Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32611

Directory

PLEASE remove sci.astro.amateur from your newsgroup header before
further responding to this thread. The subject matter is WAY outside the
scope of this newsgroup. Thank you for helping to keep the usenet
useable.
Tim

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. 

ANNOUNCING:
1997 International Ash Utilization Symposium
Oct. 20-22, 1997
Lexington, Kentucky (USA)
Sponsors:
University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research
and
Elsevier Science, Ltd. / the journal FUEL
Scope:
all aspects of coal combustion by-product utilization
For more information, go to our Worldwide Web Page:
http://www.caer.uky.edu/ASH/ashhome.htm
Questions?  Please contact:
Gretchen Tremoulet
University of Kentucky
Center for Applied Energy Research
3572 Iron Works Pike
Lexington, KY 40511-8433
USA
e-mail gtremoulet@alpha.caer.uky.edu
phone (606) 257-0355, fax (606) 257-0360

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"?
-- 
Tom Scharle scharle.1@.nd.edu        "standard disclaimer"
                 "Presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan's assertion ... 
                 that he personally is not descended from monkeys 
                 explains a lot to those of us who _are_ from this 
                 planet." -- Gerald L. Epstein

Somewhere on the Web there is a document called "The Virtual Earth" 
listing Web resources related to earth sciences.  It was prepared by Phil 
Ingram:  pingram@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
You could also try the sci.geo.geology FAQ
-- 
Gerry Middleton
Department of Geology, McMaster University
Tel: (905) 525-9140 ext 24187 FAX 522-3141

In article <4vuld5$5b8@pt9201.ped.pto.ford.com>, haley@pt9231.ped.pto.ford.com (Bob Haley) writes:
>
>For that matter, Liousville proved (in 1835 I think. don't quote me.) that
>not all integrable functions have an anti-dervative.  Many folks take this
>notion out of context as well, if they are even aware of the theorem to
>begin with (saves a great deal of time if one does not exist).   Oh well,
>'nuf said.
>
Sure saves time.  The only problem is to determine that it really 
doesn't exist for the specific function you care about.  By the way, 
where have you been?  Didn't see anything from you for the last few 
months.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

What is the current instrument-of-choice for field work with radioactive
material or ore?  Is it a geiger counter or a scintillation counter or?? 
Thanks for any help or advice.
William Lund
oxyura@aol.com

In article <925954046.33839013@magnet.at>, "Roman G. Lahodynsky"
 writes
>Like Bill Lady many of us want to get back to GEOLOGY. When I looked into the
>so called geology newsgroup a week ago I made a strange discover. Among 30
>continuous posts
>22 belonged to the recently warmed up creationistic argueing
> 5 to exults at mars life
> 1 to the never explained mechanism of turis windows
> 1 to science theory
>but only 1 dealt with the development of atmosphere on earth.
>Before the ultimate solution (=moderation) suggested by Will Howard, Ross
>Brunetti & Paul
>Heinrich starts inevitably - why  not a voluntary sci.geo.forum for general
>discussion and ancient greek plutonium travellers, window predictions for
>craftsmen & tourists, evolution of creation & creatures of evolution ? By the
>way- geo.hydrology is only plagued by pyramid games. Thanks to Bill Lady, Jon
>Mosar, Jim Bone, Paul Saey, Eckart Bedbur, Rob Ingram, Mj.Smith & Laurie
>Green!  Roman
>
Sad to say Roman, whilst martian meteorites and science theory MAY be
relevant here, the sort of people (creationists and their ilk) who
clog up this newsgroup are not interested in having a separate forum.
Another newsgroup to which I subscribe - sci.archaeology has just had
to resort to having a moderated version (sci.archaeology.moderated)
in which it is now possible to have sensible discussions.  Some people
clearly gain perverse pleasure from being a pain in the neck to the
rest of us.
-- 
Jon Guite

