Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32763

Directory

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <32262688.7D0A@superlink.net>, Eric Lucas  writes:
: >Better than decomposing, I suppose, which is what most Baroque composers
: >are doing now!  (Dare I say all?  Not in this crowd!)
: >
: Shades of Gary Larson :-)
No, it's Monty Python: "They're decomposing composers, there's less of them
every year, ..."
-- 
oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo Gerhild Kirchweger oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo_oo
|____ Department of Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics ____|
|__ Graz University of Technology/ Austria ___Tel. ++43 316 873 7212___|
oo_oo_oo_o http://fvkma.tu-graz.ac.at/~gerhild/gerhild.html _oo_oo_oo_oo

Between scientists and the followers of religion there has always
been controversy and strife for the reason that the latter have
proclaimed religion superior in authority to science and considered
scientific announcement opposed to the teachings of religion.  
Scientist, in turn, have condemned many religious teachings as mere
superstition and ignorance.  I believe that Religion and Science
are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated as both
reveal complementary aspects of a single truth.  
As to science, I believe it may be likened to a mirror 
wherein the infinite forms and images of the true reality of
existing things are progressively revealed and reflected.  It is
the very foundation of all development.  Without this basis of
investigation, physical progress is impossible.  If a scientific
teaching appears to differ from a spiritual truth, consider that
the criterion of science is the senses which can be defective. 
Because science may be liable to mistake, it cannot be infallible
and cannot be a true standard of judgment.
Nonetheless, religion must ultimately conform to reason and be in
accord with the ultimate conclusions of science as both must
converge into one ultimate truth or realty.  For religion, reason
and science are realities; therefore, these three, being realities,
must eventually conform and be reconciled.  As both science and
religion are indissolubly welded and joined in the divine reality,
those statements and teachings of religion which are found to be
unreasonable and contrary to science, must be examined to determine
whether they are the outcomes of superstition and imagination. 
Innumerable doctrines and beliefs of this character have arisen in
the past ages and are present today.  
I have already acknowledged that science cannot be a true standard
of judgment.  However, religious doctrines and dogmas as the
interpretive understanding of men are also suspect.  I am convinced
that many, if not most, of the controversies arise because
religious leaders and clergy neither understood the meaning of the
religious texts nor comprehended the symbols therein.  But, when
the truth becomes clear and the symbols are explained, science will
be found to in no way contradict religious belief; but, on the
contrary, science and the intelligence will affirm it. 
Religion must stand the analysis of reason.  It must agree with
scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion
and religion fortify science.  If religious belief and doctrine is
at variance with reason, it proceeds from the limited mind of man
and not from God; therefore, it is unworthy of belief and not
deserving of attention; the heart finds no rest in it, and real
faith is impossible.  Reason is the first faculty of man, a divine
attribute and gift.  How can man believe that which he knows to be
opposed to reason?  Is this possible?  Can the heart accept that
which reason denies?  
It is not my point that reason should serve as the ultimate standard 
of judgment.  The human world is an ocean of varying opinions.  If 
reason were the perfect standard and criterion of knowledge, opinions 
would not be at variance and philosophers would not disagree.  
The point is that Science and Religion are expressions of one divine
reality.  If we can agree that reality is one and not multiple, there
should be a convergence of science and religion.  Thus, every apparent
discrepancy between science and religion should challenge us to an
independent investigation of both our doctrinal and scientific 
premises and assumptions and provide us with an opportunity for
intellectual and spiritual growth.  
I believe that the teachings of the Bahai Faith will eventually
remove this form of dissension and discord from among mankind and
reconcile science with religion by revealing the pure teachings of
the divine reality.  That which is found to be real and conformable
to reason will be accepted, and whatever science and reason
ultimately cannot support will be rejected as imitation and not
reality.  When this test is applied, differences of belief will
disappear.  All will become as one family, one people, and the same
susceptibility to the divine bounty and education will be witnessed
among mankind.

