Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: rmassey
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 10:02:52 -0600
Al Klein wrote:
>
> 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.
>
A good test to answer this question may not been done yet but there are
billions of such events and too many potential scientists were corrupted
in their childhood to fear natural reality by the bedtime prayer:"if I
should die befor I wake I pray the Lord my soul to take".
If I had the time I would take some of these grey moths; give them food
and no preditors that could see them better by contrasting colors like
the conditions in sooted towns; keep them in similar air; note their
color for several generations; do same with another set except give them
forest like air. The most likely out come since evolution and genetics
have explained ALL cases that were scientifically tested, is NO COLOR
CHANGE unless preditors selected moths unequally - randomly.
> 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
--
bob massey http://www.csn.net/~pidmass
Subject: Earthquake site maps on line.
From: "Donald H. Hartford Jr."
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 14:19:17 GMT
I have found a site that will map specific sites in California. You can
even set the magnitude and view the damage resulting. Is there a site
that does something similar for who> [USGS Logo] US Geological Survey
> Ask-A-Geologist
>
> Have you ever wondered why California has so many earthquakes, and
> New York does not? Why is there so much oil in Texas, but not in
> Wisconsin? What are the deepest canyons in the United States?
> (answers) Have you ever asked yourself a question about volcanoes,
> earthquakes, glaciers, maps, or rivers? Why not ask a geologist for
> an answer!
>
> The USGS offers an Internet email service -- Ask-A-Geologist.
> General questions on earth sciences may be sent by electronic mail
> to the Internet address:
>
> Ask-A-Geologist@usgs.gov
>
> Please include an Internet-accessible return address in the body of
> your message. We receive many messages we can't answer because of
> bad email addresses.
>
> Each email message sent to Ask-A-Geologist is routed to a different
> USGS earth scientist. The scientist will reply to your question in a
> few days.
>
> The United States Geological Survey is the principal source of
> scientific and technical expertise in the earth sciences within the
> Federal Government.
>
> Naturally, we cannot answer some classes of questions. We cannot
> answer questions about specific sites -- for example, Is my home in
> a landslide area? We cannot answer questions with a specific
> economic impact -- for example, How much gold is left in the
> Homestake mine? We cannot endorse commercial products or companies.
> And, we cannot answer questions based on information not yet
> released to the public. We might be able to provide referrals to
> other sources of information.
>
> We have answered thousands of questions. We do not have a Frequently
> Asked Questions list (FAQ). Try the regularly posted FAQs in the
> Netnews group sci.geo.geology if you are seeking general geology
> information.
>
> Also try the USGS Internet Resources page.
>
> We encourage grade school and high school students to send in
> questions -- but we can't write your reports for you!
>
> To ask questions of other experts, try the Ask An Expert page.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * U.S. Department of the Interior
> * U.S. Geological Survey
> * Western Region Marine and Coastal Surveys
>
> URL:
> Maintained by: Rex Sanders
> Last modified: Wed Jul 31 11:58:47 PDT 1996
le US?
Subject: continuing discussion of new groups
From: Richard Adams
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 14:45:24 -0700
Hi,
The request for discussion shown below has
some notable changes from that previously
proposed. Some of the more important ones are
noted below. This is not yet an official RFD.
1) No changes to any existing news groups.
2) Selection of message originators that
will be excluded is determined by a vote.
The moderator does not select this. The
moderator only maintains the automated
process to effect the vote of the group.
3) The existing groups which are not moderated
will remain and serve as a way to allows
fast posting without moderation and as a
safety valve for the moderation process.
4) Two new groups are proposed. This allows
earthquake predictions to have its own
recognition and place for discussion. The
moderation standard for the other group
won't be imposed on the predictions group,
or vice versa.
I've considered all of the massive input in preparing
the new proposal. Thanks is expressed to all.
Some may feel that any form of control at all is bad
and censorship. Since the existing groups are left
intact, these concerns are hoped to be minimized.
Some may feel that allowing the group to have the
control over the bump list via a vote is too lenient
and will lead toward anarchy. I understand that
concern and realize that this is a compromise. But
as a compromise it invites group participation in
the moderation process which will have an overall
positive effect.
Richard
PS: proposal below hasn't been officially published.
You're getting an advanced sneak peak!
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world
moderated group sci.geo.earthquakes.predictions
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation
of two new moderated world-wide Usenet newsgroups named
"sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world", "sci.geo.earthquakes,predictions".
This is not a Call For Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.
