Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: yvond@microtec.net (Yvon Decelles)
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 23:04:34 GMT
Where : alt.religion.christian.
Date : Sat, 31 Aug 1996 21:14:59 -0700
From : Daniel & Denisa Tan
<< Follow-up sent in newsgroup as well as Email
<< Please reply in newsgroup as well so everyone can participate
>Let us just try to doing something even closer to finding proof of
>evolution. Suppose we take a frog and put it in a blending machine.
>What's blended will have all the necessary ingredients of life, correct?
>Now, submit this blended frog through lightning or whatsoever to bring
>life as evolutionists claims. What do we have? Do we expect the frog to
>crawl out of the container?
Your analogy is faulty, evolution states that life gradualy evolves
from simple to more complex life form it certainly doesn't state that
compex life form will spontaneously appear out of simple individual
cells
If you insist on your example then think on this: If you "blend" the
frog, you're actualy reducing-it to a simple stage of existence
(individual cells) and if as you suggest we give-them condition
favoring their continued existence many of these cells would indeed
continue thriving and eventualy "reproduce". Given time (give or take
of few millions year) you could potentialy end-up with another complex
life form. I say potentialy because there's nothing definite here, it
all depends on mutation and their viability.
>So where does the evolution theory stands now?
Same place as before, just fine.
#include disclaim.h
---
As per the FCA, this Email addresse is not to be include in ANY
kind of mailing list. Any advertiser not respecting this request
will have their postmaster notified.
It would be unwise to assume that the above message is anything
other than my own opinion. It would even be foolish for you to
assume that any of my previous, current or future employers
know that i'm writing about this subject anywhere.
For those of you who cannot help but correct my english please
DO so but keep in mind that this is not my native tongue. If my
typing troubles you TOO much then either don't read what I
write or simply pay an english course. What's important to me
is the CONTENT and not the container.
A tous les compatriotes francais; Ce message est l'expression
de mon opinion personnel et n'engage aucun de mes employeurs
precedent, courant ou future.
Moi la vie je la devore
et tous les jours, je vie un peu plus fort
car la vie sa s'evapore!
< Extrapolation de Marie-Stone (Eric Lapointe) >
Subject: Galileo Photo Contest
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 1 Sep 1996 05:08 UT
Ganymede-2 Photo Contest
A New Round of
WHERE ON EARTH...?
AN ONGOING PHOTO CONTEST
held by
PROJECT GALILEO
Thanks for your response to the Ganymede 1 Photo Contest.
As Galileo approaches Ganymede for the second time, we are holding
a new photo contest.
On September 6, 1996, the Galileo spacecraft will fly just 162 miles (262
km) above the surface of Ganymede, a moon of Jupiter (and the largest moon
in our solar system). This is the closest approach to any moon by Galileo
during the tour, and is lower than the space shuttle orbits the Earth! The
imaging camera on board will again take several close-up pictures of the
moon, at a higher resolution than any previous spacecraft. Images of two
selected regions on the moon, one called Nippur Sulcus and the other a Dark
Floor Crater.
What will we see in those images of the rutted and pock-marked surface of
Ganymede? This contest will help you consider the similarities between these
regions on Ganymede and places here on Earth!
To enter the contest, first read more about Nippur Sulcus or the
Dark Floor Crater on the Galileo home page:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/photo/photo.html
Then, send us your photograph or slide of someplace on Earth which
you think will most closely represent one of the regions to be
revealed during the flyby, together with your reasons for choosing that
place.
Your entry should be sent by regular or electronic mail and
postmarked by Monday, September 30.
Winners will be announced on this Web site in mid-October. Watch
the Galileo Home Page for further details:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/
If your entry is chosen as the winner for either region, the winning
photograph will appear on this Galileo Web Site, for the world to
see! In addition, we will send you a complete set of lithographs
collected by Galileo on this orbit around Jupiter's system, and a
certificate of recognition for your achievement!