In article <5062d6$lf2@fstgal00.tu-graz.ac.at>, kirchweg@sztms.tu-graz.ac.at (Gerhild Kirchweger) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: In article <32262688.7D0A@superlink.net>, Eric Lucas  writes:
>: >Better than decomposing, I suppose, which is what most Baroque composers
>: >are doing now!  (Dare I say all?  Not in this crowd!)
>: >
>: Shades of Gary Larson :-)
>
>No, it's Monty Python: "They're decomposing composers, there's less of them
>every year, ..."
>
Ah.  I was thinking about the Gary Larson cartoon, with the guy 
slumping by the piano and his maid telling a visitor "quiet, the 
maestro is decomposing".  Timewise, Monthy Python was probably first.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

He is alive.  You were probably thinking of FRAS (Fellow of
the Royal Astronomical Society) rather than FGS (Fellow of the
Geological Society).  He is one of the former but not so far as
I know the latter.
---
Jon Shanklin
j.shanklin@bas.ac.uk
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, England

markc@gibelet.nexen.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>If I might add my two cents, being a recent subscriber to this group and
>one who would like to see some moeration:
>What you describe below is NOT evolution but natural selection. There is,
>indeed, a difference. You see, the dark moth already has the genetic 
>makeup for dark wings. Even though the light moths got eaten, the dark moths
>in no way evolved...they simply became more prevalent. If you were to shoot
>every individual born with blond hair for the next 100 years, you'd get
>a huge population of brunettes or redheads, but not because they evolved.
But that IS evolution!
What do you suppose it is?
And if you would shoot every blonde for the next 2 millon years, their genes
would disappear and that's just it.
>Only that you selected those gene traits already present in the individual.
You show in this very post, that you know how new genes get formed, so 
stop talking nonsense.
>Now, if you threw those people in the water for the next 100 years and they suddenly
>developed webbed feet and there was no gene for webbed feet initially 
>present, then THAT would be evolution. As far as I know, there is no observed
>proof of evolution. Mutation and natural selection do NOT qualify.
Mutation and natural selection ARE the evolution!
Mutation gives new genes, selection selects good ones. Both work
together and are called "evolution".
Volker

In article <502vqs$48c@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
matthuse@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:
>FWIW, the ice cores so far haven't shown any ash from Thera.  The acid
>spike that is indicative of volcanism is deposited from sulfur dioxide
>given off by the volcanic eruption.  The ice core dating has been done
>"stratigrapically by means of seasonal variations within each annual
>layer"  (Hammer et al. 1987, _Nature_ vol 328, pp 517-519).
Is it possible that Thera is sulfur-poor?  Perhaps the ash was particlarly
large-grained, and fell mostly close to the source?  Have there been any
core samples taken from Egypt or Turkey?
I'm still fairly young in the geology world, so I apologize for my present
lack of knowledge. 
                                                      DSG

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
:In article <32259d7c.15500596@news.kth.se>, removed_to_avoid@mail.spammers (Mike Noreen) writes:
:>Replying to meron@cars3.uchicago.edu 
:>To which I would respond: a god is a supernatural being,
:>'supernatural' defined as capable of violating the natural laws of the
:>universe.
Which leads us convieniently to the definition of "natural law".
Any ideas?
Volker

S>It seems to me that the worst is over, I guess the nuts do get bored.  As I
No, they just get overripe and fall out of their tree. Takes 'em a while
to climb back up. But I wouldn't count our blessings just yet. In my
evening's mail packet fully two thirds of the message load on s.g.g.
was cross-posted thundering sermons on Creationism from holy crusaders
all messed on God, or blasphemous retorts on Evolution by the godless
heathens all messed up on Nietzsch and Darwin. Clearly you will never go
broke underestimating the intelligence of the public...
This latest God-squabble may last a few more weeks. At least until the
first semester exams, I bet. Anyone see odds posted on this yet?
_   /|   Bill Thoen 
\'o.O'   --------------------------------------------------------------
=(___)=  GISnet BBS - GIS & Desktop Mapping 303-447-0927 (data line)
   U     GIS & Mapping Web  http://www.gisnet.com/gis/index.html