Newsgroup lines:
sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world Discussion of seismic events worldwide.
sci.geo.earthquakes.predictions Discuss predicitions of seismic events.
RATIONALE: all groups
There are existing unmoderated newsgroups which already promote
discussions of the subject topic matter. This rationale will
discuss the reasoning behind need for the creation of the new
groups. The reasoning shall include a discussion of the need
to provide world wide coverage for the discussion, the reasons
why a separate group for predictions is needed, the reasons
why the existing sci.geo.earthquakes groups should still exist,
the reason why the ca.earthquakes group cannot be affected by this
change, and the need to moderate the new groups.
Providing World Wide Coverage:
The existing ca.earthquakes group's postings have been limited
in their distribution and access worldwide due to several reasons
including confusion about the "ca" hierarchy meaning California as
opposed to Canada, the misconception that the access to the group
is only desired by Californians or Canadians, and also due to the
lack of ongoing administration of the ca.* hierarchy.
Discussions by and about California are already a leading contribution
to all aspects of this topic. This discussion has application to the
entire world. Identifying that the discussion includes California
and the world makes it clear that this is the place to go to read
and post nearly everything on this topic.
A Separate Group For Predictions:
Past experience has shown that there is considerable controversy
over the issue of predictions. As prediction methodology advances,
the controversy continues. Experience in the existing groups
has shown that sometimes heated discussions which detract from the
discussions of other earthquake topics occur between predictors and
those that do not care for those studies. By providing a separation
between an area where predictions are welcome and another where
they should be avoided, any detraction to other discussions is avoided.
Also, providing this separation allows that a different moderation
standard will be applied to each of the new groups.
Existing sci.geo.earthquakes Remains:
Rather than force the current users of the existing sci.geo.earthquakes
newsgroup to immediately comply with the new division of topics,
the existing group shall remain in place, allowing users to migrate
there when they feel comfortable doing that.
In addition, the existing sci.geo.earthquakes shall exist as a
"safety valve" to the moderation process. If the moderation process
ever fails to meet the needs of the users, they may still utilize
the existing sci.geo.earthquakes as a group in which to meet, discuss
topics at hand, and vote to correct any moderation problem.
Also, the continuing existence of the unmoderated sci.geo.earthquakes
provides a means to distribute emergency news information which can
originate and propagate from the news poster's server without any
propagation delay through the moderation process systems.
Existing ca.earthquakes Not Affected:
The voting which takes place by any CFV by this discussion shall
not be binding upon the any aspect of the existing ca.earthquakes
group. There is no administrative mechanism in place by which such
a vote for the sci. hierarchy will affect the ca. hierarchy.
Need for Moderation:
Unfortunately, Usenet has become a hot bed for "get rich quick"
schemes, unrelated advertising and the like. Since there are
many topics covered in this newsgroup, many users believe that the
"quality" of the postings should be maintained. Only through
moderation will this be achieved.
The goal of moderation is to keep the discussion focused on the
chartered purpose, and to eliminate those posts that attempt to take
this far off center.
Since there are two separate moderated newsgroups formed, each shall
be provided with its own moderation standard, apart from the standards
of the other group. In practice, each shall have its own Bump List.
CHARTER: sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world
The purpose of this group will be to provide a forum where
interested parties can exchange ideas, opinions, views and
information as it relates to seismic activity. This is an open
forum which is not restricted to specific science disciplines.
The intention is that any discussions regarding predictions of actual
seismic activity not be conducted here and instead be conducted
in the sci.geo.earthquakes.predictions news group. Excluded topics
are particular forecasts of foretold events or statements about
the probability of such occurrences. Topics which are not excluded
here are discussions of the likelihood of damage in any event so long
as no specific time frame is associated with the event within the
discussion or if the time frame is only used as an estimate to
illustrate the need to discuss the damage potential such that the
purpose or intention of the discussion is not centered about a
prediction or calling attention to a predicition.
Appropriate topics include but aren't necessarily limited to:
seismicity and seismological techniques
measurement of earthquakes
recent and significant historical earthquakes
causes of earthquakes
sources of earthquake data
secondary phenomena associated with earthquakes
geological techniques employed in earthquake hazard identification
zonation for classifying earthquake hazard potential
earthquake safety (in general)
techniques for mitigating earthquake hazards
seismic parameters for structural design
END CHARTER.
CHARTER: sci.geo.earthquakes.predictions
The purpose of this group will be to provide a forum where
interested parties can exchange ideas, opinions, views and
information as it relates to the prediction of seismic activity.