Doug Bailey wrote:
> 
> Thanks for all the responses.  I think its firmly established that the
> Mediterranean basin flooded at least some 5,000,000 years ago.  However, I
> am confused.  I have read (though I can not currently recall where)
> evidence of massive flooding at Malta.  Some of the evidence consisted of
> the remains of various animals found usually in a large plain environment
> washed into the recessed cavities of caves on Malta.  A large assortment of
> bones have been discovered together as if to say that a variety of species
> were washed into the caves by some flood.
(snip)
Is there any evidence of flooding other than just a heap of different species 
being found together?  Exactly this sort of thing is known from the Naracoorte 
Caves in South Australia, and the accepted explanation there is that the 
animals simply fell down a hole (that being, of course, what a cave is) and 
were unable to get out.  BTW, some of these fossils are from well back into 
the Pleistocene, and include some superbly preserved examples of the 
Australian Pleistocene megafauna - well worth checking out, if you ever get to 
this part of the world.
============================================================
Mark Duffett                                                       
Centre for Ore Deposit and Exploration Studies 
University of Tasmania                                       
------------------------------------------------------------                  
G:  "It's gold ore!"
T&B;:  "Gold ore?!" 
G:  "Yes!  Gold, or, something else."           
 The Goodies,
'Gunfight at the OK Tearooms'
============================================================

On 24 Aug 1996 14:00:47 GMT, "Tom Henson" 
wrote:
>Curious, still, if the Industrial Revolution caused the chemistry of the
>region to change and this caused the moth to become black and if cleaner
>now and the moth reverts back does that still imply natural evolution?
First, what is the mechanism (biochemical) by which a moth's
coloration changes due to carbon particles in the air?  None that I
know of.
Second, regardless of the mechanism that causes some (not all) moths
to change color, the reason the entire population eventually came to
be darker is natural selection.  "Natural evolution", as opposed to
some other form of evolution?  That's a meaningless combination of
words.
-- 
Al

Stix wrote:
> Atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief.
What is theism?
-leonard

In article 
dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes:
> In article <4vna79$s5c@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>  >                                          I want you to co-author a
>  > paper, titled First Correction of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes.
> 
> I am afraid I have to refrain from doing such an honorable task.
   Thanks for the gracious answer. Since I made that post, I have been
thinking about such action and have come to the conclusion that I
really do not want to be published in a math journal anyway. I have too
much against the whole math community, its insidership, its
discrimination and its hoodwinking of the general public.
  I have better plans for publishing my math work, and it took this
post to you for me to come to this insight. That I should publish my
math in the book which has the PU theory. Separate a chapter out of
that book and have the whole collection of my math work there.  And the
book the PU theory will have the attention of the entire world, all the
scientists and the general public. Most will skip that math chapter,
but it is there, and it will be there longer than the bible is around
and longer than any math journal, but not as long as Lucretius De Rerum
Natura. 
   And a math journal is lucky if it reaches further than a few
interested math people, a very tiny population. And believe you me,
mathematics has politics in it just as countries have political power.
And the force of weight of the political power that will come of the PU
theory thrust upon that one math chapter in my book. Why, why, I can
envision in the future, math professors and math journal editors, if
math journals exist anymore, throughout the world having to answer
questions because of that one chapter...  
   And then a publisher will collect all of the VietMath posts and make
another book out of that. Vietmath should be a bestseller since it is
understandable by all, even junior high students.
  Thanks Dik, I should never aspire to something-- published in a math
journal, that I loathe in the first place, only because I want some
recognition. I just got a little impatient there and asked for your
help. Patience, like cleanliness is  next to god=ATOM. It has taught me
that lesson before in playing the stock market.

