Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 31926

Directory

In article <4vvoaq$r07@news.nd.edu>,
   scharle@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas Scharle) wrote:
>In article <4vvk2m$gff@news.bellglobal.com>, gillan@worldchat.com writes:
>|> In article <4vv1u3$kns@news.sas.ab.ca>, czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () 
wrote:
>|> >[All NGs left in because I didn't know from which the below person wrote 
>|> >his question.]
>|> >
>|> >gillan@worldchat.com wrote:
>|> >
>|> >: What is science?
>|> >
>|> >: Does the theory of evolution meet the criteria for a scientific theory?
>|> >
>|> >In a word, "yes."
>|> 
>|> The word "yes" is the answer to "what is science" - I see that I'm out of 
my 
>|> intellectual league, because that makes no sense to me. 
>
>    I'm curious.
>
>    Is this what people mean when they talk about "literal 
>interpretation"?
>
You should ask someone who uses the term "literal interpretation"
Are you suggesting that scientific concepts would be more clearly communicated 
 with the use of literary devices than they would be with plain language?
Still waiting for an explanation of what science is.

In article , S Krueger  writes:
>In article <4vj0bt$qkc@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Andrew Poulos,
>DocDrew@worldnet.att.net writes:
>>I recently saw a book called The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy
[...]
>
>The answer has many facets. I'll give you some examples of the shades of
>gray that surround the debate. Consider these 3 more defined questions:
>
>1) Was there an impact, or impacts, at the K/T boundary?
>2) If yes, did it cause extinctions?
>3) If yes, did it kill the dinosaurs?
[Rest of nice answer deleted.]
I think modern thinking is pretty well summarized in Peter Ward's "End
of Evolution." It seems pretty clear that there *was* a massive impact
at Chicxulub. It is also clear that the Deccan Traps began their
massive eruptions about one million years *before* the impact. People
working on the effects of effusive basaltic volcanism on climate (Steve
Self, for example), tell us that Deccan must have had an immense global
effects, that sulphuric acid aerosols, acid rain, et al., were
inevitable. The dinosaurs were apparently in precipitous decline before
the impact. The impact provided the coup de grace.
Would Deccan alone have extinguished the dinosaurs? Would Chicxulub
alone? We shall never know. What is apparent is that the dinosaurs (at
least the non-feathered ones) could not survive the terrestrial-cosmic
double whammy.
-- 
Gerard Fryer      
gerard@hawaii.edu        http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~gerard/
Personal views only.

In article  wn181@news.freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Chris Behnsen) writes:
>Patrick Juola (patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
>: In article  wn181@news.freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Chris Behnsen) writes:
>: >Not at all true.  What about non-linear mathematics?  They involve a 
>: >certain amount of imagination, and hardly EVER have any real "rules"?
>: "Non-linear mathematics"?  I completed a degree in mathematics and
>: only one course could possibly have been described as "linear
>: mathematics."  (Intro Lin Alg, which I hated.  Something about a
>: terrible lecturer.)  What the hell are you talking about?
>
>Complexity Theory.  otherwise popularily known as CHAOS THEORY.
>Non Linear Mathematics is a sort of sub-division to that.:)
Oh, Jesus.  Iterated non-linear functions are supposed to be rule-free?
	Patrick

Followups set outside the science groups. 
spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) writes:
>
>Just how has christianity adapted ??
For one example, visit The Ecole Initiative material on Arianism 
 http://www.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/arians/arianchr.htm
and read away.  There were also, of course, a few adjustments made 
during the Protestant Reformation, plus what Vatican II did recently. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "Tolerance is not always a 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |   virtue."                
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |            Phyllis Schlafly    
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |    

I recently visited the Cotton Patch Gold Mine in New London, North
Carolina. They are open pit mining in a red clay soil for gold. (An area
about two football fields in size, excavated to 10 feet deep.) There were
some quartz veins in the red clay which also contained gold. They said that
the quartz veins intruded the clay when is was rock (sandstone?) and that
it had since decomposed into clay. After that surface weathering is
supposed to have crumbled the tops of the quartz veins releasing gold into
the clay.
Would anyone care to enlighten a novice? When did these various steps
happen? Is this explanation correct? Is this the usual pattern for alluvial
mineral deposits? Is the quartz vein a hydrothermal deposit or is it slowly
solidified magma. Perhaps there are some good amateur geology books out
there that would make things clearer?
Thanks in advance -- Gregg Shadel - gshadel@vt.edu