This is an open forum which is not restricted to specific science
disciplines. The intention is that any discussions regarding
predictions shall be conducted here rather than in the other
sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world group.
There are no rules set in advance which would control the type of
prediction or the source of the information used except that all
predictions discussed shall be predictions of seismic events.
Predictions of other events should not be included except if
directly related to a seismic event. For example, discussions
predicting failure or damage of a particular structure during a
predicted earthquake are correct. Discussion of other disasters
caused by man or nature are not intended for discussion here.
Appropriate topics include but aren't necessarily limited to:
causes of earthquakes as related to predicting them
sources of precursory data
interpretation of precursory data
earthquake prediction technology
actual predictions of events foretold
windows of increased probability of seismic events
evaluation of the performance of predictions
Moderation policies: all groups
1. Although no legal relationships are created by this
document, the moderator is expected to act as if he
or she were in a fiduciary relationship with the
participants of this newsgroup.
2. The moderation will be accomplished through an automated
system which excludes specific attempted posts from specific
post originators by matching information in the post against
information in a "bump list" or BL. By comparison against
the BL, the automation will determine if a post is bumped
or accepted. Posts that are accepted will be posted.
Posts that are bumped will result in an automatic message
mailed back to the originator stating that the post was bumped.
Whether a post is bumped or not, this automatic moderation will
always forward the post to all other cross posted news groups.
This prevents the moderation of these groups from inhibiting the
post appearing in unmoderated groups.
3. The moderator shall have no power to make independent decisions
as to the content of the BL. In effect, the moderator does not
moderate, the moderator maintains the BL in accordance with the
voted demands of the voters.
4. The contents of the BL will be determined by votes casts by
group participants.
5. The moderator shall conduct the voting process when so demanded
by the group, or if the moderator feels that a vote should be
taken.
6. The group or the moderator may require that a particular voting
session be conducted by an independent third party where there
is evidence or appearance of a conflict of interest by the
moderator. The moderator shall have no obligation to pay for
those services if payment is required.
7. Each single vote shall require all of the following information.
Votes which do not contain all of the required information will
not be accepted. Each voter may vote only once per issue.
A. Name of the voter
B. e-mail address of the voter corresponding to vote's origin
C. Name of the poster to be excluded, which the vote concerns
D. e-mail address of the poster to be excluded
E. a vote: exclude, don't exclude, continue exclusion, stop exclusion.
F. Period of time that the poster will be excluded for.
Minimum period of exclusion is 10 days, maximum is 6 months.
8. The votes shall be collected for a minimum of 7 and a maximum
of 10 days prior to posting of a tally and update of BL.
9. Votes are e-mailed to the moderator or independent vote taker
which ever is active for the particular voting session.
10. The necessary voting criterion to exclude a poster shall be
a 2/3 yes majority with a minimum of 30 votes, or a 9/10
yes majority with fewer than 30 votes.
11. The period of exclusion shall be the average of all exclusion
period duration from all "yes" votes.
12. A participant permitted to a single vote shall be any unique
person that has one or more e-mail addresses. Regardless of
the quantity of e-mail addresses, each person shall be permitted
only one vote per tally.
13. A vote may also be called to allow an excluded originator to
be removed from the BL prior to expiration of their original
exclusion period. The same voting criterion detailed above
would be applied, but there is no expiration, i.e. once removed
from the BL, an originator remains off the list until voted back
on to it by the originally described process.
14. A separate BL shall be applied and voted on for the two
separate groups. All details herein listed apply to the
voting process and moderation of each group.
15. The same moderator may moderate both groups or a different
moderator may be moderate each group individually.
Moderator Selection and Replacement
-----------------------------------
16. The present moderator selects their own replacement, or
may delegate moderation of one or both groups to another
person or persons.
17. A moderator serves until he or she resigns. A moderator
may resign at any time. A moderator is requested to give
the group adequate notice in order to insure an orderly
transition.
18. A moderator may designate a back-up moderator for vacation
or emergency or other periods, and is requested to give the
group adequate notice. The back-up moderator shall only
function to collect and tally votes and maintain the BL,
substituting for and having the same power as the moderator.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: all groups
Moderator: Richard Adams
END MODERATOR INFO.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for a discussion, not a call for votes.
In this phase of the process, any potential problems with
the proposed newsgroup should be raised and resolved.