In article 
dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes:
> In article <4vna79$s5c@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>  >                                          I want you to co-author a
>  > paper, titled First Correction of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes.
> 
> I am afraid I have to refrain from doing such an honorable task.
   Thanks for the gracious answer. Since I made that post, I have been
thinking about such action and have come to the conclusion that I
really do not want to be published in a math journal anyway. I have too
much against the whole math community, its insidership, its
discrimination and its hoodwinking of the general public.
  I have better plans for publishing my math work, and it took this
post to you for me to come to this insight. That I should publish my
math in the book which has the PU theory. Separate a chapter out of
that book and have the whole collection of my math work there.  And the
book the PU theory will have the attention of the entire world, all the
scientists and the general public. Most will skip that math chapter,
but it is there, and it will be there longer than the bible is around
and longer than any math journal, but not as long as Lucretius De Rerum
Natura. 
   And a math journal is lucky if it reaches further than a few
interested math people, a very tiny population. And believe you me,
mathematics has politics in it just as countries have political power.
And the force of weight of the political power that will come of the PU
theory thrust upon that one math chapter in my book. Why, why, I can
envision in the future, math professors and math journal editors, if
math journals exist anymore, throughout the world having to answer
questions because of that one chapter...  
   And then a publisher will collect all of the VietMath posts and make
another book out of that. Vietmath should be a bestseller since it is
understandable by all, even junior high students.
  Thanks Dik, I should never aspire to something-- published in a math
journal, that I loathe in the first place, only because I want some
recognition. I just got a little impatient there and asked for your
help. Patience, like cleanliness is  next to god=ATOM. It has taught me
that lesson before in playing the stock market.

In article ,
   spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
>On 8/26/96 3:09AM, in message <4vqtgo$9hf@news.bellglobal.com>, 
>gillan@worldchat.com wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>This is a personal belief that does not have much more scientific 
>foundation than xtianity , but does have a probablity greater than 
>zero. Take away the bible, & the xtian GOD has a zero probability 
>(hence creationism).
>
>Creationism is supported by one book & 1 book alone. Sure there have 
>been many books on the topic , but fundamentally these arguments are 
>still based on the bible.
I think creationists are narrow minded people who cling desperately to 
their dogma with their eyes shut refusing to test their own ideas, but 
you are wrong in saying creationism is supported by only one book. The 
theme of creationism is echoed in many religions of the world. It is 
definitely not a Christian invention.
>The Bible makes a statement 'Everything was created in 6 days' . This 
>is an axiom without foundation and not open to discussion. The 
>statement is either completely right or completely wrong.
Now you sound like a creationist. Never insists that things must 
either be right or wrong. "Created in 6 days" could mean many things. 
How long was a "day" at the time of creation? (assumming there is a 
God and he created us etc etc) Who was there to witness this "6" days? 
Maybe it took a lot longer, and the "6 days" was a misinterpretation 
on the part of whoever related the story in the first place.
OTH if you are talking to a fundamentalist then give up and let them 
live in their magic world in peace.
>So to my mind evolution fits the criterion for scientific theory.
>To date i don't think that anyone can claim they have a complete
>theory for  evolution, but at least they are trying and making 
>progress.
I agree. You never see a creationist performing (repeatable) 
experiments to verify their ideas. They are like children who have 
been told that Santa exists and refuse to open their eyes and mind to 
an alternate possibility.

In article <4vk8co$8lv@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, jsanders@jove.acs.unt.edu (Justin M Sanders) writes:
>James G. Acker (jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>> 	I have a related question, but this one is probably 
>> answerable by my own research.  If someone lives 70 years and never
>> travels more than 15 miles from their birthplace, what are the 
>> chances they would witness a total solar eclipse?
>
>It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet, but how does this
>back-of-the-envelope estimate sound?
>
>If you never go more than 15 miles from home, then about 1,800 sq km of
>the earth's surface is accessible to you.  The total area of the earth's
>surface is 510,000,000 sq km.  If all parts of the earth's surface are
>equally likely to be in the path of an eclipse, then the probability that
>you will be in the path of any one eclipse is 1 in 283,000.
>
>Now there are, say, 2 eclipses per year, and you are observing for 70
>years, so that is 140 eclipses.  Your probability of seeing any one of
>these 140 eclipses is, therefore, 1 in 2000.
>
>Now, for that coffee...
I smell a bogus probability - correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like
you are assuming any one eclipse only blocks one km^2 of surface at a time,
but I don't think that is the case.  Or is my hayfever affecting my
sense of smell?
					Chris
-- 
Christopher Heiny        Professor of Bizarre Theories
University of Ediacara   Offther-Hocking Chair of Lunar Influences
chris@eso.mc.xerox.com
    "You are lying, Ted!"
    Shrieked Mrs Anomalocaris,
    "Liar,
         liar!
             LIAR!
    You are a liar, Ted!
    You were mating with that _nathorsti_ tramp again,
    Weren't you, Ted?  Liar!"
    And then she threw the platter of trilobites at him.
        'Song of Anomalocaris - The Soap Opera'
        Season 246, Episode 118a: Edward and Agnes Divorce