Galileo Photo Contest Rules
o Photos can be taken of a natural feature on Earth from any angle
(for example, from above in an airplane, while standing on the edge
of the feature and looking down at it, or a shot from inside looking
out).
o Public satellite images are not eligible. Entries must be a personal
photograph.
o The contest is open to those 6 years of age and older. One entry per
region of Ganymede per person.
o If you want to try to match both regions, send a separate entry for
each region.
o You MUST include the name and location of the feature on Earth in
your entry, along with a description in 75 words or less, of why you
think this will look like the Nippur Sulcus Region or the Dark Floor
Crater on Ganymede. Photos without such a description will not be
eligible.
o Be sure to include your name, age (if under 21), and mailing
address, in case your photograph is selected as a winner. Entries
will not be returned.
o TO BE ENTERED IN THE CONTEST, ENTRIES MUST BE POSTMARKED
VIA SURFACE OR ELECTRONIC MAIL NO LATER THAN MONDAY,
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
o JPL employees and contractors, and members of the Galileo Science
Team, and their families are not eligible.
o Entries will be judged by a geologist and members of the Galileo
Outreach Team at JPL.
Submission Addresses
Entries can be submitted in two ways:
1. Mail in hardcopy form (photo and text) to:
Galileo Public Outreach Office
Mail Stop 264-765
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, California 91109-8099
2. Electronically by email with ASCII text and attached gif picture format
to:
galileo-photo-contest@solstice.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
From: david ford
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 02:09:47 -0400
Alan Scott on Tue, 27 Aug 1996:
david ford:
Alan Scott on Sat, 17 AUG 1996:
david ford:
[snip]
> Alan S.: No. Scientists will make new theories to describe the
> observations. As long as the observations are of changes however,
> the theory will likely be termed the theory of *evolution*. If
> stasis were observed then it would be termed the theory of stasis
> or some other such qualifier.
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no
directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the
fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;
morphological change is usually limited and directionless." Do you wish
to still stand by your statement "If stasis were observed then it would
be termed the theory of stasis or some other such qualifier"?
There's more: "2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species
does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors;
it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" Sounds to me like the
things were created. Otherwise, we're talking about genetic miracles
happening quickly, as opposed to gradualism's having genetic miracles
occurring slowly.[Gould's _The Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 182.]
> In this way, the old theory of evolution can be falsified
> and replaced with something that describes observations better.
Predicted transitionals never found? Speed up rate evolution is said to
go at as desired, and slow it back down when required by the fossil
evidence. Put in spin cycle for 543 million years. Theory of evolution
wrinkle free.
> The big creationist mistake is that they have nothing better to offer,
> but must be content with taking potshots at a straw-man theory which
> they attempt to foist on the unsuspecting public.
I offer you a theory that made predictions about what future scientific
discoveries would reveal (and which thus is falsifiable). The theory is
called special creation, and you can find the predictions in the first
chapter of Genesis.
> >> 2) A scientifically sound observation of special creation of
> >> a new kind would falsify evolution.
> >
> >"If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we
> >should treat is as a miracle, because all of our experience and
> >knowledge tells us that marble doesn't behave like that." Yet, such an
> >occurrence would not be "classified by science as utterly impossible,"
> >but instead "very improbable." All the molecules may go one way and
> >then the other, and thus, "it is _possible_ for a marble statue to wave
> >at us. It could happen."[Richard Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_
> >(1987), 159, 160.]
> >
> >If a statue were to wave at us, Dawkins would not consider that a
> >miracle. If "scientifically sound observation of special creation of a
> >new kind" took place, with a mindset such as this, neither would he
> >consider such a creation a miracle. He would call such an event merely
> >improbable, and say that though highly improbable, the improbable
> >happened. Thus, a supposed observation of special creation would not
> >constitute a falsification of the theory of evolution.
> Sure it would. None of the main mechanisms in the TOE are spontaneous
> generation. The new TOE which would replace the old falsified TOE would
> likely have a much larger portion devoted to explaining the new process.
"The new TOE... would replace the old falsified TOE." As I was saying,
the valitity of the preconceived notion that evolution had occurred
would not be altered in the least in such a scenario. Unfalsifiable.
> >Also, in the theory of evolution, nowhere does it say that such an event
> >cannot occur. If you disagree with this statement, point me in the
> >direction of where, using just the theory's theoretical framework, one
> >can predict that special creation of a new kind cannot occur. Since the
> >theory does not say that the event cannot occur, the event's occurrence
> >would not constitute a falsification of the theory.
