________________________
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers

Jolly Griggs  writes:
>I am giving a $10,000 prize to anyone who can prove that evolution is 
>true. Check the site below for details.
>http://www.west.net/~jollyf
I don't think you really mean that.  Evolution has
been demonstrated, so you're too late.
Have a nice day.
PS, I believe another creationist knothead has made the
same offer.  When Jim Lippard asked for further info, none
was forthcoming.

In article <4v87he$2na@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, 
Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>In article , 
>eijkhout@jacobi.math.ucla.edu says...
>>
>>In article <4v3plv$a28@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> 
>Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi) writes:
>>
>>> First, some in this group have had problem to understand my 
>"windows" 
>>> in terms  of  (Army/Navy) duration and European/Amarican langage 
>>> (International langage -1 to 12 AM then 1200 PM to 24.00
>>> PM hours etc.. 
>>
>>"-1" ??? I thought army/international went from 0:00 to 23:59,
>>no am or pm, and definitely no negative numbers.
>>
>>[major snippage]
>>
>>> My window are simply 
>>> (cyclonic Resonance).
>>
>>This is not (a sentence). (that make sense to you!)
>>[major snippage]
>>
>>Turi, English is not your first language, is it? Maybe you could
>>hire a ghost writer for your posts. I find them unintelligible.
>>Or maybe you should learn French and converse in MY langage!
>>[major snippage]
>
>>> One vector is the DC frequency coming from the 
>>> earth and the other "AC vector" from our solar system.
>>
>>I'm only a poor math Ph.D. Please explain what you mean by a 
>'vector'.  
>>
>>>  Our bodies, 
>>> brains, earth are literally electromagnetic fields that vibrate
>>> within these two vectors.
>>
>>*Two* vectors? What's the other one? (the stars) And I assure you, 
my 
>body
>>is not "literally" an electromagnetic field. Have you heard of aura?
>>
>>Victor.
>>-- 
>>405 Hilgard Ave ................................. `We are in danger 
>of getting
>>Department of Mathematics, UCLA ............. government by the 
>clueless, over
>>Los Angeles CA 90024 ................. a place they've never been, 
>using means
>>phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 ....... they don't possess' [John 
Perry 
>Barlow]
>>http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout/
>
Hi Victor - Lets see the results of the "window" 
MEMO OF THE  POST -
Path: netnews.worldnet.att.net!newsadm
From: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Next window Aug. 19th, 1996
Date: 16 Aug 1996 02:36:34 GMT
This theory is at an early stage and is  EXPERIMENTAL only.
Next window is for Aug.19th, 1996- A window is operational 1200 hours 
centering the given date and sometimes a few hours before and after 
the window - 
Thus 1200 Aug. 18th through 1200 hours Aug.20th - UTC is used.  This 
theory is not 
yet recognized by the scientific community or USGS and indicate only 
the possibility for 
UNUSUAL and HIGH seismic activity as experienced with Mammoth over 150 
quakes, 
Hawaii swarm (on the windows of July 30th and Aug. 24th).
Previous windows pin pointed in many occasions earthquakes of a 
minimum of 6.0 and well above 6.5 including a variety of nature 
devastative forces 
leading to many thousands of people to relocate.   " As above as 
below", everything is 
interrelated,  the windows do not stop at earthquakes probability but 
include different
ways of  mother nature expressing herself generating dramatic news.  
This negative
celestial energy also affects sophisticated electronics equipments 
planes/ boats/ trains/
cars/ airport traffic control towers and electronics failures thus 
lost of general power as
experienced with both dramatic 7-state blackout that struck on  my 
window  (last one)
was for August 10 at 3:45 PM as the power was lost  from Canada to 
Mexico and in WA,
OR, CA, NV, AZ, ID and TX! . This next window will see the worse of 
our society active
and could also involve dramatic news with the police force.
=================================================
> This negative celestial energy also affects sophisticated 
electronics equipments planes/
boats/---------------------August 18, 1996 on the window!
JACKSON HOLE, Wyoming  -- The pilot of a  presidential cargo plane 
flying to
President Clinton's birthday party may have been trying to return to 
the airport when the
C-130 slammed into a mountain minutes after takeoff, apparently 
killing all                   
nine people on board. 
> This next window will see the worse of our society active and could 
also involve
dramatic news with the police force.----------------Hackers invade 
Justice Department
Web site
NOTE -===========================
A Supernova month is about to unfold.  Weeks before January 1996 I 
posted my predictions for a Supernova window.Then, a few weeks later, 
as anticipated "A record breaking weather development" hit New York 
early January 1996-
September 1996 will be one of the worst month in 1996 in terms of 
weather development
and natural disasters. 
On the following windows, expect the weather to go seriously out of 
hand. The upcoming nefarious energy will produce chain reaction 
accidents, oil spill, sea accidents. On certain given dates expect 
volcanoes 
eruption, tornadoes, floadings and large earthquakes.  This energy 
will certainly affect airports electronics and thousands of travelers 
will be stucked "cancelation flights". Black out, lost of power and 
general communication is very high on my windows. If NASA decide to 
launch the shuttle, they are on for serious electronics failures and 
trouble then costly cancellations. A shuttle exploded a few years ago 
and many expansive satelites were lost during these "Supernova" 
windows. 
Here is the dates and  please PRINT THEM!
September 2nd - 
September 11th -
September 17th-
September 29th-
The next Supernova window is for December 1996.
I would like to thanks all the people on this group for their 
participation.
Respectfully to all
Dr. Turi