The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 21 days
(starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted
to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call for Votes (CFV)
will be posted by a neutral vote taker. Please do not attempt
to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup
creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet
Newsgroup" and "How to Format and Submit a New Group
Proposal". Please refer to these documents (available in
news.announce.newgroups) if you have any questions about the
process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
ca.earthquakes
sci.geo.earthquakes
Proponent: Richard Adams
Subject: PRAYER 30/8, Hi, welcome to sci.chem, my new home, Carbon in
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 30 Aug 1996 22:49:59 GMT
Lead off with the hymn of "Breathe On Me, Breath of God"
synthesized music of "Meadowlark Keyboard
Sampler 1987". And sing
CARBON IN ME, CARBON OF PLUTONIUM
Carbon in me, Carbon of Plutonium,
Fill me with life anew
That I may love what thou dost love, ( you should feel some emotional
tears at this point)
And do what thou superdetermined me to do
Carbon in me, Carbon of Plutonium,
Make my heart pure.
Take me to Thy Protons
to do and to endure.
Breathe in me, Oxygen of Plutonium,
Make me wholly thine.
Take this Earthly part of me.
Nucleosynthesis divine.
Plutonium in me, ATOM Plutonium.
So shall I never die, but live with thee
Part in thy Electron's Biology
Part in thy Protons Immortality. ATOM
****
Sermon on this beautiful New England day of 30 Aug 96. Yesterday and
today were two days that are hard to beat in New England. Sunny yet not
hot and not chilly, just right, clean air and no more biting insects.
Beautiful weather.
Yesterday I read the stock news that interest rates were going up. I
read the stock news first thing of the day. Patience patience patience
is what that is all about. I did it with Syntex, with Wellcome, with
Upjohn, with Pacific Telesis. Yesterday US West was below 30, time for
me to save to buy more.
I want to celebrate my move over here to sci.chem. Plutonium is a
chemical element. Some sci.chem regulars who have begged me to come
over here to sci.chem and evacuate my own newsgroup of alt. sci.
physics plutonium convinced me to do this move only recently, and then
yesterday when the market slumped on interest rate worries and I did
not want to read the pleas from sci.chem in my emailbox I decided to
make the move just yesterday. So, many thanks go out to those who
finally convinced me that sci.chem is a better home than is
alt.sci.physics.plutonium. They convinced me by emailbombing , then
forging my name to subscription lists. I thank them for their patience
for it has payed off. I have now a private emailbox where only
friendlies know my encryption code to get through, and all the other
email, well, I simply will never see it.
By the way, how are your forgering subscription lists going for you?
I wish you all the success.
And some of the sci. chem regulars have moved over to my old
newsgroup. This is very thoughtful of them to manage that turf, while I
am away, since my new home base is now sci.chem.
So let us sing that hymn again, it is one of my dearest and most
loved hymns. If the spiritual force of Pu is with you, then you will
have a sort of tearful moment when you sing
Carbon in me
and again here,
Carbon of Plutonium
and again here,
Fill me with life anew
May the force of 231Pu be with you , Pu bless you, ATOM
Subject: Presque Isle State Park page
From: psycho@erie.net (James John Washok)
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 96 20:54:46 GMT
To all interested,
I have just put up the BASIC version of my Presque Isle State Park page. This
page deals with the geology, ecology and environment of the area and has
several images, maps and diagrams to illustrate certain points and concepts. I
invite all to please browse the page and e-mail with any comments. The address
is...
http://moose.erie.net/~psycho/preshis.html/
I will be continually updating the page with more graphics and, hopefully,
better views of the ones I already have.
NOTE!! This page is very graphic oriented right now...there are a few images
which are easily over 100K in size. Not on the page itself, mind you, but some
of the linked graphics are large. I am doing my best to reduce the size of
these without losing too much quality, but you know how that goes.
Jim
James Washok
Edinboro University of PA
http://moose.erie.net/~psycho/
Subject: Re: PRAYER 30/8, Hi, welcome to sci.chem, my new home, Carbon
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 30 Aug 1996 23:49:21 GMT
In article <507r6n$bil@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> I have now a private emailbox where only
> friendlies know my encryption code
My new emailbox is similar to a private telephone line. And to those
will cannot get through will receive two bounced back messages, their
original, plus this notice from me:
--- quoting what my notice says ---
Due to emailbombing, forging my name to unwanted subscription lists,
and even the benign repeating of my posts off of the Internet into my
emailbox,
my emailbox has become useless.