> Could you explain such an event in the context of natural selection,
> genetic drift and founder effect? I doubt it. You do sound confident,
> however, so why don't you give it a go.
"Could you explain such an event." Science is not about explanation.
It is about describing. "So why don't you give it a go." I would like
to avoid stooping to the evolutionist's predilictions for explaining
things as much as possible and calling it science, if you don't mind.
Consider this example where something is explained and not described:
"The answer usually given to 'Why sex?' is that sexual reproduction took
precedence because it allowed rapid mixing of the genetic material of a
species, which in turn caused 'good' mutations to propagate rapidly.
This could explain why a trilobite or a brachiopod, once evolved, could
spread very rapidly around the world." As Jim Carr correctly noted on
8/17/96, science is interested in "how" and not "why." Is there any
description at the genetic level of _how_ errors appearing in DNA
resulted in the arrival of sex? No. The theory of evolution is an
explain-everything, describe-nothing idea masquerading as
science.[William K. Hartmann & Ron Miller, _The History of Earth an
illustrated chronicle of an evolving planet_, (1991), 121.]
The cosmology discussion has been moved to "Re: Physics & Astronomy Say
God Likely Exists."
Subject: Re: Creationists prohibit GOD from using HIS method !?
From: Landis.Ragon@ibm.net (Landis D. Ragon)
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 07:02:47 GMT
removed_to_avoid@mail.spammers (MikeNoreen) wrote:
>Replying to e_rmwm@va.nmh.ac.uk (Roger Musson)
>: >The Bible may not be a book of science period and it does not tell us
>: >exactly how God created, but IT DOES SAY THAT THE JOB WAS DONE IN SIX
>: >DAYS with each day having "an evening and a morning."
>:
>: It also says that the value of pi is 3.
>It does? Where?
2 Chronicles 4:2
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits
from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits
to measure around it.
1 Kings 7:23
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits
from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits
to measure around it.
>(BTW: are you implying that 6 days to 5 billion years is a simple
>rounding off error?)
>
>: Roger Musson
>MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
>Net: ev-michael@nrm.se | in December mornings,
> | Cold is the cry that rings
> | from this far distant shore."
>Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to
>any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!
Subject: Re: Question of DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS
From: John McArthur (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
Date: 31 Aug 1996 19:36:11 -0700
In article <32274FE9.2451@mail.idt.net>, Peter says...
>
>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!
Try the following:
- Lockley, M. G. (1991) Tracking Dinosaurs. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England.
- Gillette D.D. and M.G. Lockley, (Eds.). Dinosaur Tracks
and Traces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 426-
440.
- Thulborn, T. 1990. Dinosaur Tracks. Chapman and Hall,
London.
John McArthur (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
Subject: Re: Chicxulub structure and dinosaur extinction
From: S Krueger
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 17:44:26 GMT
In article <501g7r$9sp@qvarsx.er.usgs.gov> James C. Adamski,
jadamski@usgs.gov writes:
>My question. Wouldn't this early diversification of mammals and birds, and hence
>the relatively large number of lineages that apparently survived the K/T
>boundary, contradict the above conceptual model for extinction and survival
>patterns that occurred from an impact?
If you think of the sort of "nuclear winter" scenario, it should not be
surprising that animals with surficial covering (feathers, fur) would
have fared better, even if not well. Walter Alvarez used to be fond of
saying "A rat can live for a long time in the cold and dark, feasting on
the carcass of a dead T Rex". The fact that mammals and birds coexisted
with the last dinosaurs says very little about the validity of the impact
theory. The explosion of mammals and birds into the Tertiary simply
reflects the wide range of ecological niches which the extinction of
dinosaurs left open. Whatever the cause of the extinction, the K/T event
marks the clear break from the Age of Dinosaurs to the Age of Mammals.
*******************************************************************
* S Krueger (skrueger@arco.com) * *
* This message is personal and does not * This Sace For Rent *
* reflect the opinions of my employer * *
*******************************************************************
Subject: Re: Creationists prohibit GOD from using HIS method !?