Leonard Timmons wrote:
> 
> Mike Noreen wrote:
> > Replying to meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
> >
> > : >>> Atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief.
> > : >
> > : >>What is theism?
> > : >
> > : >Huh? Theism is the belief in god or gods.
> > : >
> > : >Was this a trick question?
> > : >
> > : Not really.  I can already guess the next question.  What is god?
> >
> > To which I would respond: a god is a supernatural being,
> > 'supernatural' defined as capable of violating the natural laws of the
> > universe.
> 
> If the natural laws of the universe constitute a consistent set
> of rules, then there will always be laws that we do not know
> about (Gödel's theorem bastardized).  A being governed by these
> laws would therefore be supernatural.  We would not be able to
> discover the laws by which he acts, since they would not be
> representable in the natural laws that describe our universe.
> 
While I i don't quite agree with your (probably inappropriate)
quote of Godels Thm wrt the laws governing the univers it only 
states that there is no *finite* set of axioms (or laws).
Nothing stopping you from taking a set S of laws and forming
the set S' by adjoining the new "law". 
Godel Theorem probably the most widely misquoted piece of
Mathematics ever produced.
Lefty Kreouzis

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> 
> For me the razor may be far more than just an assumption, it is
> definitional to the process itself. The Razor *defines* truth.
> Evidence is just evidence. Theory is just stories about the evidence.
> But the Razor allows us to cut away all but one theory. And that is
> the theory that we call "True" (at least until we have more evidence
> or a better theory).
> 
> It is interesting that there are those who claim to reject an
> objective universe (David Swanson, for example) and those who reject
> other "obvious" truths. But I have never heard of someone who rejected
> the Razor, who thought a more complex explanation, one with more
> assumptions, was the correct explanation.
> 
The majority of people here tend to take the Popperian view of Science
vis that thories that can be falsified are scientific. In such a view
(which was highly simplified of course) Occams razor is needed to weed
out
the chaff, it is almost always possible to tweak a theory and its
supporting hypotheses to make it consistent to almost any experimental
result. However
In a view of science that starts with the predictive power of a theory
then Occams Razor falls out neatly since one would like to use a simple
as opposed to complex model to predict the results of an experiment.
Just my 0.2 drx. worth
Lefty Kreouzis

Mike Noreen wrote:
> 
> Replying to meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
> 
> : >>> Atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief.
> : >
> : >>What is theism?
> : >
> : >Huh? Theism is the belief in god or gods.
> : >
> : >Was this a trick question?
> : >
> : Not really.  I can already guess the next question.  What is god?
> 
> To which I would respond: a god is a supernatural being,
> 'supernatural' defined as capable of violating the natural laws of the
> universe.
Is that also a (super) natural law of the universe? That is, that apart 
from the natural laws, there is also a supernatural being capable of 
violating the laws? Could this (supernatural) law then be violated by 
a super-supernatural being? This being could maybe be called a double
whopper being, being so super super natural as only such a super
super natural being can be, or maybe godsquared or something. 
On the other hand, shouldn't beings who break laws be put in jail?
Just some thoughts from your average decent happy and good atheist.
/Paul
-- 
!!!     Note my new e-mail address: paul.cohen@lm.se     !!!
************************************************************
* Paul Cohen                      e-mail: paul.cohen@lm.se *
* Systems Developer, R&D; Department   Phone: +46 26 633597 * 
* National Land Survey of Sweden       Home: +46 26 652281 *
* S-801 82 Gavle, SWEDEN                Fax: +46 26 653160 * 
************************************************************