I now have a private encryption emailbox, sort of like a private
telephone number.
Anyway, sorry that I cannot communicate with you if your message was
indeed sincere.
IF your message was serious and important, you can find a channel of
getting in touch with me.
The best way would be to post to the Internet as a follow-up to one of
my posts. I will probably see it.
And also there is the telephone if you seriously and importantly need
to communicate with me.
The electronic communications age is progressing so fast that it does
not have the time to clear out the bugs of email abuse.
Personally, I think a 10 cent fee charge should be placed on every send
key press, whether it be an Internet post or a email.
And I think forged subscription lists should be a crime, not only
charged with a penalty but have a prison sentence should it be a repeat
offender. And emailbombing defined and also treated as a crime.
Sorry but famous or Revolutionary people just cannot have a normal
emailbox.
Subject: Re: Dumb & dumber
From: Kennedy
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 01:15:45 +0100
In article , daan
Strebe writes
>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.
>
Just returned from a rather nice holiday to find you still prattling on
about things I left some time ago - only you never got the point. If
you search through your newsgroup files you will find that I never
claimed that the lower educational standards of the US were reflected in
its top achievements, I expressed concern that if the decline continued
then inevitably it would be. In fact, in an earlier posting I
specificly stated that the US has produced more than its fair share of
top scientists. My concern is, and has been since this thread began,
that the mean academic achievement of the US is concerningly low. That
doesn't mean that the top achievers are less able than their European or
Far Eastern equivalents, but that the general public are. This is what
standardised tests measure.
Last night I listened to a recording of Clinton setting an objective for
his next term of office to ensure that 95% of US children can read and
write by the age of EIGHT years old - it might come as a surprise to
you, but that is not an objective your nation should be proud of. It
does however, indicate the point I have been trying to make. In the UK
98% of children can read & write by the time they are 6, with around 50%
achieving significant literary abilities by 5. In France, Germany &
Holland etc. the figures are even better.
I agree I suggested that you consider Nobel Laureates, but as more
accessible measure of YOUR claims than some private list you were
compiling. This still does not change the basic fact the mean level of
academic attainment is lower, or counter my suggestion/claim that this
accepted fact is the consequence of a shallow media and parochial
culture - a view shared by many of my US colleagues.
You, Mr Strebe, have not only indicated that you have been unable to
understand the topic under discussion, but that you are more bigoted
than anyone contributing to this thread, perhaps when you were visiting
your library to research you lists you should have looked in a
dictionary for the definition of bigot.
_______________________________________________________
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Leonard Timmons
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 23:52:21 -0400
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
:
: In article <32264520.33DB@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons
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). 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.
: >
: I think you mix to different things here. One is a definition of god
: and I would deem the one above to be adequate. The other issue is
: operational, i.e. can humans, using this definition as a criterion,
: determine whether a given entity is indeed god. The answer, IMO is
: no, just for the reasons you gave. So, there is no contradiction.
:
: In fact I would push it one step further and claim that no definition
: that can be used as "operational definition" in the sense mentioned
: above may exist since it would amount to having a rule allowing you to
: determine whether a given entity is capable ov violating any rule.
: There is a logical contradiction here.
So what you are saying is that we cannot put God to the test. I
think that I have read this in the Bible somewhere.
So if we cannot devise a test to prove or disprove the existence
of God, then theism and atheism are equivalent in that they are
both based on pure conjecture. The only way we could know whether
a supernatural being exists is if we were (at least in some way)
the supernatural beings in the universe. Then we would know
that there is no one beside us (I have read this in the Bible
somewhere, too).
-leonard
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:15:08 GMT
In article <3227B6F5.D2C@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>:
>: >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.
>: >
>: I think you mix to different things here. One is a definition of god
>: and I would deem the one above to be adequate. The other issue is
>: operational, i.e. can humans, using this definition as a criterion,
>: determine whether a given entity is indeed god. The answer, IMO is
>: no, just for the reasons you gave. So, there is no contradiction.
>:
>: In fact I would push it one step further and claim that no definition
>: that can be used as "operational definition" in the sense mentioned
>: above may exist since it would amount to having a rule allowing you to
>: determine whether a given entity is capable ov violating any rule.
>: There is a logical contradiction here.
>
>So what you are saying is that we cannot put God to the test.
That's right.
>I think that I have read this in the Bible somewhere.
>So if we cannot devise a test to prove or disprove the existence
>of God, then theism and atheism are equivalent in that they are
>both based on pure conjecture.