From: cwj2@eskimo.com (Charles W. Johnson)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 09:18:53 GMT
Thusly spake Jeff (addesign@interaccess.com) unto alt.atheism:
>johnt@haagar.jpl.nasa.gov (John Thompson) wrote:
[splat]
>>I Kings 7:23 (NIV translation)
>> He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits
>> from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to
>> measure around it.
>Obviously an early error in translation. I'm sure the original passage
>must have read 31.415928 cubits. Either that or they inadvertently
>measured a chord rather than the diameter. Or maybe the walls were
>707964 cubits thick, and they gave outside diameter and inside
>circumference. See how easy it is to rationalize from mythology?
See how silly things get when you expect passages written in a poetic form
thousands of years ago to be accurate to more than two significant digits?
Remember, Round(Pi) = 3
>Jeff/addesign
Heathen (Charles W. Johnson)
--
Heathen on IRC ---- Undernet #atheism channel operator
--
These opinions are mine. They may not be those of my employer or my internet
provider. They are almost certainly not those of the Christian Coalition.
--
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list.
Violators will have complaints sent to their postmasters. DIE, you
scum-sucking braindead scourges of society!
--
More from the man that brought us trickle-down economics and the Gulf "War":
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between
Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August
27 1988. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by
invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential
nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois.
The discussion turned to the presidential primary:
RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are
atheists?"
GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God
is important to me."
RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as
citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one
nation under God."
RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the
separation of state and church?"
GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just
not very high on atheists."
Subject: Re: Gold Bearing Quartz Veins in Clay?
From: burnaman@flash.net (mike burnaman)
Date: 1 Sep 1996 15:43:16 GMT
In article <5044ld$5c2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, geosurf@aol.com says...
>
>The Cotton Patch Mine is in the Carolina Slate Belt. The Slate Belt is
>believed to be a paleo island arc environment which has been "welded" onto
>the cont. crust. As such, hydrothermal alteration of the volcanics was
>common, hence the concentration of gold in places. In fact, before gold
>was discovered in Calif., N.C. was the nation's leading producer of Au.
>The clay is a product of weathering of the rock, also known as saprolite.
>Au is easier to see in the quartz veins, but is usually found in fairly
>high conc. in the host rock (or saprolite) as well. The guy working
>there, Donnie Reaves, isn't a geologist, but he knows more about Au in
>North Carolina than anyone I know. I could spend hours talking with him
>and not get bored!
It could also be that this was remnants of a large pegmatite with the red clay
the result of weathering of the potassium feldspar which would have made up
the preponderance of the volume of the pegmatite.
mike burnaman
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Jim Kelly
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 14:12:33 -0500
Marvin wrote:
><>
> We've got to take it to extremes,
> standing on the edge, not living inbetween,
> Walk with Christ for all to see,
> telling broken hearts that God can intervene,
> We've got to take it-to extremes. (DeGarmo & Key)
> <><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
If you can talk of the walk, talking the talk of
_walking and talking_ with christ, why are you
just talking about walking when you could
be walking and walking, rather than
contridicting yourself by talking
with a computer? Sell it! And start
walking. You are not going to extremes
you are just sitting on your butt
making lazy keystrokes.
--
Best Regards,
-Jim Kelly
Subject: Re: PRAYER 31/8, Which of these mean more to you-- email, Net, or
From: Michael Varney
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 15:00:59 -0600
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> To me science is number one and so of the three , email, Net, and Web,
> it is the Net which is helping my science most of all. Thus of the
> three, the Net is the most useful instrument to my doing new and
> creative science.
I don't see any creative science from you P.U, just creative Sci. Fi.
> Great new revolutionary science is never welcomed. It always receives
> criticism and hatred. They killed Hypatia for believing in the Atomic
> theory and Lucretius. I do not remember if Epicurus was also killed
> over the Atomic theory.
Hypatia was killed while defending the library of Alexandretta from
being burned, and also because she was smart. Not because of her
scientific and philosophical beliefs.
The Romans did not like the fact that a woman stood in their way of
burning the library, so they raped her and killed her by scraping the
flesh and muscle from her bones with oyster shells.