In article <4v87he$2na@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, 
Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>In article , 
>eijkhout@jacobi.math.ucla.edu says...
>>
>>In article <4v3plv$a28@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> 
>Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi) writes:
>>
>>> First, some in this group have had problem to understand my 
>"windows" 
>>> in terms  of  (Army/Navy) duration and European/Amarican langage 
>>> (International langage -1 to 12 AM then 1200 PM to 24.00
>>> PM hours etc.. 
>>
>>"-1" ??? I thought army/international went from 0:00 to 23:59,
>>no am or pm, and definitely no negative numbers.
>>
>>[major snippage]
>>
>>> My window are simply 
>>> (cyclonic Resonance).
>>
>>This is not (a sentence). (that make sense to you!)
>>[major snippage]
>>
>>Turi, English is not your first language, is it? Maybe you could
>>hire a ghost writer for your posts. I find them unintelligible.
>>Or maybe you should learn French and converse in MY langage!
>>[major snippage]
>
>>> One vector is the DC frequency coming from the 
>>> earth and the other "AC vector" from our solar system.
>>
>>I'm only a poor math Ph.D. Please explain what you mean by a 
>'vector'.  
>>
>>>  Our bodies, 
>>> brains, earth are literally electromagnetic fields that vibrate
>>> within these two vectors.
>>
>>*Two* vectors? What's the other one? (the stars) And I assure you, 
my 
>body
>>is not "literally" an electromagnetic field. Have you heard of aura?
>>
>>Victor.
>>-- 
>>405 Hilgard Ave ................................. `We are in danger 
>of getting
>>Department of Mathematics, UCLA ............. government by the 
>clueless, over
>>Los Angeles CA 90024 ................. a place they've never been, 
>using means
>>phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 ....... they don't possess' [John 
Perry 
>Barlow]
>>http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout/
>
Hi Victor - Lets see the results of the "window" 
MEMO OF THE  POST -
Path: netnews.worldnet.att.net!newsadm
From: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Next window Aug. 19th, 1996
Date: 16 Aug 1996 02:36:34 GMT
This theory is at an early stage and is  EXPERIMENTAL only.
Next window is for Aug.19th, 1996- A window is operational 1200 hours 
centering the given date and sometimes a few hours before and after 
the window - 
Thus 1200 Aug. 18th through 1200 hours Aug.20th - UTC is used.  This 
theory is not 
yet recognized by the scientific community or USGS and indicate only 
the possibility for 
UNUSUAL and HIGH seismic activity as experienced with Mammoth over 150 
quakes, 
Hawaii swarm (on the windows of July 30th and Aug. 24th).
Previous windows pin pointed in many occasions earthquakes of a 
minimum of 6.0 and well above 6.5 including a variety of nature 
devastative forces 
leading to many thousands of people to relocate.   " As above as 
below", everything is 
interrelated,  the windows do not stop at earthquakes probability but 
include different
ways of  mother nature expressing herself generating dramatic news.  
This negative
celestial energy also affects sophisticated electronics equipments 
planes/ boats/ trains/
cars/ airport traffic control towers and electronics failures thus 
lost of general power as
experienced with both dramatic 7-state blackout that struck on  my 
window  (last one)
was for August 10 at 3:45 PM as the power was lost  from Canada to 
Mexico and in WA,
OR, CA, NV, AZ, ID and TX! . This next window will see the worse of 
our society active
and could also involve dramatic news with the police force.
=================================================
> This negative celestial energy also affects sophisticated 
electronics equipments planes/
boats/---------------------August 18, 1996 on the window!
JACKSON HOLE, Wyoming  -- The pilot of a  presidential cargo plane 
flying to
President Clinton's birthday party may have been trying to return to 
the airport when the
C-130 slammed into a mountain minutes after takeoff, apparently 
killing all                   
nine people on board. 
> This next window will see the worse of our society active and could 
also involve
dramatic news with the police force.----------------Hackers invade 
Justice Department
Web site
NOTE -===========================
A Supernova month is about to unfold.  Weeks before January 1996 I 
posted my predictions for a Supernova window.Then, a few weeks later, 
as anticipated "A record breaking weather development" hit New York 
early January 1996-
September 1996 will be one of the worst month in 1996 in terms of 
weather development
and natural disasters. 
On the following windows, expect the weather to go seriously out of 
hand. The upcoming nefarious energy will produce chain reaction 
accidents, oil spill, sea accidents. On certain given dates expect 
volcanoes 
eruption, tornadoes, floadings and large earthquakes.  This energy 
will certainly affect airports electronics and thousands of travelers 
will be stucked "cancelation flights". Black out, lost of power and 
general communication is very high on my windows. If NASA decide to 
launch the shuttle, they are on for serious electronics failures and 
trouble then costly cancellations. A shuttle exploded a few years ago 
and many expansive satelites were lost during these "Supernova" 
windows. 
Here is the dates and  please PRINT THEM!
September 2nd - 
September 11th -
September 17th-
September 29th-
The next Supernova window is for December 1996.
I would like to thanks all the people on this group for their 
participation.
Respectfully to all
Dr. Turi