I think we agree here. That's why I'm not saying "I don't believe in
God" but "I believe there is no God". There is a subtle difference.
>The only way we could know whether
>a supernatural being exists is if we were (at least in some way)
>the supernatural beings in the universe. Then we would know
>that there is no one beside us (I have read this in the Bible
>somewhere, too).
Yep, I think that logically that's the most that can be said.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: AD: GIS Job
From: gob@bayarea.net (GeoWeb )
Date: 31 Aug 1996 04:00:49 GMT
Job Type: GIS Analyst/Geographic Database Librarian
Company Name: System One Technical
Contact: Henry Schultz
Address: 4902 Eisenhower Blvd., Tampa, FL, 33634
Country: USA
Phone: 1-800-836-1676 ext. 214 Fax: 813-249-2360
Email: hank_schultz@systemone.com URL:
---------------------------------------------------------
Job description: Position Summary:
*Build and maintain centralized Geographic databases.
*Design and develop database requirements for specialized spatial analysis
(e.g. microwave relocation, electric utility, vehicular traffic, demographic
analysis.)
*Assist in the collection, processing and analysis of spatially referenced radio
data.
*Assist Engineering staff in the use of Arc/View.
*specialized map production(non-software development mapping & analysis).
Qualifications:
* BA/BS degree in geography(specializing in GIS/cartography), computer science or a related field.
* 1-3 years applied GIS.
* Experience with Arc/Info (AML), Arc/View, Unix & Shell Programming.
--
================================================================
GeoWeb Interactive - Online Resources for GIS/GPS/Remote Sensing
email: geoweb@ggrweb.com
url: http://www.ggrweb.com
================================================================
Subject: Re: Moderation now!
From: tfile@ibm.net (t-files)
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 23:01:55 GMT
>>It seems to me that the worst is over,
>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....
What happened is that over the last couple weeks, I have been sending
a standard automatic message to all who post off topic widely
crossposted articles to the geology newsgroup. Not as a complaint but
as a polite request that they check the headers and trim away cross
posting to the geology newsgroup. I sent about 140 of these, with
about 10 of them also posted to s.g.g. or talk.origins.
12 people replied that they did not check the headers and sent
apologies, about 3 replied that they do not understand how a message
they posted in another newsgroup could also go to the geology group.
And another 10 know very well that what they are doing is unpopular
and they have inserted phony email addresses so that they cannot
receive replies. About 3 replied that they think the creation vs
evolution discussion is highly relevant to the geology newsgroup.
I did not really expect that this would solve much, but tried it
anyway. While I did this the crossposting declined, but after I gave
up and stopped it is increasing again.
Anyways, enough of that, isn't it time to start setting up a moderated
geology newsgroup.
Subject: Re: Date of Thera Eruption
From: souris@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath)
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 06:48:41 GMT
karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) writes:
>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.
There has been a lively debate on that in the literature. There are three
references on each side cited in Kuniholm's paper.
>>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?
There is a large component of the ash in sea bottom cores in the 20-40
micron range, discussed in Stanley and Sheng, Nature, vol. 320 April,
1986, pg. 733-5.
>A previous post mentioned mud cores from the Nile delta.
That is the Stanley and Sheng paper.
> 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.
>--
As far as I know, no one has looked for Thera ash, and not found it, just
no one has looked.
At least that is the impression I get. I have not run down the references
on ash/ice. But the discussion is of "recent" eruptions. I don't know why
the ash would go away.
The key cite seems to be Zielinski, et al,, Holocene 5, 129-140, 1995. My
7-11 doesn't sell "Holocene."
Henry Hillbrath
Subject: Copperhill, Tenn.
From: souris@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath)
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 06:59:16 GMT
I got a lot of wonderful help with my first question, on the date of the
Thera eruption. So, I will ask another one! (Like spear catching.)
At one time, there was a mine and smelter at Copperhill, Tenn. There was
a great deal of environmental damage. I guess maybe one of the worst
environmental impacts on earth, at least, in the US, and easily visible
from space.
This is very near one of the Olympic sites, and was mentioned. I think
I heard there, but I have also heard elsewhere, that copper is no longer
produced there, but sulfuric acid is.
My understanding is that they use to mine copper sulfate, and roast it,
releasing the SO2. Now, they apparently keep the SO2, what the heck
happens to the copper?
Or, is there some other sulfate they are now mining. And, if so, what is
the metal associated with it?
TIA
Henry Hillbrath