> When I first came to the Net in 12 August of 1993, there was the
> namecalling which was as abundant and rich as it was the first day I
> appeared on the Net.
A day that will live in infamy.
> Soon after 12 August 1993, I say about 2 weeks there began to appear
> emailers to my box who would copy every one of my posts without
> commenting or anything and sling it into my emailbox. These were easy
> to spot and took but a second for me to trashcan them. That form of
> anti-social behavior has gone on in my email box from August until last
> friday when I reformed my emailbox.
You waste our space and money, we waste yours.
> In addition to this slinging of my every posts to the Net back into
> my emailbox was the offensive obscene email, and this form of behavior
> has gone on uninterupted from 12AUG93 to 30AUG96. Again this required
> but a few seconds of my time.
And lot's more griping and complaning on the net and to sys. managers.
> Then there was the episode of a Canadian freak at a west coast
> Canadian university who subscribed me to lists, but his shenanigans was
> stopped once the authorities there were contacted.
> Then my emailbox was massively emailbombed from newsgroup
> sci.bio.ethology. It was my first acquitance to a mail-gated newsgroup.
> It could have been settled in a better fashion than what actually
> transpired over there. Only after the push-comes-to-shove did I
> understand that it was a mail-gated group. This was my first
> experience with a posse of emailbombers
I guess they don't wike you vewy much, do dey?
> Stalking is another misconduct on the Net and email. I have had
> experience with stalking on both email and Net.
Carry virtual pepper spray.
> So then in 1996, and of all places -- out of sci.chem comes a brigand
> of regulars bent on kicking me off of the Net at whatever cost. First
> they stalk me, then they emailbomb and finally they add in forging my
> name to subscription lists.
Sniff sniff.
> I announce going on vacation and off the Net for all of August, you
> would think that this sci.chem brigand would leave me alone, no, they
> pester me right into the vacation, until I say enough and break my
> pledge to stay off for August. I would open my emailbox and see 200
> subscription list garbage. Of course it only takes a second to trash
> can, but it interfers with you communicating with anyone and it
> sometimes takes minutes to judge whether a message comes from a good
> guy.
You did not take any vacation. You still deluged the net with your
trash.
> So, my email box as of August 1996 had gotten to the point where it
> was no longer of much use for my science and that the few useful
> messages was not worth the time of the hate-mail. Hence I remodelled my
> emailbox with an encryption code. It is now a private email box.
>
> The price I have to pay for being a science revolutionary is that I
> cannot have a normal emailbox. No filter can filter enough to keep the
> hate mail out. So, I have lost some of my email capability, but no loss
> or damage to Net or Web.
>
> It surprizes me that this recent attack comes from sci.chem because
> that was a newsgroup that I had not posted any large percentage of my
> posts to. Most of my posts were to my newsgroup then to sci.physics,
> some to sci.math, but sci.chem was near the bottom of the list as to
> relative percentage of posts. So an uprising from sci.chem is rather
> surprizing. I sent more to sci.astro and misc.invest.stocks than I
> posted to sci.chem.
>
> But to end this rather long sermon, when a science revolution is
> started then the old guards of the old science attack the new. They
> attack it strongly. And in the case of sci.chem, those regulars are of
> the old guard the old hat, the washed up old ideas. They want to
> preserve themselves in sci.chem with their old ideas. They do not want
> posts of a new thinking to come into sci.chem. Instead they want all
> posts which look like this.
>
> sci.chem
>
> Hi, I am so ignorant of a covalent bond ..... please correct.
>
> Where any one of the old foggeys like Uncle Al, Evens, Bromage, Lucas
> will come on to give their old ideas. They want perpetual pats on their
> backs. But we all know that a Uncle Al, or Evens, or Bromage, or Lucas
> will ever give any new science or try to break new ground. And see we
> understand why they would spend so much of their time in envy and
> attack of me who sees the Net newsgroups as a facilitation a workbench
> or springboard of creating new and brand new ideas.
:-o yak yak yak.
> I will continue to sermonize the Vietmath war in sci.math but will
> wait until the students are back in college for full attention. And I
> will resume Prayers in sci.chem for these hotheads need that more than
> any of their old book knowledge.