In article <4vb8lg$h1g@artemis.it.luc.edu>, msmith5@orion.it.luc.edu (Michael Smith) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: In article <4v24r5$bvf@artemis.it.luc.edu>, msmith5@orion.it.luc.edu (Michael Smith) writes:
>: >
>: 	... snip ...
>
>: >I am left wondering if this is a version of Pete Wilson's fascist 
>: >anti-immigrant policy 
>
>: I can think of no sane country in the world, including 
>: those most enlighted and dedicated to democracy, where the idea that 
>: people who entered the country illegally don't deserve a right to stay 
>: will be considered fascist.
>
>However, Gov. Wilson is entirely interested in denying citizenship to 
>children born in this country if they are born of illegal immigrants. 
>This, in specific, is what I am refering to as fascist.
>
I have a friend, a French physicist of Maroccan origin.  To be exact I 
refer to him as French since he resides in France for the past 20 
years (legally) but his citizenship is Maroccan.  He tried to obtain 
French citizanship and was denied.  Now, he's married to a French 
citizen and they've three children, all born in France.  Now, guess 
what?  The children aren't French citizens, in spite of the fact that 
they were born in France, that the mother is a citizen and that the 
father resides in the country legally.
The reason I'm telling all of this is to make clear that there is no 
universally accepted rule that being born in a place grants you 
citizenship.  There are very few countries where birth alone is a 
sufficient condition for citizenship and virtually none (other then 
the States) where birth is a sufficient condition regardless of the 
legal status of the parents.  So, now you've to decide.  Either, 
according to your criterion, the whole world is fascist (in which case 
the term is meaningless) or Wilson's proposed policy isn't fascist.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Actually, I do mean seismo-electric effect.  To make a long story
short, it has to do with electrical discharge from temporary
deformation of a layer (like a nice silty clay) that can be 
measured at the surface in a variety of methods.
Although I do admit to having a great deal of fun showing the 
Geology 100 kids the piezo-electric effect.  Sugar cubes and 
wintergreen lifesavers do the trick nicely.
Mike S. Nash
sinbad@prairienet.org

Christoph Buergi asked for literature on cataclastic rocks. You should specify
your interests
as there has been done much work by structural geologists and engineering
geologists ( including papers on rock slides and waste disposals). for
cataclastic rocks in the Eastern Alps try: Masch L. & Koch N.: Formation of
alpine mylonites and pseudotachylites at the base of the Sylvretta nappe,
Eastern Alps. -Tectonophysics,204, 289-306, 1992  and
"Arbeitstagung 1993 der Geologischen Bundesanstalt ( Hauser & Nowotny, red.):
Geologie des Oberinntaler Raumes, 234 p, Geol.B.-A., Wien, 1993. The
conference papers and excursion guides contain articles on rock slides ,
radon emanations and mylonites/ pseudotachylites. Herzliche Gruesse  Roman