Can anyone recommend any books  or methods that will help me
determine the approximate ages of the various sedimentary layers
not just in Ordovician time but in most of the Paleozoic.
Specifically, I am interested in the sediments of the Colorado region
and want to get an idea of the time span in millions of years that the
various limestone and shale layers represent. It would help too if the
source gave an indication of the environment predominant in the
specific layers.
Thank You,
Dennis Jones
dennisj@csn.net

In talk.origins spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
>Another vain on that one, was a short story i read somewhere in the past , about a 
>man who had the ultimate conspiracy belief that everything around him was 
>created specifically for him to see/observe. At the end of the story , the viewer 
>panned back so to speak to overhear two beings discussing the fact that he would 
>never return to New York again , so they could tear it down and re-use the 
>materials and people else where.
You have the details wrong. But the (wonderful) story is by Robert
Heinlein. The title is "They" and is available in several Heinlein
anthologies. And alt.fan.heinlein may be the only group this did not
get posted to.
Verbing weirds language - W. W.

Burke J. Minsley wrote:
Try some of the good professors in the Purdue University Geology and 
Geophysics Department.  They are in the Civil Engineering Building.  Go 
down the mall  toward the Admin. bldg. and turn left.
>
> Hello,
> 
> I'm a senior in the physics department at Purdue University, and I am
> starting to look at my options for graduate school.
> After doing some geology field work over the summer, I'm fairly certain
> that I'd like to look at grad school in geology/geophysics.
> 
> The problem is finding out what professors are doing what projects
> and where they are.If anyone could point me in a good direction,
> I'd appreciate it.  Some listserc groups or web sites would be best.
> 
> Thanks,
> Burke

Kuhmichel (kuhmic@tcac.com) wrote:
: What about Clear Lake?  I think this may be natural.
Perhaps, but it is salt water.  It's actually a bay or tidal estuary, not a 
true lake.  It's so shallow that I often wonder if it will be continued, 
as a result of subsidence, or discontinued, as a result of sedimentation, 
assuming no other interference from man.

wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) wrote:
>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.
>
Actually, that is not true.  If one looks at the Bible along the time 
line of the writings of the books, one can see a significant theological 
development.  For example, the God of Israel changed from being the best 
and most powerful god of a particular people, to being the God of all.  A 
second example is the introduction of the concept of heaven, which is 
non-existant in the early books, and fairly explicit in Daniel.  Its even 
more explicit in the non-cannonical inter-testimonial books and in New 
Testiment references to the viewpoints of the Jewish people.
Books such as Jonah, Job, and Eccl. were written as dissents from the 
prevailing viewpoints at the time (yes, a redactor "fixed up" Job so it 
was not such a strong dissent, but that does not diminsh the origional 
intent.)
Dan M.

wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) wrote:
>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.
>
Actually, that is not true.  If one looks at the Bible along the time 
line of the writings of the books, one can see a significant theological 
development.  For example, the God of Israel changed from being the best 
and most powerful god of a particular people, to being the God of all.  A 
second example is the introduction of the concept of heaven, which is 
non-existant in the early books, and fairly explicit in Daniel.  Its even 
more explicit in the non-cannonical inter-testimonial books and in New 
Testiment references to the viewpoints of the Jewish people.
Books such as Jonah, Job, and Eccl. were written as dissents from the 
prevailing viewpoints at the time (yes, a redactor "fixed up" Job so it 
was not such a strong dissent, but that does not diminsh the origional 
intent.)
Dan M.