Now to get on with buisness, and I apologize to any other than P.U for
the upcoming language.
Listen P.U you Asshole! I post a response to a response of one of your
posts and the next thing I know all my professors and colleagues are
E-mail bombed with your worthless trashy shit. If you do it again I
will spend ALL of my resources to remove completely your presence on the
net. Leave my professors and I the FUCK alone. I don't have time for
witty verbal parrying and subtle admonitions. So I will communicate
this to you in a way your feeble intellect will comprehend. STOP BEING
A SHIT HEAD AND START RESPECTING OTHERS PRIVACY AND TIME.
P.U, go to hell, styx that is.
--
Michael Varney
Department of Physics
Colorado State University
*************************************************************************
If as*holes could fly, it would be perpetually dark!
Of course, one kind person will lift the darkness.
*************************************************************************
mcvarney@holly.colostate.edu
http://holly.colostate.edu/~mcvarney
Subject: Re: Copperhill, Tenn.
From: Annette & Scott Ranger
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 17:54:31 -0400
Henry Hillbrath wrote:
>
> 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
In my first visit to the area in 1979, I was astonished by the
"moonscape" of naked red clay soil in ther entire watershed of the
Copper Basin. Last weekend I drove through on my way home from a raft
trip down the Ocoee River, and had I not known what the area looked like
nearly 20 years ago, I would have never known what happened without a
very careful look. Little ground is visible today as much effort has
gone into revegetating the area. The pines are all about the same age,
a big clue to some major change, but the area looks nice and green.
The copper mining/chemical buisness there has had its ups and downs in
recent years, with Cities Service owning the plant for most of the time.
It has been bought and sold several times in the past three years.
It is true that sulfuric acid is the moneymaker at the plant today, and
line after line of tanker cars are on the RR tracks every time I drive
through. Ironic that the "waste" product of the heyday copper mining is
what makes the money today. Copper is now considered the byproduct of
the chemical plant and is sold in many forms, but all is used.
The plant is physically very ugly still, but quite functional.
Currently there are tents around all the entrances with strikers
complaining about working conditions.
The town of Copper Hill, TN/Ducktown/McKaysville GA floods periodically,
with a major one 5 years ago.
The new olympic venue for whitewater kayaking is 12 miles downstream in
Tennessee in a beautifl gorge of the Ocoee River
Scott Ranger, Atlanta
Subject: Re: PRAYER 31/8, Which of these mean more to you-- email, Net, or Web
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (P. V. Heinrich)
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 18:39:01 -0600
In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>,
Michael Varney wrote:
+ Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
+ >
+ > To me science is number one and so of the three , email, Net, and Web,
+ > it is the Net which is helping my science most of all. Thus of the
+ > three, the Net is the most useful instrument to my doing new and
+ > creative science.
+
+ I don't see any creative science from you P.U, just creative Sci. Fi.
......bunches of stuff snipped........
Frankly, I think that it is a total waste of time and bandwidth to post
any additional replies to Mr. A.P. It is obvious from his posts that A.P.
lives in a very different space-time continuum then the rest of us.
We will likely have to live with him as Californians live with
earthquakes and us Gulf Coast people live with hurricanes.
Responding to his posts and harrassing him just encourages
him to further post to various newsgroups.
Yours,
Paul V. Heinrich
heinrich@intersurf.com
Baton Rouge, LA
Standard Disclaimer Applies
No nonemployment compensation was involved in the
preparation of this post.
Subject: Re: PRAYER 31/8, Which of these mean more to you-- email, Net, or Web
From: DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 01:50:57 GMT
heinrich@intersurf.com (P. V. Heinrich) wrote:
>In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>,
>Michael Varney wrote:
>
>+ Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>+ >
>+ > To me science is number one and so of the three , email, Net, and Web,
>+ > it is the Net which is helping my science most of all. Thus of the
>+ > three, the Net is the most useful instrument to my doing new and
>+ > creative science.
>+
>+ I don't see any creative science from you P.U, just creative Sci. Fi.
>
>......bunches of stuff snipped........
>
>Frankly, I think that it is a total waste of time and bandwidth to post
>any additional replies to Mr. A.P. It is obvious from his posts that A.P.