Johannes Doll showed interest in geological maps of biological and chemical
ingredients of soil. Besides geological maps there are soil maps, rarely
issued by geological surveys. If you  cannot find a "Bundesanstalt fur
Bodenwirtschaft" which may publish soil maps (in-
gredients can be demonstrated in attached soil profiles) contact the
Geologisches Landesamt Baden Wurtemberg or the Geological Institute of
Karlsruhe University, professor Czurda.  gruesse Roman

Kennedy wrote:
> 
> In article , Charles Cagle
>  writes
> >How dense can someone be?  You are setting a new standard.  You will note
> >that I was referring first to things taught in modern physics as
> >intellectual inventions not actual inventions.  Then when I switched to
> >mentioning technology I didn't say that any of them were purely American
> >but I could imply that thanks to Americans and American investment in
> >technolgy we (the world) have much of the technology that we have today.
> >
> >I think you are making yourself look like an ass which heard something he
> >didn't like and sat down in the middle of the road.  The original point
> >was related to the fact that America pretty much leads the world in
> >science and technology.
> Which is why most patents registered in 1994, 1995 and so far in 1996
> have JAPANESE inventors or sponsors.
> 
> >You are too anal retentive, Tim.  Get a grip and stay with the discussion.
> >
> I'm getting bored reading this thread - it started as a discussion of
> life on Mars, but you have effectively degenerated it to 'My dad is
> bigger than your dad', only the proof you have cited is crap.  Go back
> to the cesspool you spawned from.  We can now start a new thread called:
> 
> Is There Life at :
>                 Singularity Technologies Inc.
>                 1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
>                 Salem, OR  97304
>                 Ph: 503/362-7781 ?
> 
> Probably, but very primitive and possibly extinct.
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers
Hey, let's start a new news group called 
alt.nationalistic.pissing_contest.
Then all you pseudo-intellectuals can take your non-scientific agendas 
over there and beat each other over the heads with it.
I used to come here to read about IDEAS.  This is worse than reading 
about how I can turn my $5.00 int $5,000,000 in one week.  At lease I can 
filter thru that crap.
Adam Kojoian

Kennedy   wrote:
>Gordon Long  writes
>>
>>  The scientific method works.  The paper does present evidence for
>>primitive life on Mars (yes, I've read it). 
>Evidence - yes
>Incontrovertible evidence - NO
>Evidence with simpler explanations - probably
>
>Yes, I've read it as well, and remain convinced that this is evidence of
>a near exhausted budget looking for reimbursement.
  But what's your reasoning?  You can't just say, "Well, the canals
didn't turn out to be correct, so this must be incorrect too".  Nor
can you say "NASA wants more money, so this result must be incorrect".
Given that the control samples -- meteorites taken from the same ice 
field in Antartica -- showed no signs of biological activity (i.e. 
absence of PAHs and carbonate globules), what basis do you have for
claiming that there are "probably" simpler explanations?  Of course,
you may be right -- it's entirely possible that an alternative
explanation may in fact turn out to be the case.  But you shouldn't
dismiss out-of-hand the possiblility of primitive life on Mars,
especially based solely on a suspicion of NASA's motives.
    - Gordon
--
#include 
Gordon Long                       |     Grad. Student, High Energy Physics
gordon@schwinger.physics.umd.edu  |     University of Maryland

Wayne E. Barlow wrote:
> 
> In article <01bb8982$00acd0a0$7e59c7cd@danger.provide.net>, "Lord Garth"  writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> |> In all seriousness can anybody identify a current complex life form in a
> |> transitional state.
> 
> All of them (except the one that will go extinct before speciating).
> 
> |> I would think that we have many examples of this
> |> phenomenon in our midst out of the tens of million different species on our
> |> planet.
> 
> tens of millions is probably an exageration.  There only is slightly over
> 1 million currently classified.
> 
> |> Please do not cite single celled life forms since there is no
> |> question that these mutate to adapt to their surroundings. I am looking for
> |> something like monkeys with feathers,
> 
> Why would a monkey grow feathers?  What about comparing New World and
> Old World monkeys?  Or spider monkeys and squirrel monkeys?  Or siamang
> gibbons and common gibbons?  Humans and chimps?  You will find that
> the evidence that they share a common ancestor is overwhelming.
> 
> But look at the hippopotamus, its nostrils are now located nearer
> the top of its snot to accomodate its watery lifestyle.  It is very
> likely that they may continue to migrate to such a point to be
> more similar to a whale's blowhole.
> 
> |> dogs with scales,
> |> birds that spin
> |> webs and have eight legs, ...etc.
> 
> Why would you expect any of these thing?
Because that is what always hapend in comicbooks when things
mutate, silly ;)