Jeremy Huffman  wrote:
>Sean Webb wrote:
>> The 'Does God exist' , 'Do i exist'  & 'Is what i see real , or is my brain being fed a
>> load of false electronic signals' questions are all in the same vain.
>> You cannot prove or disprove any of them.
>> Maybe we should give these questions equal time with creationism & science.
>> 
>> Nahhh.
>The next thing you are going to tell me is that I am not the center of the universe.
Of course you are the center, but not of *the* universe. Using the
definite article "the" with the word universe is the source of your
confusion.
JeffMo

markc@gibelet.nexen.com (Mark Christensen) wrote:
>What you describe below is NOT evolution but natural selection. There is,
>indeed, a difference. You see, the dark moth already has the genetic 
>makeup for dark wings. Even though the light moths got eaten, the dark moths
>in no way evolved...they simply became more prevalent. If you were to shoot
>every individual born with blond hair for the next 100 years, you'd get
>a huge population of brunettes or redheads, but not because they evolved.
>Only that you selected those gene traits already present in the individual.
>Now, if you threw those people in the water for the next 100 years and they suddenly
>developed webbed feet and there was no gene for webbed feet initially 
>present, then THAT would be evolution. As far as I know, there is no observed
>proof of evolution. Mutation and natural selection do NOT qualify. Now,
>let's get on with making this newsgroup the forum for what it should be.
>Thank you.
How about a mutation which causes additional genetic material to be
added to each cell of an organism?
Seems that as the one ruling out mutation and natural selection as
part of evolution, the burden is on you to define what you do mean by
evolution. I don't recall seeing anyone posit that evolutionary
changes had to take place within 100 years in order to qualify.
JeffMo

Caddo Lake (NE TX) is a natural lake (and a nice State Park)
-- 
  _____________________________________________________________________ 
 |Regards - Kurt Reisser  | He looked in disbelief at the twisted      |
 |replies to:             | buildings and broken concrete and shouted  |
 |Kurt.Reisser@oryx.com   | "The San Andreas couldn't have done this"  |
 |                        | but deep in his heart he knew he had always|
 |                        | been generous to a fault.                  |
 |*********************************************************************|
 |       "The rocks are laughing at you"  - Volker Gobel               |
 |_____________________________________________________________________|

On 30 Aug 1996, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>   I posted before that I think over 1/2 of the problems of Internet are
> the fact that edu and govt have free accounts. A local telephone call
> is 10 cents. I feel that emailbombing and forged names to lists (in
> fact these lists will dry up) will dry up if a 10cent charge was placed
> on all "Send Key" presses. I feel that emailbombing and forged lists
> are all a direct result of free accounts by edu and govt. Put a little
> money behind an action and people all of a sudden act more responsible
> and wiser.
Of course, you don't seem to have a problem with using these "problematic"
free accounts for your own personal use and bombing of newsgroups. Do as
you say, not as you do, AP?
Here's a challenge for you. Put your money where your mouth is. Every time
you send something, make a note of it, and present Dartouth with payment
for their service to you on a regular basis, 10 cents per "send". Penalize
yourself with a higher fee if you abuse your privilege by forging someone
else's comments in your post or e-mail (I suggest 10 dollars, at minimum).
And since you're no longer using alt.sci.physics.plutonium, perhaps you
should see about getting it eliminated from all newsservers--no sense in
making anyone waste their time in its maintenance.
Or you can just keep on suggesting standards for others that you'd have no
intention of ever abiding by yourself.
>   So the above AUTORESPONSE Forgerers Lucas,Bromage,Evens is the last
> one of those that will be posted to the NET since my email box is now
> longer open to all.
We'll believe it when we don't see it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent J. Hamstra                                    hamstrab@umich.edu
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
- A. Einstein
Their computer -- my ideas (unless otherwise attributed).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I will be teaching Geology this term ( high School ) and would like to 
intergrate computers into the course. Any suggestions for software that 
might be available on the net? Does Gemcom have a demo package available?
Thanks
Dan :)
--
 _________________________________________________________________________
  Dan Murphy    HOME     Tele  709-634-6856      
                HAM      VO1SEA                        
                21 432100E 5422334N
                STEMNET  dmurphy1@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca  
                WORK     Elwood Regional High               
                         Tele  709-635-2895                 
                         FAX   709-635-5985               
__________________________________________________________________________