>lives in a very different space-time continuum then the rest of us.
Archie P. will probably never realize that he is so screwed up. The
bad news it that he will probably die thinking that he is an
unappreciated genius. The good news is that Archie P. will die.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: daakers@ix.netcom.com(Carmen Toledo)
Date: 2 Sep 1996 01:45:38 GMT
In meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>In article <3227d053.30299913@news.kth.se>,
removed_to_avoid@mail.spammers (Mike Noreen) writes:
>>Replying to Leonard Timmons
>>
>>: > :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).
>>
>>So, basically, if there was a being which did something physically
>>impossible (move faster than light or violate the second law of
>>thermodynamics) we couldn't say "GOTCHA, GOD OLD BOY", because there
>>may be undetected laws which permitted it, and so doing something
>>physically impossible would be physically possible?
>>
>That's the point.
Well, if God showed you the meaning of eternity from the spiritual
realm, then you are going to deny that He exists "because there may be
undetected laws" which you don't understand? By the way, what is
eternity? Where is it?
>>Hmmm... Does this mean that there is no such thing as a supernatural
>>being?
No, it means that Mati could not recognize God in a face-to-face
meeting! ;-)
>It means that you won't know one if you found it. Now, as to the
>diffrence between the nonexistant and the unknowable, I'll leave it to
>the philosophers.
>
>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: Rem@Rembrandt.gen.nz (Rembrandt Kuipers)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 00:47:13 GMT
Daniel & Denisa Tan wrote:
> Let us just try to doing something even closer to finding proof of
> evolution. Suppose we take a frog and put it in a blending machine.
> What's blended will have all the necessary ingredients of life, correct?
There will be all the ingredients that constituted a life form. This
does not mean there are sufficiant ingredients for life to start and
evolve, nor the necessary environment. And how long are you going to
give it?
> Now, submit this blended frog through lightning or whatsoever to bring
> life as evolutionists claims. What do we have? Do we expect the frog to
> crawl out of the container?
By evolutionary theory, certainly not. In fact I'd go as far as to
predict that it won't, based on evolutionary theory.
> I am sure all of us will know that we do not expect this to happen.
> Unless a Superior Being does the construction.
> So where does the evolution theory stands now?
Well first we have to perform the experiment, and if no frog climbs
out then this is consistent with our ideas of evolution. And also
indicates no superior being interfered. If a frog does climb out this
will pose a major challenge to our current ideas about evolution.
So assuming no frog climbs out, current evolutionary theories are
unaffected. Your claim of finding proof is a bit far fetched. The
result is consistent with evolution, but doesn't prove much. There is
far more convincing proof than this!
Of course if you were predicting a superior being would intervene and
make a frog, then you would be proved wrong.
Rem
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: Michael John Lowry
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 21:49:35 -0700
>>zoner@indirect.com wrote:
> >>: geo@3-cities.com writes:
> >>: >From: geo@3-cities.com
> >>: >Subject: Re: PROOF OF GREAT FLOOD: Early man predicts ice age (bible: Gen 7:1...) ???
> >>: >Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 14:34:14 GMT
> >
> >>: >zoner@indirect.com wrote:
> >>: >>Time, that not you or anyone actually knows happened! You didn't witness
> >>: >>anything! If you did, send me the video.
> >
> >>: I have the Bible, written by God, who WAS there, what do YOU have? A bunch of
> >>: nonsensical theories about how life formed, not proof at all.
Wrongo! The bible wasn't written by GOD, it was written by men. And to
be even more specific, men with an axe to grind. Give one series of
empirical data that even suggests everything was created in seven days.
> >
> >>You know, Zoner, you're getting more and more laughable. I know you're
> >>getting my posts, because you're responding to posts going to exactly the
> >
> >
> >>. You also ignore anything that
> >>actually asks you to provide even semi-reasoned responses to questions
> >
> >>2) How many times do I have to repeat this: Simply saying, "The bible says
> >>so." is not supporting evidence, especially for providing support for your
> >>literal creationist view. As was shown in a previous post, (and I've
> >>mentioned a couple times) the Pope, head person of the entire Roman Catholic
> >
> >>3) This is probably the 5th or 6th time I've seen you claim "no proof at
> >>all" for evolution since I first posted for you a list of items of
> >>observational evidence,
> >
> >etc, etc....sorry I didn't read the entire post...