Bill Price (bprice@uidaho.edu) wrote:
: Ha!  These books [Kim Stanley Robinson's *Red/Gree/Blue Mars*] have 
: been in the back of my mind too, while reading 
: these posts.  It's interesting how similar the arguments/debates here are to 
: what KSR outlines in his books.  Corporate vs Govenment exploration, ethics of 
: terraforming, methods for terraforming.  Looks like he did a good job on his 
: homework.  Now if his next book "Blue Mars" would just come out ..........
It's out!  More than 2 years I've waited, but it's out; I've actually
held a copy (hard-cover - no trade edition, I was told) in my grubby 
little hands.
Now I just have to come up with $30 (plus tax).
Geoffrey Dow
-- 

In article , 
singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) says...
>
>In article <32182DA2.2781@ic.ac.uk>, Gavin Tabor  wrote:
>
>>What do you mean, the claim isn't falsifiable? Its very easily 
falsifiable.
>>The claim of Martian origin is based on the isotopic abundance in the
>>meteorite. So we look around on Earth until we find a similar strata 
>>with the same isotopic abundance, and similar structural features. End
>>of evidence.
>
>While basing such claims on something like isotopic abundance may be
>standard practice it is hardly the foundation for solid reasoning.  If
>such isotope ratios cannot be found on earth that does not mean they are
>not here.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.   And even if
>such were found one might retort that such claim might only be weakened
>not destroyed altogether.  There are quite a few other possible sources
>for those meteorites.
>
Name three. Oh, and as you're so keen on correct scientific procedure, all 
three places must be capable of producing this type of rock with the correct 
elemental and isotopic compositions.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
          All Opinions My Own (So My Employer Tells Me)

In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu 
(Henry Spencer) says...
>
>In article <9i24bkAPl7FyEwMY@kennedym.demon.co.uk> Kennedy 
 writes:
>>>  ALthough the underlying technology of television is an american 
invention,
>>WRONG!
>>Television was invented by John Logie Baird, of Scotland...
>
>Logie Baird's mechanical scanning, while arguably the first television,
>was a technological dead end, utterly unrelated to modern video systems.
>The underlying technology of today's television came from RCA.
So television was invented by a Scotsman! Just like the man said.
However, in common with many of todays great technological breakthroughs, it 
may have been invented by a Brit but the blinkered views of succesive 
governments have meant that commercial development had to be done elsewhere.
Of course many people might say that the invention is science and the 
development is just engineering - I couldn't possibly comment.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
          All Opinions My Own (So My Employer Tells Me)