!!CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT!!
Mudrocks at the Basin Scale: Properties, Controls and Behaviour
The Geological Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London on 
28-29 January 1997
The aim of this meeting is to seek common ground and problems of those dealing with 
muds and mudrocks in a range of geological settings:
*	Petroleum Migration and Petroleum Reservoir Seals
*	Waste Containment
*	Drilling
*	Hydrogeology
*	Fractures and Faults
*	Basin Modelling
*	Engineering Geology
Contributions are sought from all disciplines including mechanical properties, 
drilling behaviour, compositional controls, permeability, fracturing/faulting, 
microstructure, flow mechanisms, diapirism, overpressure, uplift behaviour, log 
response
It is hoped that there will be sufficient interest to warrant a thematic set of 
papers or a Special Publication.
Convenors: Andrew Aplin (Univ. Newcastle), Andy Fleet (Natural History Museum) 
and Joe Macquaker (Univ. Manchester).
To register, please contact Heidi Gould, The Geological Society, Burlington House, 
Piccadilly, London, W1V 0JU. Registration fees are: Fellows of the Geological 
Society: £20; Students: £10; £70 non-fellows.
Please address all other correspondence, including 200-300 word abstracts, to 
Andrew Aplin, NRG, Drummond Building, University of Newcastle, NE1 7RU; tel.: 
+44 191 222 6426; fax: +44 191 222 5431; e mail: a.c.aplin@ncl.ac.uk.
ABSTRACT DEADLINE 30 OCTOBER 1996
Current speakers include Joe Cartwright (Imperial College), Steve Horseman (BGS), 
Mervyn Jones (Portsmouth) and Paul Reid (Schlumberger)

In article <32264520.33DB@mindspring.com> ltimmons@mindspring.com writes:
>Mike Noreen wrote:
>> Replying to meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>> 
>> : >>> Atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief.
>> : >
>> : >>What is theism?
>> : >
>> : >Huh? Theism is the belief in god or gods.
>> : >
>> : >Was this a trick question?
>> : >
>> : Not really.  I can already guess the next question.  What is god?
>> 
>> To which I would respond: a god is a supernatural being,
>> 'supernatural' defined as capable of violating the natural laws of the
>> universe.
>
>If the natural laws of the universe constitute a consistent set 
>of rules, then there will always be laws that we do not know 
>about (Gödel's theorem bastardized).  
Please don't do that.  Not only is your statement not right, it's
probably not even wrong.  Demonstrate to me that all laws are
both formal and axiomatizable and that they include arithmetic,
and I might believe you.
[rest of post eliminated as it seems to hinge on this misunderstanding
of Godel]
	Patrick

ANNOUNCING:
*****************************************************************
              Ottawa '97, JOINT ANNUAL MEETING
              Geological Association of Canada
            Mineralogical Association of Canada
                     MAY 19-21, 1997
                 Ottawa Congress Centre
                Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
*****************************************************************
Get full details including our complete "First Circular" via:
*****Website*****
http://www.NRCan.gc.ca/~ottawa97/
*****E-mail*****
ottawa97@NRCan.gc.ca
Put AUTOHELP in the subject line to get automated help!
*****Snail-mail*****
Geological Survey of Canada
Rm 757, 601 Booth Street
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0E8  Canada
*****Phone/Fax*****
613-947-7649 phone
613-947-7650 fax
THIS CONFERENCE IS AN OUTSTANDING OPPORTUNITY for all persons
interested in the earth sciences to learn and exchange
ideas about new discoveries and developments with some of the
leading scientists in the world.  There will be pre- and
post-conference field trips, an extensive technical program,
poster sessions and exhibits.  Social events will celebrate the
50th anniversary of the Geological Association of Canada.
Accompanying persons will have an opportunity to visit the
historical and cultural sites of Canada's Capital.
The meeting will take place at the Ottawa Congress Centre,
located on the scenic Rideau Canal in the heart of the city,
within walking distance of hotels, restaurants, shopping, and
numerous cultural attractions.
We invite you to attend and participate!
Charles Smith, Chairman 
Gina LeCheminant, Vice-Chair 

My two grade-school-aged children have recently become interested
in rock collecting and polishing. We acquired a very ancient old
tumbler which seems to work. I am looking for a newsgroup where
people talk about collecting agates and polishing rocks and maybe
where to buy and sell equipment for this. Any leads?
(Clearly sci.geo.geology is not it!)

Greetings,
Does anyone know the advantages or disadvantages of soil stability software 
REAME vs. UTEXAS3? REAME was developed by the University of Kentucky, whereas
UTEXAS3 was developed by the University of Texas at Austin. The UTEXAS3 
software has an optional graphics package, that I am not sure one needs, that
REAME does not. I understand that REAME uses conventional graphics packages. 
The software is intended to be used for channel bank stability and, hopefully,
will help with analysis of the data collected from shear tests on the channel 
banks. 
Any help is appreciated. Cost may be a factor.
-- 
   Gregory V. Steele ******** U.S. Geological Survey ******** (402) 437-5509
   Nebraska District ******** Room 406, Federal Bldg ********   Lincoln, Ne
                                gvsteele@usgs.gov 
    Posted to provide or receive technical information related to my duties

SYZYGYJOB wrote:
> 
> Rory and Dawn Yang Smith---
> I am a Fellow in the Geol. Soc of America and have published more than 50
> scientific papers.  I have taught geomorphology at Appalachian State
> University (along with a number of other courses) and remain 90% convinced
> that the Face on Mars and nearby conical and pyramidal structures are NOT
> natural features.
Then what are they?
If you're that strongly convinced that they are not natural features, then you 
must have a good case for what they are.

Hello there.
My name is Pete and I need a little bit of information and maybe someone
here can help me out.  I am doing a project with my 8th grade Earth
Science classes and I need to know a few facts.
I need to know how long dinosaur footprints are in relation to the
dinosaurs weight and height.  I need a few examples.
For instance, lets say a print is 1 meter long.  How big and heavy was
the dinosaur.  How big is a T-rex footprint?  And so on.  As many
examples as I can scrape up.
Please Emial me the info at fuglet19@mail.idt.net
Thanks!

In article <506d90$ps@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
GeronimoDG  wrote:
>In article <502vqs$48c@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>matthuse@ix.netcom.com(August Matthusen) writes:
>
>>FWIW, the ice cores so far haven't shown any ash from Thera.  The acid
>>spike that is indicative of volcanism is deposited from sulfur dioxide
>>given off by the volcanic eruption.
>Is it possible that Thera is sulfur-poor?
Not likely.  I'm sure there are published analyses of trapped
gases from rocks of this eruption, so you could find out.
>Perhaps the ash was particlarly
>large-grained, and fell mostly close to the source?  Have there been any
>core samples taken from Egypt or Turkey?
A previous post mentioned mud cores from the Nile delta.  I'm not
surprised that there's not much ash from this eruption in the
Greenland ice cap, since the prevailing winds would likely
have distributed the ash east of the source and at low latitudes.
--
    Chuck Karish          '81 Guzzi CX100
    karish@well.com       '83 Guzzi Le Mans III (Fang, RSN)
    DoD #89

The institution you propose is already in existence.  It is called the 
International Council of Scientific Unions and is headquartered in Paris, 
at least at this moment.  I would suggest you learn something about the 
existing international scientific organizations before proposing any new 
ones.  Links to ICSU and other organizations will be found on the 
homepage of the International Association for the Physical Sciences of 
the Oceans at
       http://www.olympus.net/IAPSO/
                          - Fred E. Camfield
                            Secretary General
                            IAPSO