> >
> >This matter of evidence.
> >
> >If Zoner happens to belong to the non-scientific, non-Biblical
> >Creation Science Cult, then all your points are valid. However,
> >if he claims only Christianity as evidence, your arguments are
> >scientifically and logically invalid.
> >
> >As reference, I suggest you look up the three unprovable assumptions
> >in the philosophy of science. This philosophy is the Western
> >communication's default philosophy, the foundations that our thinking
> >is built upon. Stuff related to cogito ergo cogito sum, the very
> >basics; these three unprovable assumptions.
> >
> >I think you will find that evaluating one philosophy using a different
> >philosophy (with an entire different set of evidence-as-proof) is
> >logically, philosophically, and scientifically invalid.
> >
> >For example, science could never say: "God did not create the
> >universe." Nor "That painting is not art." These questions are
> >clearly and utterly outside of the philosophy of science.
> >
> >So:
> >>Simply saying, "The bible says
> >>so." is not supporting evidence, especially for providing support for your
> >>literal creationist view."
> >
> >In fact within Zoner's philosophy it may very well be evidence. If
> >so, you will utterly lose if you attempt to prove that your
> >philosophy is more valid than his.
> >
> >In part, this is also because your three unprovable assumptions are
> >equally as unprovable as his Bible-as-evidence assumptions.
> >
> >Normally we need not preface each statement with; "According to
> >the philosophy of science..." However, in the context of comparing
> >different philosophies this had better be made explicit.
> >
> >I don't think science can touch:
> >>: I have the Bible, written by God, who WAS there,
> >
> >blah blah. Science can't touch that. Nor can creationism
> >touch science. Apples and oranges. They are BOTH invalid
> >investigating the other.
> >
> >Why? Each of those philosophies has a separate system of
> >system of evidence-as-proof, and it it likely niether will
> >EVER provide logical evidence that one superior to the other.
> >Never say never. There is one point you overlook, however. Bacon and
other early empiricists tried to use science to prove the existence of
God. I don't think you can discard this little annoyance. The two are
joined at the hip, so to speak.
> >
> >
> Very well put. But this is and will not be the case. There is
> the venue of the legislature and court to consider.
>
> We are getting too many divisions philosophically, religion,
> nonreligion, overall culture, language, it will probably end
> in an actual, physical separation. Probably by war. Such
> differences are usally settled in this manner.
>
> It is happening now throughout Bosnia, Chechnya, Israel, Iraq,
> Muslims/Jews, Muslims/Russians, Muslims/Croats/Serbs.
>
> And all of them against us as we march proudly into the 21st
> Century at the head of the UN Vanguard!
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Unity of Science and Religion.
From: wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 21:23:00
In article richhall@seanet.com (Richard F. Hall) writes:
>Science is the discovery of God. What we have done since Biblical days is to
>discover God.
"Science is the discovery of God." Yes!!! It could be a bumper sticker. I
have immersed myself in chemistry and biochemistry all my professional life.
But no matter how much we discover about Nature and life, in whatever detail,
the goosebumps never go away. Knowing the details of how my cells
reproduce, live, and die doesn't make me appreciate the fine architecture
of the human body any less. When I am filled with love for my wife, my
children, my grandchildren, I can understand that love probably evolved as a
sociobiological mechanism for ensuring the survival of my genes. But knowing
this doesn't make the emotion any less intense. Why can't God be the
motivating force behind the miracle of the Universe? It's as valid as any
other explanation, and has a comfortable commonsense appeal to it. Everything
else, choice of religion, degree of belief in absolute truth of holy writings,
belief in afterlife, etc., are all froth.
Bill
********************************************************
Bill Penrose, Sr. Scientist, Transducer Research,
600 North Commons Dr., Suite 117
Aurora, IL 60504, 708-978-8802, fax: -8854
email wpenrose@interaccess.com
********************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D; and fine gas
sensors to this and nearby galaxies.
********************************************************