In article <4vpqv2$fbj@news.unocal.com>,
Richard Ottolini  wrote:
>As one sports company says "Just Do It".
>I find it an embarrassment that Russia, Europe and Japan have
>had SAR satellites up for years and the US is still talking about it.
>Most of the important recent geophysical and archeological discoveries
>have been made using *their* data.
  Add Canada to the list of SAR satellites.  RADARSAT was launched
(by NASA) last November.
  'Just do it', however, doesn't work well when you need to beg for
the money.  
-- 
Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much 
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they 
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences 

In article  
spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) writes:
   On 8/28/96 10:16AM, in message , Philip 
   Nikolayev  wrote:
   > In article  
   > wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes:
   > 	This is a difference between science and religion. A religion cannot allow
   > 	for dissent or change, because its adherents are mainly in search of
   >    certainty.  Science must allow it, however reluctantly.
   > 
   > No.  It's irrelevant whether religion @allows@ change; what matters is
   > the fact that religion @itself@ changes and adapts. Therefore, science
   > and religion are not different in the respect of change.
   male cow shit.
   Just how has christianity adapted ??
   As far as i can see, for the past millenium the bible has not been updated.
Oh, it's because you don't know enough, bubba. It has been updated all
right.
   So what is the critereon for your statement ??
Gee, tough titty, bubba! Care to point out the Biblical source for the
idea of the Trinity? Or, better still, come up with a scriptural
justification for indulgencies, Purgatory, and the merry bonfires?
"The moment the coin in the coffer rings, The soul from Purgatory
springs" - is that how it goes? How dumb can you get?
Cheers,					I am the God of New York.
Philip Nikolayev			I fart
nikolay@fas.harvard.edu				_The New Yorker_.

Gerard Fryer (gerard@hawaii.edu) wrote:
: I think modern thinking is pretty well summarized in Peter Ward's "End
: of Evolution." It seems pretty clear that there *was* a massive impact
: at Chicxulub. It is also clear that the Deccan Traps began their
: massive eruptions about one million years *before* the impact. People
: working on the effects of effusive basaltic volcanism on climate (Steve
: Self, for example), tell us that Deccan must have had an immense global
: effects, that sulphuric acid aerosols, acid rain, et al., were
: inevitable. The dinosaurs were apparently in precipitous decline before
: the impact. The impact provided the coup de grace.
	THANKS!  That's what I was trying to remember!
: Would Deccan alone have extinguished the dinosaurs? Would Chicxulub
: alone? We shall never know. What is apparent is that the dinosaurs (at
: least the non-feathered ones) could not survive the terrestrial-cosmic
: double whammy.
	It may be that mass extinctions REQUIRE such a synergy.
===============================================
|  James G. Acker                             |
|  REPLY TO:   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov  |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.

In article <50281m$rnu@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
paul oman  wrote:
>
>
>I am trying to determine the degree of reality regarding
>the shift from networked UNIX workstations to Windows NT platforms. 
>
>Are you planning, thinking about, doing, this shift?
>
>regards
>
>paul oman
>p.oman@ix.netcom.com
What I am seeing is a split in the traditional Unix band.  The low end,
particularly seismic interpretation clients, will probably move to NT.
High end applications that will benefit from threads and 64-bits (such
as depth imaging) will stay Unix.  Applications in the middle will 
trend towards whichever platform the bulk of that sites applications
go to.  In other words, If a site does a lot of dpeth imaging, there
will be pressure to run seismic interpretation on Unix.  If the site
does a lot of low end graphics, economics programs, and stuff like that,
there will be pressure to go NT.
I am not all that fussy about NT, but I really see this as a bang for the
buck issue.  If NT will do the job cheaper, more power to it.  I don't
see NT working in multithread 64-bit high performance computing solutions
any time soon however.
Will
-- 
#      Gravity,                    #    Will Morse
#      not just a good idea,       #    BHP Petroleum (Americas) Inc.
#              it's the law.       #    Houston, Texas 
#                                  #    will@starbase.neosoft.com
#
#   These are my views and do not necessarly reflect the views of BHP !