In article <4v77mv$dtf@skipper.netrail.net>, kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal) wrote:
>In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, Zepp (zepp@snowcrest.net) wrote:
>>)Actually, it was Kaz Vorpal who wrote the idiotic srtatement attributed 
to 
>>)George.  George, having a functioning cerebral cortex, knows better! 
>)grin>
>
>>)Besides, Kaz neglected to answer the central problem with his wall street 
>>)pipe dream -- since there are currently no profits to be made on Mars, 
why 
>>)on earth would any of the big companies go there?  It's not like anyone's 
>>)been keeping them OUT of space these last thirty years; but, like the 
good 
>>)little Ferengii they are, they have no interest in it. (With the notable 
>>)exception of a few companies like Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Rockwell, 
and 
>>)so on.  But even they needed government funding and backing)
>	"Wall Street"? Another silly socialist with dreams of how his use 
>of centralized force is more efficient than freedom of choice, eh?
>
>	You just illustrated the central point, which only requires a 
>basic understanding of what "value" means to be comprehensible.
>
>	See, value is only what people are willing to exchange for 
>something. Therefore, if you "can't make a profit", then it does not have 
>enough VALUE. For you to take money...and thus the food, shelter, and 
>happiness that it can indeed purchase...out of the hands of people who 
>value /other/ things more than your little project, and you consume it in 
>an inefficient, centrally mismanaged trip into space which couldn't 
>possibly pay for /itself/, then you are a thief and a rapist of the 
>freedom of choice. Note the usage of "you" in a third party sense...you 
>yourself are only an advocate of that theft and rape. 
>
>	And people have most certainly been kept out of space. It's 
>called mandated competition. Any private venture must suffer the prices 
>created by the lavished abuse of money stolen by force away from the 
>private sector, that doesn't need to be used efficiently enough to return 
>equal or greater value. They must function /without/ that money 
>contributing economic velocity to the economy from whence they must 
>derive their funding, as well. They must compete with the government's 
>rape of the economy through inflation of the currency with the deficit, 
>government "investments" in inflationary holdings stealing money which 
>would otherwise have been invested in private industry.
>
>	The list of reasons that government-forced socialist projects 
>destroy private competition in their given industry are many.
You really are an idiot, aren't you, Kaz.  The money spent on the space 
program circulates back into the economy, you know.  The chairman of 
Rockwell doesn't just bury it in his yard in a cookie jar.  It is paid out 
as wages and purchases, which then circulate again, when the recipients in 
turn spend it.  Stripped of the National Enquirer-type emotional buzzwords 
like rape and socialist (oo, are you shivering under the bed yet?  Watch 
out, the socialist under the bed is going to eat you)
In truth you have it backwards.  Since private interests are at the mercy of 
boards of directors and groups of stockholders, they must always turn a 
profit, which often means cutting corners somewhere in order to pocket the 
difference.  If something will not bring in an immediatre profit, they see 
no use in it.  This attitude is one of the reasons why the Japanese are 
whipping our economic asses off -- they can and DO plan for the long run.  
The eventual return in knowledge and technological advances from space is 
enormous -- but it takes several years to percolate out.  If folks like you 
have their way, we'll sit down here afraid of the boogey man, til one last 
asteroid comes along to put us out of our misery.  No thanks.
BTW I'm neither a socialist nor a capitalist -- better get some windex, I 
think your crystal ball's got a dirty windshield.
Greywolf the Wanderer, borrowing zepp's account

In article <4v772t$hbs@rosenews.rose.hp.com> duanec@rose.hp.com (Carroll_Duane) writes:
>Richard Hoagland wrote about this very subject in the February issue
>of "star and sky" or is it the other way around, in 1980! ...
>So, what gives with these guys from NASA saying they were the first to
>think about this ... Hoagland wrote about this 16 years ago!
Hoagland was a journalist, not a scientist -- he was reporting others'
ideas, not his own.  If you check out the January 1980 issue of National
Geographic, you will find the same ideas presented in their feature
article on the Voyager Jupiter flybys, which Hoagland did *not* write.
-- 
 ...the truly fundamental discoveries seldom       |       Henry Spencer
occur where we have decided to look.  --B. Forman  |   henry@zoo.toronto.edu

In article <4v76mf$dtf@skipper.netrail.net>, kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal) wrote:
(quoting someone else, first)
>>)  If you refuse to build that dreamship, then you're just the typical
>>)  liberloonarian, full of bluster and hot air.
>
>
>	As far as /you/ know, there is a free market, because you haven't 
>the slightest understanding of economics.
>
>	First, even if there were no regulation of private aerospace 
>activities, it would still not be a free market. There is a concept 
>beyond the view of most people called mandated competition. As long as 
>the government steals money from the poor to pay for their space 
>projects, they function as competitors against a private sector who must 
>actually /earn/ the money. The government, not having to earn it, is able 
>to pay more for less and return inferior results. This makes private 
>"competition" nearly impossible, the prices become insanely inflated.
>
>	Second, there is of course enormous regulation of the industry, 
>and of every industry linked to it. Economic ignoramuses don't realize, 
>of course, but regulation is the creator of stagnation and monopoly. 
Bwaa-ha-ha-ha-ha!!  Geez, Kaz, you have got to be kidding, right?  
Regulation is the one thing that keeps the multinationals from simply moving 
in and declaring that they own us!!  We tried deregulating in the twenties 
-- result was the great depression.  Reagan deregulated air travel -- and 
promplty half the carriers went tits up, forced out of business by 
deliberate economic sabotage, done by their competitors.  He deregulated the 
S & Ls -- and look how much that little pecadillo cost the taxpayers.  And 
BTW the government does earn their money, by building things like interstate 
freeways; various huge water projects; the armed forces...
    The main reason costs are so high in the aerospace industry is enormous 
fraud and theft by the very companies who whine that they cannot compete.  I 
know this to be true -- I've worked for defense contractors before, on 
security details.  You'd be amazed at what tries to get up and walk out of 
those places.
     Mandated competition is a looneytarian straw man -- the concept is pure 
USDA choice grade bull puckey.
Dream on, Kaz -- but ya better keep a hand on yer wallet, considering who 
you like to call your friends.
Greywolf the Wanderer, borrowing zepp's account
PS you still haven't answered how they are supposed to make any profits out 
there!  THAT's the biggest reason none of them bothered, by far.

