Subject: Re: Sonnets (Was: A constructive proposal for Archie P.)
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 07:36:18 GMT
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"
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: vhe@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de (Volker Hetzer)
Date: 30 Aug 96 08:52:48 GMT
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
Subject: Re: Date of Thera Eruption
From: geronimodg@aol.com (GeronimoDG)
Date: 30 Aug 1996 05:46:08 -0400
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
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: "E. Lefty Kreouzis"
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 16:06:27 +0300
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
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Paul Cohen
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 14:55:48 +0200
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 *
************************************************************
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: moorej@cfw.com (JeffMo)
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 13:41:15 GMT
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
Subject: Re: My email box solved;Re: AUTORESPONSE Forgerers, Lucas,Bromage, Evens
From: Brent Hamstra
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 10:12:29 -0400
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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Mudstone Conference
From: Bryn Jones
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:39:33 -0700
!!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)
Subject: ANNOUNCE: GAC-MAC Joint Annual Meeting, Ottawa '97
From: ottawa97@NRCan.gc.ca (Ottawa '97 GAC-MAC Conference)
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:54:35 GMT
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
Subject: Soil stability software
From: gvsteele@usgs.gov (Gregory V. Steele)
Date: 30 Aug 1996 17:57:35 GMT
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
Subject: Re: Date of Thera Eruption
From: karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Date: 30 Aug 1996 19:09:22 GMT
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
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: rmassey
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 09:35:59 -0600
Al Klein wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Aug 1996 03:45:40 -0700, Jerry Teach
> wrote:
>
> >I'm no expert and correct me if
> >I'm 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.
>
> OK, you stand corrected, since the Earth's orbit varies by MUCH more
> than 1/4 inch.
>
> > I've also
> >heard that the odds of the big bang creating all the prerequisites of a
> >life sustaing planet is comparable to a print shop exploding and the
> >debris forming a dictionary.
>
> Assuming that you exploded one print shop per second for 11 billion
> years, the odds would be pretty good, wouldn't you say?
>
> --
> Al
I agree with objective. But it would probably take longer.
But there are other things going on.
1. Urey like experiments show DNA/RNA components naturally occur in
sealed flask of simple gasses(H2, H2O, CH4, N2) with only a month of
spark agitation.
2. Molecules allow much more efficient ways to life than random
combination from scratch(simple molecules):
a.. collecting single copies of DNA - nucleous -eucarotes.
b.. recombination of DNA of simpler life in sex process so more
advanced features are just modifications of previous ones.
--
bob massey http://www.csn.net/~pidmass
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: rmassey
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 09:45:01 -0600
David M. Union wrote:
>
> GT wrote:
> >
> > dano@cyberramp.net wrote:
> > >
> > > In <320C2B31.4D6F@iquest.net>, Mark Carroll writes:
> > > >Your feeling of futility is understood. You have no proof that
> > > >creationism is wrong, simply your interpretation of evidence supporting
> > > >evolution.
> > >
> > > Mark, do you think Creationism should be taught in school because
> > > someone doesn't have proof it is wrong? What other subjects should
> > > be taught in school because they aren't disproven?
> >
> > Well, I have this theory that the world was actually created 3 minutes
> > ago.
> > You remember your past life because memories implanted in you at the
> > moment of creation tell you so.
> > Things were created which give the impression that the world is older
> > than that, but it's a perfectly orchestrated illusion.
> > Oo-one can disprove that either; Shall we teach it in schools?
> >
> > Or maybe we need more than "no arguments to disprove...."
> > Maybe creationism needs facts which PROVE it, which say that IT, rather
> > than evolution, is the simplest theory to describe the world.
> >
> > --
> > GT
> > --
> > http://wwwcn.cern.ch/~torrieri
>
> Actually, that was one of my favorite theories. Quite a few decades ago
> someone proposed that the world was created in 1932 by an all powerful
> entity named "Fred". He created people with memories of the past, and
> created a world with an intact fossil and archeological records, as well
> as all the planets, stars, and galaxies we or our tools observe.
>
> Wonderful logic, anyway...
>
> I think this was back in the 40's.
>
> Anyone out there have a definitive source?
Ha Ha, and I say anything SUPERIOR to humans makes them an INFERIOR
creation of an INFERIOR creator. The greatest creator is the least that
created all; the ape or even virtual photons are inferior to humans yet
ctreated them so they are much superior creators to any infinite god.
The greatest creator is NOTHING!
--
bob massey http://www.csn.net/~pidmass