Chuck Karish (karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <502c6o$pp8@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
: James G. Acker  wrote:
: >	It may be that mass extinctions REQUIRE such a synergy.
: 
: An impact big enough to ionize the Earth's atmosphere or to
: cover the entire surface of the planet with half a meter of
: dust would probably do the job all by itself.
	Leaving the bacteria and the cockroaches to carry on,
right?
===============================================
|  James G. Acker                             |
|  REPLY TO:   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov  |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.

On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Judson McClendon wrote:
> There is a third [assumption underlying science]:
> 
> 3. The universe is explainable by naturalistic processes.
> 
> This is the assumption which is the basis of this thread's existence.
What does "naturalistic" mean?  What does this assumption add to the 
other proposed basic presuppositions of science (that the universe is 
comprehensible and the simplest theory which explains the data is 
best)?  What does it rule out?
---
Aaron Boyden
"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care 
not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained."  -David Lewis 

david ford (dford3@umbc9.umbc.edu) wrote:
: Michael Noreen on Mon, 26 AUG 1996, replying to david ford:
: > And beneficial mutations when there's a change in selection. We've had
: > this chat before haven't we. I've got more examples for you of
: > beneficial mutations if you want them.
: 
: Discussions of mutations that result in new biochemical pathways and new
: organs and entirely new structures appearing?  That sounds great.  I
: would like them presented, if it's not too much trouble.
	David, awhile back I asked you if the blowhole of cetaceans
represented a new organ.  I presume you've had time to cogitate on it
awhile, or if you answered, I missed it.  I'd like to raise the 
question again.
: He actually liked evolution at the gross morphological level.  But he
: correctly claims that evolution completely breaks down at the cellular
: level.  Quick test: flip through a biochem book.  Pick a biochemical
: pathway.  Ask yourself if the pathway could appear as the result of
: errors appearing in DNA, and construct a scenario that would allow for
: its construction.  Then, come back, and describe to us at the gene level
: how you think it is possible for errors in DNA to be responsible for the
: biochemical system.  You may have as much time as you like.
	Where's Deaddog when we need him?
	David,
	A. Delling (aka Deaddog) is an evolutionary biochemist
at Indiana University.  In the past, he has presented several 
remarkable examples of enzymatic pathways in different organisms that
do essentially the _same thing_, albeit through different chemical 
mechanisms.  He even demonstrates how, and where, the "splits" in
the pathways occurred.  He's an expert in this particular field, 
and I'm not.  But he makes an interesting case for the development
of biochemistry in organisms as being a very trial-and-error process.
In some cases, very elegant biosynthetic pathways are found in organisms.
In other organisms, the process is very roundabout, complicated, and
inefficient, but in both cases the process goes from starting moiety
A to product B.  The divergence of biosynthetic pathways is pretty 
much what would be expected from what you call "errors" in DNA.
	I have a feeling Deaddog would render Behe defenseless.
It'd be great sport.
: >: presents greatly strengthen the argument from design and absolutely
: >: demolish the evolutionary position.  By the end of his book, the theory
: >: comes out looking like a piece of irradiated toast, billowing clouds of
: >: black smoke.
	In short, there are biosynthetic pathways that are so perverse
that the argument from design is badly hurt. I doubt Behe discusses 
such pathways.
: The solution if such a state of affairs was discovered: Organisms with
: notochords in the Burgess Shale evolved from the mammalian predecessors. 
: As you yourself said, "Firstly evolution isn't directed; nothing in the
: theory says anything about the order of appearance."  So mammals before
: _Pikaia_ would be no problem for the theory of evolution. 
: Unfalsifiable.
	Since you used the words to describe one of my statements (and
have yet to explain why), I will use the same words:  This is 
stupid.  The structure of bone itself changes from fish --> amphibians
--> reptiles --> mammals.  (Dinosaurs show an apparent mix of 
reptilian and mammal bone structure, which may support the contention of
dinosaur warm-bloodedness.)  To expect the process to reverse and 
give rise to the conodont animal and anaspids is, basically, stupid.
: Keep in mind that verse 1 is an introductory line (as when an essayist
: has an introduction at the beginning of his paper to help preview what's
: coming up). that briefly summarizes what's coming up, and verse 2 is a
: depiction of the frame of reference in accord with the manner of the
: scientific method.  Keep in mind context, grammar, and carefully examine
: the words, looking up specific identifications of animals in a
: concordance or Hebrew dictionary as necessary, etc.  Evolutionists, you
: have a chance to falsify creationism, and your work is cut out for you. 
: Hop to it.
	Are you KIDDING?  This is trivial.  Look for "The wrong order" 
thread.
: > No. Evidence of special creation would for instance falsify it,
: 
: James A. tends to agree with me on this one.[26 Aug 1996]  Tell me,
: where in the theory of evolution does it predict that acts of special
: creation will not be observed?  Nowhere.  Thus, if we saw a case of
: special creation, the theory would not be falsified.  Unfalsifiable.
	I'd prefer this:  if something is observed in nature, 
science will not consider a non-natural cause for the observation.
: >:>>> Let me put it on the line David. Do you, or do you not consider
: >:>>> evolutionary theory to be unfalsifiable?
: >:>>> I am waiting with examples of solid evidence which, if found,
: >:>>> would falsify evolutionary theories.
:  
: >:> Here, I'll give you one which'd absolutely falsify Evolutionary theory
: >:> as we understand it:
: >:> A species, which has got genetic variation for a trait, but which does
: >:> not experience change in allelic frequency when a directed pressure
: >:> (selection) is applied to that trait.
:  
: >: This is microevolution.  I'm interested in macroevolution, the idea that
	David, you missed something here.  If you falsify microevolution,
you falsify the _whole theory_.   This is the basis, the foundation,
the cornerstone, if you will.   Argue against _that_.  We're discussing
falsifiability.  We propose that if such an experiment DID NOT WORK,
conclusively, just ONE time, that would falsify evolution.
	Get it?  This tests your whole "unfalsifiable" contention.
Respond to this statement.
===============================================
|  James G. Acker                             |
|  REPLY TO:   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov  |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.