In article <01bb8982$00acd0a0$7e59c7cd@danger.provide.net>,
Lord Garth  wrote:
[snip]
> As I recall, scientists are able to produce amino acids trying to
>duplicate the early earth, but they never were able to get life to form
>from their experiments. They simply concluded that it must have happened.
You misunderstand what they were trying to demonstrate. They started with
the a couple of assumptions: 
1) The inferred chemistry of the early atmosphere would produce chemicals
   which we can lable 'the building blocks of life', such as amino acids.
   This would happen *rapidly*.
2) Random association of these building blocks would lead to a
   self-replicating system.
   This would happen *slowly*.
The two speeds are relative to geological time. The 'rapid' process was on
the order of months, so they did an experiment to demonstrate it, which
succeeded admirably.
The slow process was on the order of millenia. Human science cannot
(currently) accomplish experiments on such timescales (for reasons more
political and practical than theoretical - try persuading an electorate to
fund a project which will supply esoteric knowledge to ancestors farther
into the future than we are removed from the ancient egyptians in the past). 
What we *can* do is observe the results of the process as it happens in the
world, we can model the process in the 'fast time' of computer simulations,
and we can develop analogous model systems (such as self-replicating
peptides). All these have been done, and support the second assumption.
The prebiotic soup experiment was run only to see if they were right about
the chemistry that resulted in the building blocks. No-one expected life to
appear in the couple of months it was run for.
>In all seriousness can anybody identify a current complex life form in a
>transitional state.
Absolutely. Look at every 'urban' species - foxes, gulls, rats, cockroaches
etc etc. They are beginnning to exhibit specific adaptations to the urban
environment after only a few hundred years. Fortunately for us we are in a
period of relative long-term environmental stability, so other examples of
change fostered by environment are harder. In one sense however, *all*
currently extant lifeforms are in a transitional state, because every
generation is selected against the environment - they are simply
transitional between very well adapted and very very well adapted, with the
gradual improvements too tiny for us to observe. Should the environment
change radically, (such as being "London" instead of mixed deciduous
woodland), we will expect to see a slow accumulation of features over
millenia. Behavioural changes come faster, and those are already apparent.
> I would think that we have many examples of this
>phenomenon in our midst out of the tens of million different species on our
>planet.
Why? We arent entering or leaving an iceage, there are no vast tectonic
upheavals going on, and the only climatic change happening is only a few
decades old since it is due to our industrial influence. Theres no
environemnetal pressure thats been around long enough to force change... And
if there *had* been, we wouldn't have the precursor forms against which to
judge the change, other than by fossils whcih presumably you dismiss.
> Please do not cite single celled life forms since there is no
>question that these mutate to adapt to their surroundings.
If they do, why not anything else? By dismissing microbial fauna, you
dismiss the only things with a generation time small enough for evolution to
be observed to a marked degree within a human lifetime (as we have seen in
our hospitals heating systems, where antibiotic resitance has appeared de
novo.)
> I am looking for something like monkeys with feathers, dogs with scales,
>birds that spin webs and have eight legs, ...etc.
Then you are looking for something that evolution doesnt suggest ever
happened. *shrug*
M.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-   -.-. .- .-.. .-..  -- .  -.-. --- --- ...  .-.-.-   -=-=-=-=-
Mark O'Leary,				Voice: Extn. 6201
Network & Communications Group.		Email: moleary@dmu.ac.uk
De Montfort University, UK.			

Bradley Kranz wrote:
> 
> gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman) wrote:
> 
> > You're talking about Haeckel, and 'ontogeny recapulates
> >phylogeny'.
> >
> > This wasn't fraud by any means -- it was a serous, though
> >mistaksn, hypothesis.
> 
> This definitely was a fraud.  Haeckel altered diagrams to fit his
> hypothesis.   He altered diagrams of the human embyro and the embyro
> of the species he was comparing it to.  To try and make the different
> stages of the human embyro look like the embyro of an animal at a
> particular time of its gestation.
It doesn't take much immagination for me to "see" all kinds of different 
animal embryos in the image of a human embryo :)
Heck, look at human newborns: just like chimp newborns 8@)

On 8/19/96 4:25AM, in message <4v8ja0$ggi@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, Brad J 
Cadle  wrote:
> In article ,
> Kennedy   wrote:
> >In article <4v5far$gr4@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, Brad J Cadle  >um.gas.uug.arizona.edu> writes
> >>Intersting I wasn't aware the Phillips was a netherland company.
> >>was it developed by in netherland or Here in the U.S. by U.S. citizens?
> >WHAT !?~%&!!!
> >Philips of Eindhoven.
> >For christ sake, Eindhoven is near as dammit ONLY Philips - and BTW
> >their is ONLY one L.  Even PSV Eindhoven football team is the COMPANY
> >TEAM!
> >
> >I never realised that Americans were SO ignorant of the rest of the
> >world UNTIL I read this thread.
> >
> >>It looks like I stand Corrected.
> >TOO RIGHT
> >
> >_______________________________________________________
> >Kennedy
> >Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> >A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> >Python Philosophers
> 
>   Boy, Kennedy you have a REAL problem!!! All I said was that
>  didn't know that Philips was a netherland company. I said that 
>  as a statement of fact.  It was in response to finding out that
>  that philips is a netherland company.  In other words I was 
>  admiting to my mistake.  In addition, if you look at my original
>  post I was stating that charles Cagle was WRONG in saying that
>  all technologie that become standardized, are based on american acceptance.
>  ALthough, I did say that he might be right in general.  Clearly my 
>  CD example was wrong (At least in terms of where it was invented).
>  Indeed the US, ,might not be the litmus test in general. My point is I was on 
>  your side on this one.  If you couldn't see that than perhaps you need
>  to open your eyes.  Incidently, I apologize on be half of all
>  americans for not knowing the country of origin for philips is the netherlands.
>  
> 
>                       -Brad   
how many americans know where the netherlands are ??

On 8/19/96 2:20AM, in message 
, Kennedy 
 wrote:
> >Charles Cagle wrote:
> >> 
> >[A lot of drivel deleted]
> >
> >> 
> >>  (I am not decrying US scientistsm,
> >> >who are no worse or no better than most other scientists. I just don't like
> >> >the blanket "everybody follows the US because we are so grat" mentality).
> >> 
> >> Now I know I've hooked one full of ignorant prattle.  You have let your
> >> national pride set your mouth in motion without your brain being in gear.
> >> That's what makes for easy fishing by the way.  Listen Aussie, go to your
> >> library and see if you can figure out just how many things which are
> >> taught in modern physics were purely Australian inventions compared to,
> >> say, purely American.  Or let's talk modern technology like the 
> 
> >telephone,
> Alexander Graham Bell : Scotland
> 
> >> motion pictures, 
> Louis & Auguste Lumiere : France
> 
> >television,
> John Logie Baird : Scotland
> 
> > transistors,
> William Bradford Shockley : England.
> John Bardeen : US
> Walter Brattain : China 
> 
> Ain't found the US as the pure - or even prime - inventors of any of the
> modern technology you refer to.  
> 
> Maybe the reason most of the great scientists in the US are foreigners
> is because the US wastes most of its eduacation budget trying to teach
> DICKHEADS LIKE YOU! 
> _______________________________________________________
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers
You forgot nicolas Tesla !!
father of the 20th century. Did most of his work in the USA but was most 
definately not american. The first person ever to turn down a scientific nobel prize.
The american don't invent , they buy the brains.
The american space program ?
Von Braun and his cronies courtesy of Germany.
Einstein ?
Why are so many forgein people in the states doing MOST of the work.
Cause they have the bucks , nothing else.
As for american schooling ? backward !!
Why do the yanks take 5 years for the PHD , when in the UK they take 3 ??
Because they need the extra two to catch up , pure and simple.
The american schooling system classes below 85 IQ as being below entry level to 
state schools , Dooh !!
Sean Webb