The Waterloo Centre For Groundwater Research has a WEB site at
http://darcy.uwaterloo.ca/

In article ,
david ford   wrote:
>Alan Scott on Sat, 17 AUG 1996:
>david ford wrote:
>
>> >The very fact that we can subdivide geological time on the basis of the
>> >types of plants and animals it contains speaks against the theory of
>> >evolution.  If evolution had indeed occurred, we would expect to be unable
>> >to classify organisms, since things would grade from one thing to another,
>> >making classification very difficult.  The problem of why we can classify
>> >things today was dealt with by Darwin by postulating that the splitting
>> >off of lineages had occurred in the past, meaning that the fossil record
>> >would be even more loaded with transitional fossils, if his theory was
>> >true.
> 
>> If you believe that there are such firm dividing lines, then you should
>> be able to easily define for us all of the kinds which are so clearly
>> delineated. The fact that you find such a task insurmountable puts the
>> lie to your flippant assertion.
>
>"Define for us all of the kinds which are so clearly delineated."  You
>are right.  I do "find such a task insurmountable."  I'm not a
>paleontologist.  A paleontologist would be the person to ask.  You might
>want to start with Charles Darwin and Jean Baptiste Lamark:
>
>"But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be
>justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as
>a fundamental fact of nature?.... Yet--and this is the irony--both
>Darwin and Lamark were respected systematists who named hundreds of
>species.  Darwin wrote a four-volume taxonomic treatise on barnacles,
>while Lamark produced more than three times as many volumes on fossil
>invertebrates.  Faced with the practicum of their daily work, both
>recognized entities where theory denied their reality."[Gould, _The
>Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 205.]  Instead of asking these two
>paleontologists, you could look at a guide book for identifying fossils.
Truly defining all the 'kinds' would be daunting. It is telling, however,
that you cannot even define a single 'kind'. I double dog dare you to
define only two of the vertebrate 'kinds'. I'll bet that, given any
objective criterion, there exists either a fossil or a living species 
which has characteristics which are intermediate between them.
Certainly, given the huge density of fossils classified by the gentlemen
in your above quote, it would be easy to skim through and find out where
the dividing lines between the kinds lay. Surely there must exist several
clear morphological gaps where there are no fossils. Why hasn't this
simple book-keeping task been done? The volumes are there to peruse for
anyone with a library card. DO IT!
-- 
Al Scott---Creationist quote of the Month: "It is not possible for there to be
two omnipotent beings, because if they got in a wrestling match, then they'd 
tie, and they wouldn't be all-powerful anymore. [...] A cause is logically
greater than it's effect, [...]" (David Ford)

	Odd that no one has mentioned the angular momentum of the
earth-moon system and the effect of tidal breaking on the period
of revolution of the moon.
	Currently we get total eclipses because the appearent size
of the moon is very close to that of the sun. The nodes of the
moon's orbit precess eastward on the ecliptic, the appearent earth
orbit in the sky, in a cycle of about 18.5 years. When the sun, earth
moon line up on the nodes we get either a lunar or solar eclipse. Because
the moon's orbit is an elipse we would get anular eclipses when the moon
is at apegee while at the node.
	The moon is receeding from the earth at an observed rate. I don't
recall how much, but this would seem to result from tides raised by it
slowing down the earth's rotation and the moon being moved to higher orbit
as the system conserves angular momentum. Heat would be a byproduct.
	This implies that at sometime in the distant past, billions
of years ago, that the earth rotated faster and that the moon was nearer.
In that distant epoch there would have been solar eclipses where a moon
with a much bigger appearent size that the sun would have blotted out the
sun on earth for hours instead of minutes. Lunar and solar eclipses would
have been more frequent. Depending on how far away the moon actually was,
prehaps with every lunation.
Bruce Salem
-- 
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!

Burke J. Minsley (minsleyb@london.physics.purdue.edu) wrote:
: I'm a senior in the physics department at Purdue University, and I am 
: starting to look at my options for graduate school.
: After doing some geology field work over the summer, I'm fairly certain 
: that I'd like to look at grad school in geology/geophysics.
: The problem is finding out what professors are doing what projects 
: and where they are.If anyone could point me in a good direction, 
: I'd appreciate it.  Some listserc groups or web sites would be best.
I did field work at Rice a few moons ago.  Mine was in Guatemala but they
have been more consistantly active in recent sedimentation (Gulf coast,
Bahamas, Belize).  A classmate who also did work in Guatemala still works
in the southern cordillera; look up Burke Burkart on the UT Arlington web
page.  In fact, I think you can find him by name through Yahoo or similar
search vehicle.