In article <3225DA0E.63DE@raptor.lpl.arizona.edu>, Tim Patterson
 wrote:
|>daan Strebe wrote:
|>> 
|>
|>> 
|>> Fine. Out of 107 physics prizes awarded between 1935 and 1994, 44 were
|>> awarded to native-born U.S. citizens. That's 41%. Europeans and
|>> naturalized Americans of European extraction took 53 (50%) if we're
|>> generous and include the former U.S.S.R. Native born U.S. scientists took
|>> 32 out of 88, or 36% of the Chemistry awards, compared to 43 (48%) for
|>> Europeans. Native-born U.S. scientists took 50 out of 123, or 41% of the
|>> Physiology or Medicine awards, compared to 59 (48%) for Europeans. Native
|>> U.S. economists totally dominate the Economics prize. Literature is the
|>> only prize underrepresented by Americans, who took 6 out of 57, or 11%,
|>> compared to 38 (66%) for Europeans. I didn't look at the peace prize
|>> because I don't think it's relevant to this discussion, and, in any case,
|>> the U.S. designation appears surprisingly often in that list as well.
|>> 
|>> The proportion of U.S. laureates has steadily RISEN over those decades.
|>> Given that at no time did Europe have less than 1.5 times the U.S.
|>> population, this shows Europeans with their superior educational system to
|>> have produced: fewer Nobel laureates per capita, slower economic growth;
|>> lower per capita personal income; lower standards of living, and, in your
|>> case, sophistry instead of reason.
|>
|>Err, exactly where above does it show that "Europeans with their superior 
|>educational system...have produced..slower economic growth;
|>lower per capita personal income; lower standards of living, and, in your
|>case, sophistry instead of reason."
|>
|>I see nothing mentioned above about economic growth, personal income or
|>standards of living, unless for you the standard of living is related
|>to the chances of a Physics Nobel Laureate living next door!
You need references for those, too? Am I the only person on the planet who
has access to libraries?
|>And there
|>is more to standrad of living than just the ability to buy possesions.
|>Lower European crime rates, longer holidays, better public services, etc.
|>in Europe give a better quality of life.
I didn't attempt to dispute "quality of life". "Quality of life" is
whatever a person wants it to be, whereas "standard of living" is an
objective measure amongst economists. It measures what products and
services a person has access to with their income.
As for your specific comments: Lower crime rates sound lovely. But
differences in reporting wipe away some of the difference, and in any case
the proportion of Americans who are objectively affected by crime is far
smaller than the number of Americans who are told by sensationalists and
sensational media that they live immersed in crime. I don't see how a
murder rate twice that of Europe's makes any difference at all to the
overwhelming majority of Americans. Their odds of dying in a car wreck are
much greater than being killed by random crime.
Longer holidays are nice. And payed for with a lower standard of living.
"Better public services" is wrong. Standard of living measures include
public services, and the taxes they pay for them with are included in
income statistics.
|>> Maybe its time for you to shut up and think about what standardized tests
|>> really measure: the ability to score on standardized tests. Who cares.
|>
|>And what do Nobel prizes actually measure? The intelligence of a
|>nation as a whole? The acheivements of the nation as a whole? 
|>Not really; they are a specialised case. It's like saying that a
|>school is excellent if one pupil acheives nothing but A++ for
|>every test and the rest achieve F's.  
Have you even tried to follow this thread? I gave the Nobel statistics
because the Kennedy bigot demanded that it was objective, whereas the
"Invention and Discovery" statistics I gave before could be "butterflies".
His contention is that the U.S. has lower educational standards... and
that that is reflected in achievements.
|>> Maybe your allegedly superior educational systems are teaching the wrong
|>> things. By your own Nobel Prize metric, administered by wholly European
|>> institutions, you are shown to be full of bigoted shit.
|>
|>Nope, just shows that the Nobel Prize metric is not a good one. Does the
|>lack of literary awards for the US mean that the US is a long way behind
|>Europe in its general standards of writing? 
Nope. And if you would bother to follow the thread instead of jumping in
the middle you'd know the Nobel metric was the bigot Kennedy's, not mine.
daan

In article <4vv6ce$flh@electra.saaf.se>, pausch@electra.saaf.se
(Paul Schlyter) writes:
> In article <4vodq7$8ct@news-central.tiac.net>,
> Stan Ryckman  wrote:
[anonymous ... ]
>>> Well, I did get an answer to that one (from an 
>>> authoritative source) -- about 50,000 years.
[Ryckman ... ]
>> I'd put that "authoritative source" back on the shelf -- I believe
>> the moon's outward motion is on the order of inches per century,
>> not nearly enough to make a difference in 50,000 years.
[Schlyter ... ]
> It doesn't move THAT slowly outwards.  It's of the order of one or
> two inches per year, not per century.
   The only reference I happen to have handy quotes an acceleration rate of
-24.9 +/- 1.0 arcseconds/century^2, which converts to a linear seperation
rate of 3.7 +/- 0.2 cm/year. 3.7 cm is 1.46 inches. I presume that more recent
lunar laser ranging has improved this number, but it can't be too far from
the current value.
[The conversion to cm/year comes from the paper, not me.]
Reference:
"Tidal Acceleration of the Moon"
X.X. Newhall, J.G. Williams & J.O. Dickey
Page 51 in the book
"Earth's Rotation from Eon's to Days"
P. Brosche & J. Sundermann editors
Springer-Verlag 1990
Proceedings of a workshop held at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research,
of the University of Biefield, West Germany, September 26-30, 1988
ISBN 3-540-52409-6 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York
ISBN 0-387-52409-6 Springer-Verlag New York Berlin Heidelberg
QB633.E25  [QB633.E13 in the JPL library]
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson,              Timothy.J.Thompson@jpl.nasa.gov
California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer.
Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer.