Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32914

Directory

In article <509jo8$o3d@herald.concentric.net>,
Ralph Sansbury   wrote:
>  I was looking for a more through argument. The following is based on a 
>few geology and physics books I have. Please confirm or correct:
Try the new edition of Gunther Faure's _Principles_of_Isotope_Geology_
if you want a more detailed introduction.
The short answer to your question about zircon U-Pb is that
the intermediate isotopes are much shorter lived than the
parent uranium isotopes, and it's straightforward to correct for
their presence.
>I gather that rocks having
>> formed from slowly cooled molten elements inside the earth did not
>> contain any argon at the beginning since only rocks chilled rapidly
>> as lavas erupting on the ocean floor would be able to trap an
>> elusive unreactive gas like argon.
Rocks do often incorporate argon when they're formed and when
they're altered.  This is corrected for by using the non-
radiogenic isotopes of argon as a guide.  Faure explins
this, too.
--
    Chuck Karish          '81 Guzzi CX100
    karish@well.com       '83 Guzzi Le Mans III (Fang, RSN)
    DoD #89

Chuck Karish  wrote:
>Bill Oertell   wrote:
>>   It's my opinon that these Indian basalts are the result of the
>>refocusing of the impact shock waves at the antipod of the impact site.
>>The Indian subcontinent was nearly opposite the Yucatan impact location.
>
>Within about 1000 miles, anyway.  I'd expect the "refocusing"
>to be more precise than that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Deccan traps exactly opposite
the Chicxulub structure 65 million years ago (within the error introduced
by estimating continental drift rates)?
Of course, it certainly isn't at the antipodal point now, but that's
not relevant.
"Quis tamen tale studium, quo ad primam omnium rerum causam evehimur,
tamquam inutile aut contemnendum detractare ac deprimere ausit?"-Bridel
Ethan T. Vishniac ---> http://grendel.as.utexas.edu/Welcome.html
Dept. of Astronomy      also Associate Professor of Astrophysiology
The University of Texas      G.G. Simpson Hereditable Chair of Evilution
Austin, Texas, 78712         University of Ediacara                   
ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu    `Knowledge, Wisdom, Beer'

In article <322A6A6C.3D12@ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Oertell   wrote:
>   It's my opinon that these Indian basalts are the result of the
>refocusing of the impact shock waves at the antipod of the impact site.
>The Indian subcontinent was nearly opposite the Yucatan impact location.
What reconstruction is being used here? Yucatan and India were at least
30 deg away from being antipodal according to Smith et al "Phanerozoic 
paleocontinental world maps" Cambr Univ Press 1981. Subsequently Molnar 
et al 1988 (Basin Res. 1 23) redid India relative to Africa, and
Klitgord & Schouten 1986 (The Geol. of N. America, vol. M, Geol. Soc.
Am., Boulder CO) redid Africa relative to the Americas, but this work
didnt change things vastly.
The antipodes of Yucatan seem to have been in the Indian Ocean between 
India and New Guinea.
John Harper Mathematics Dept. Victoria University Wellington New Zealand

Ken Navarre wrote:
> 
> Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) asked:
> : One question is: why do you feel I want to control
> : a newsgroup?
> 
> Pullllleeeeeessse! You're constant hammering to bring in moderation is
> the FIRST clue! Why don't you just start an earthquake mail list? It'd be
> infinately easier on everyone involved. Then you could crosspost to
> whatever newsgroups you wanted to, could include or exclude whatever
> authors or topics that you wanted and anyone who wished to subscribe to
> your group could!
> 
> : Where in the proposal does its say that
> : I'll be doing that?  Both of the proposed groups are
> : controlled by the groups members, not by an individual.
> 
> Control is *C*O*N*T*R*O*L* no matter who does it. If you want a protected
> newsgroup environment the simplest way to form one is thru the listserve
> software. The end result would be the same as a moderated newsgroup and
> we'd be free of this topic (hopefully!). I'm sure that most of us would
> welcome a weekly or even daily post in ca.earthquakes that informed new
> readers of the mail list if it'd cut the S/N from you about this issue.
> 
> Ken
> --
Hi Ken,
I provide the following general breakdown to
responses about the proposal and discussion.
The discussion is broken down into three categories.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
Items 1 & 2 above are usefull to the group as a whole
since they promote progress in the discussion.  Item 3
is useful to a more limited set of persons and tend
to reflect back on the person making the attack rather
than contribute to the progress in the discussion.
I view my role as the proponent to including proposing,
listening to and analyzing the discussions, and
revising the proposal to that which coresponds to the
interests and needs of the whole group.  As such,
all of the items 1 through 3 are invited.
--------------------------------------------------------
Now I'll apply items 1-3 to the recent discussion with
Ken Navarre.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
    Ken agrees somewhat with moderation, but says
    to start a new moderated mailing list rather
    than a new moderated news group.
    (paraphrased)
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
    Ken is against a new moderated news group.
    (not really stated but implied by him)
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
     Ken says Adams is hammering us and this is
     proof that Adams wants control.
     (paraphrased)
My response to 1&2 is that the same benefit that
moderation provides to a mailing list can also
provide to a news group.  A mailing list is not
a news group.  Both have their own purpose of
communication, moderation can benefit the focus
and quality of both.
My response to item 3 is that any perception there
is of hammering or attempts control is in the mind
of the beholder.  All that I've been doing is
proposing, listening to and analyzing the discussions,
and revising the proposal to that which corresponds
to the interests and needs of the whole group.
I invite your contribution to refine the proposal.
Richard

Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) writes:
> I make no claim to great knowledge of science (I'm a poet) but I have
> read 'Origins of Species.'  Darwin himself stated that without the
> discovery of an intermediate form much of his theory falls apart.
> Granted, when pressed evolutionists will admit that Evolution is a
> theory, yet it is taught by lesser minds in our schools as fact.  
What do you think is the difference between a theory and a fact?
This isn't a rhetorical question: it's quite fundamental to
epistemology, and reasonable people can and do disagree about
the answer.

Oliver Seeler wrote:
> 
> Richard Adams  wrote:
> 
> >  B) The existing discussion is not limited to topics
> >     solely about Calif.
> 
> Nor, thanks to Mr. Adams, does much of the existing discussion have
> anything to do with earthquakes but rather with his own endless
> Byzantine scheming,  condescending and patronizing rationalization and
> (attempted) manipulation of this and related newsgroups.
> 
> Oliver Seeler
Hi Oliver,
I provide the following general breakdown to
responses about the proposal and discussion.
The discussion is broken down into three categories.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
Items 1 & 2 above are usefull to the group as a whole
since they promote progress in the discussion.  Item 3
is useful to a more limited set of persons and tend
to reflect back on the person making the attack rather
than contribute to the progress in the discussion.
I view my role as the proponent to including proposing,
listening to and analyzing the discussions, and
revising the proposal to that which coresponds to the
interests and needs of the whole group.  As such,
all of the items 1 through 3 are invited.
--------------------------------------------------------
Now I'll apply items 1-3 to the recent discussion with
Oliver Seeler.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
    [Oliver offered nothing]
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
    [Oliver offered nothing]
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
    Oliver says,
    "Nor, thanks to Mr. Adams, does much of the
     existing discussion have anything to do with
     earthquakes but rather with his own endless
     Byzantine scheming,  condescending and
     patronizing rationalization and (attempted)
     manipulation of this and related newsgroups."
So we're left with nothing said about the proposal,
just more attacks against the proponent.  Hearing
from Rev. Bob about the close friendship between
Oliver and the Rev., perhaps Rev. Bob & Oliver
view the proposed new groups as a negative from
their perspective.  They haven't revealed why this
is a negative in their own application.  When
brought forward, I'd give any such concerns
complete consideration.
I have nothing against Rev. Bob Shannon or Oliver
Seeler.  If we met in person, we'd probably all
find a common interest and enjoy each other's
company.
Actually, not having anything positive or negative
to say about the proposal means that it has evolved
to the point where the only thing the opponents
have left to do is attack the proponent.  I believe
that's a good indication.
Richard

"Jon E. Trevathan"  wrote:
 I believe that Religion and Science
>are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated as both
>reveal complementary aspects of a single truth.  
 If a scientific
>teaching appears to differ from a spiritual truth, consider that
>the criterion of science is the senses which can be defective. 
>Because science may be liable to mistake, it cannot be infallible
>and cannot be a true standard of judgment.
totally wrong. there are many agnostics and atheists who are
scientists...religion is NOT necessary for science. Science makes
mistakes? so what? do you think religion is invulnerable? science is
self checking...religion is not.
In addition, religion predates science by millenia, so science is not
necessary for religion.
Science and religion are 2 aspects of the human experience. there is
no necessary connection between them. Scholasticism tried to combine
the two ideas as science developed, but was overwhelmed by the
challenge.
This neoscholastic idea contributes nothing to the debate over science
and religion. Put it to rest.

For reference I need some data on the insitu density (dry and/or wet) of 
Calcareous (10-30%) GYPSUM Sand. Any data or reference would be most 
helpfull.
Kind Regards,
Jurgen Herbschleb

In article <50cauk$602@excelsior.flash.net>, burnaman@flash.net (mike
burnaman) wrote:
> 
> 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
Yes, but...red clay is very high in iron. That doesn't sound like a K-feldspar
to me.  More likely (but not in any way the only possible explanation) the
orogeny was pushing up seabed, turning the sediments into soft metamorphic
rock full of iron, and there were igneous intrusions through this. I see this
kind of thing in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada out here in California. Not
quite the same sort of thing (Ca has terranes patched onto continental edge, 
rather than continent/continent collision as raised the Alleghenies originally)
but both involved crushing/metamorphising/raising seabed.

> Within about 1000 miles, anyway.  I'd expect the "refocusing"
> to be more precise than that.
> --
   Actually, with all the defraction and refraction occuring between the
two point, I'd expect about what happened.  Since shock waves travel at
different speeds through different parts of the earth's interior, one
would expect that the various shock waves would arrive at the antipod
out of sync instead of all at once.
                                    Bill

In article <50fiao$ce8@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Ethan Vishniac  wrote:
>Chuck Karish  wrote:
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Deccan traps exactly opposite
>the Chicxulub structure 65 million years ago (within the error introduced
>by estimating continental drift rates)?
No, they weren't.  Undoing continental drift would probably
move the Deccan Traps farther from the antipode of the
Chicxulub structure, not closer to it.  The speculation
that the Deccan Traps were due to the antipodal focusing of
the energy from a meteor impact was done before the
Chicxlub structure was identified, so the proper location
of the postulated antipodal volcanism was not known.
The Deccan Traps may have been adjacent to the structure
ringed by the Seychelle Islands when they were formed.
--
    Chuck Karish          '81 Guzzi CX100
    karish@well.com       '83 Guzzi Le Mans III (Fang, RSN)
    DoD #89

> What reconstruction is being used here? Yucatan and India were at least
> 30 deg away from being antipodal according to Smith et al "Phanerozoic 
> paleocontinental world maps" Cambr Univ Press 1981. Subsequently Molnar 
> et al 1988 (Basin Res. 1 23) redid India relative to Africa, and
> Klitgord & Schouten 1986 (The Geol. of N. America, vol. M, Geol. Soc.
> Am., Boulder CO) redid Africa relative to the Americas, but this work
> didnt change things vastly.
> 
   Actually, I don't recall what sources were used to speculate that the
Indian subcontinent was antipodal to the Yucatan 65 million years ago. 
Certainly, were I actually putting forth a valid scientific claim, I
would have those references, but this is just enternaining conjecture. 
It seems worth considering, especially since an impact powerful enough
to create the Chicxulub crater (180 Km--one of the largest impact
craters in the solar system) should have caused an antipodal formation
of some sort.  The Deccan Trapps seem a likely canditate.
                                   Bill

Anne Veling wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am doing some research on a book I am writing. Is there anyone who can
> give me some clues about how a bad guy may stop the earth from rotating
> around its axis (making China forever dark e.g.)?
> If the answer is somewhat infeasible, that is no problem. What magnitude of
> strength is necessary for something like that?
> 
> Thanx,
> 
> Anne.
   Are we looking at stopping the earth dead in its tracks or slowing it
down over a period of time.  If the latter, how long a period of time?
   BTW, I don't believe mankind would be capable of generating the
energy necessary to accomplish this feat.
                                   Bill

In <50f016$nhj@news.acns.nwu.edu> jed@juand.earth.nwu.edu (John
DeLaughter) writes: 
>
>coredal@ix.netcom.com(Melanie Dunn) writes:
>>
>>Mike Munsil <75561.1231@CompuServe.COM> writes: 
>>>
>>>First you have to define "lake".  There are a LOT of oxbow lakes 
>>>in Texas, all (or most anyway) of which are natural.  Many are 
>>>called "resacas".  Anyway, why should a manmade lake not be 
>>>natural?  Are we not part of nature?  
>>>
>>The gentleman merely asked the question whether or not all the lakes
in
>>Texas were formed by natural processes.  Your comment was way out of
>>line.  Yes, we are part of nature but the lakes that were constructed
>>by the Core of Engineers are not "natural" phenomenon.  To reiterate,
>>Caddo lake is the only "natural" lake (not made by CoE).
>
>Er, Melanie, you might want to look up the definition of an
>oxbow lake.  Simply put, oxbow lakes are created when a river
>meander cuts itself off, leaving a stagnant loop behind.
>(Yes, I know - this is a bit of an oversimplification.)
>
>These *are* natural lakes - I can assure you that the CoE
>doesn't go around making them!   So, given that there
>are meandering rivers in Texas, there are also other natural
>lakes.
>
>John DeLaughter
>
OK.
Let's look up the definition of "lake"
According to Webster's New World Dictionary a lake is an inland body of
usually fresh water, larger than a pool or pond, generally formed by
some obstruction in the course of flowing water.  Now, going way out on
a limb here, an oxbow could be considered a "lake" according to our
definition above, however, what happens to the oxbow when the river
goes into flood stage?  Is it still a lake if it gets overrun by the
river?  I suppose this depends on how permanent the cutoff is.  I have
seen oxbow lakes in Louisiana that were completely overrun by floods,
such as the great flood of '72-73.  The only oxbow lakes that weren't
overrun were those that were dammed by man with earthen dams.  Even
those came close to breaching around Monroe, Louisiana in '72.
I would think that for this discussion that we would want to limit
ourselves to that which is more or less permanent.
:-)

>
>Let me stop speculating for the moment before I sound like another 
sci.geo wacko :-)
Sure!!!!!!Look at the date of this post closely!!
From: ???private@cybercomm.net>
Reply-To: ///@cybercomm.net
To: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Supernova Window
Organization: American Association for Putting Things On Top of Other 
Things
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 96 21:02:32 +0000
Message-ID: 
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 96 20:59:23 +0000
From: @raven.cybercomm.net>
Reply-To:@raven.cybercomm.net
Organization: American Association for Putting Things On Top of Other 
Things
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b6 (Win16; I)
To: drturi@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Supernova Window
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
	charset=us-ascii
While mulling over your predictions for the September Supernova window
on 9/2/96, my eyes grew weary, searching for something else to cast
their gaze upon.  Fumbling clumsily around my desk for that blasted
remote control, I finally found it and flipped through the channels. 
Hmm... nope. *click* uhh.. nope. *click* nah... *click* Hey, what's
this?  The Weather Channel is giving information on Hurricane Edouard! 
Let's see, today is August 24, and at the current speed, it may make
landfall in the United States around about the beginning of September! 
Very interesting...
I was just wondering if you can divinely-astrologize any information 
on
whereabouts this hurricane will strike.  I live on the East Coast; New
Jersey, to be exact.  I was just wondering if you could do any
predicting to warn us just where this storm will strike, so those
involved can make the necessary preparations.  Thanks again, and happy
travels :)
- Steve

The Outdoor Bookstore has 2 new lists of geology books available.  They can be 
viewed at 
http://www.outdoorbooks.com/cat96c.htm
Thanks,
Brian
-- 
******************************************************************
Brian Sherry                                The Outdoor Bookstore        
e-mail: skoob@outdoorbooks.com                  1425 S. Higgins
phone: 406-543-3663                        Missoula, Montana 59851
on-line catalog of new & used books - http://www.outdoorbooks.com/

Matt Austern  wrote:
>Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) writes:
>> I make no claim to great knowledge of science (I'm a poet) but I have
>> read 'Origins of Species.'  Darwin himself stated that without the
>> discovery of an intermediate form much of his theory falls apart.
>> Granted, when pressed evolutionists will admit that Evolution is a
>> theory, yet it is taught by lesser minds in our schools as fact.  
>What do you think is the difference between a theory and a fact?
>This isn't a rhetorical question: it's quite fundamental to
>epistemology, and reasonable people can and do disagree about
>the answer.
The term 'lesser minds' was unfortunate and unnecessarily provocative.
I understand your taking umbrage and I take your point.  As to the
difference between theory and fact?  My understanding was it was
proof.
Terran

In article <508d5m$n25@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
rrb1@ix.netcom.com(Richard Barnett) writes:
> OR flakes with delusions of grandeur, I suppose...
In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>
Michael Varney  writes:
> Listen purple Barnett 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. 
   Such harsh words by our young generation. Michael, I did not think
"flakes" was all that of a witty verbal parrying.
  Calm down , man, this is only the Internet, 
this isn't Vietnam, go play some par golf or tennis set
How old are you now, whippersnapper there 
that you made your first threat
Live, over the Internet ?

From:         DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison)
Date:         1996/09/02
Message-Id:   <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
In article <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison) writes: 
> Michael Varney 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 Varney will die.
In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>
Michael Varney  writes:
> Now to get on with buisness,  and I apologize to any other than Garrison  
> for the upcoming language.
> 
> Listen Darren Garrison 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. 
>  
> Darren Garrison,  go to hell,  styx that is.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Michael Varney
> 
> Department of Physics
> 
> Colorado State University
  Hey, you two guys, slow down there, calm down, don't be killing off
each other or making these threats on the Net. Remember there are old
and mature and polite people who read the Net. Besides, I need you two
to show how good white and true I am, compared to you two dark horses,
in German I believe that is translated Schwarz Ferd.
 With love, 
Archimedes Plutonium

Bill Oertell (woertell@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> Anne Veling wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am doing some research on a book I am writing. Is there anyone who can
> > give me some clues about how a bad guy may stop the earth from rotating
> > around its axis (making China forever dark e.g.)?
> > If the answer is somewhat infeasible, that is no problem. What magnitude of
> > strength is necessary for something like that?
> > 
> > Thanx,
> > 
> > Anne.
>    Are we looking at stopping the earth dead in its tracks.....
>                                 
Talk about whiplash!!!
-- 

Jim Kelly  wrote:
>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
In the beginning was the Word ........

Daniel & Denisa Tan  wrote:
>Carl Seghers wrote:
>> 
>> Jerry Teach  wrote:
>> 
>> > An accident with amazing precision... (snipped)
>> 
>> Even though you're wrong on both accounts, your argument would still
>> not stand, even if you were right, because of the following reason... (snipped).
>> 
>> > Jerry Teach
>> 
Dear Jerry,
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Carl Seghers
>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? 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?
>Shalom!
>Daniel Tan
Dear Dan,
      The evolution theory stands on pretty firm ground.  Actually, if the yukky
goo from your blender combined from the blended slime of 50 billion other
blenders to form one big pond might with sunlight lightning etc. actually
evolve to higher forms over 10 billion years .  Maybe even a frog with Sunbeam
written on its side.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> In article <508d5m$n25@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
> rrb1@ix.netcom.com(Richard Barnett) writes:
> 
> > OR flakes with delusions of grandeur, I suppose...
> 
> In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>
> Michael Varney  writes:
> 
> > Listen purple Barnett you Asshole!  I post a response to a response 
  Purple Barnett?  Wrong person dipshit.  Editing original posts before
responding huh?... no better than forging.....
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.
> 
>    Such harsh words by our young generation. Michael, I did not think
> "flakes" was all that of a witty verbal parrying.
> 
>   Calm down , man, this is only the Internet,
> this isn't Vietnam, go play some par golf or tennis set
> How old are you now, whippersnapper there
> that you made your first threat
> Live, over the Internet ?
You have been warned.  Hopefully posting your crap on trees and mailing
your letters via snail mail will break you financially.  You will lose
your net access.
-- 
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

E. Lefty Kreouzis wrote:
> 
> 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?
> > 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? 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?
> >
> 
> *Straw Man* alert! Evolution stands where it has always stood.
> Evolution exists and is an inescaopable consequence of genetics
> and the environment. *Whenever* you have a system with reproduction
> and transcription errors that is non-optimal in some environment
> you get evolution of the system towards a more (locally) optimal state.
> Did anyone tell you about the evolution of tic-tac-toe playing machines?
> Binary digit predictors? Iterated "prisoners dilemma" players?
> 
> All it takes is:
> 1) Some coding of the phenotype of a system -- its behaviour say.
> 2) Reproduction & mutation.
> 3) A fitness (optimality) metric with the environment.
> 4) Preferential reproduction of the more well adopted.
> 
> Thats it the system follows a dynamic path towards a (locally)
> optimal state (phenotype, behaviour or whatever).
> 
> Lefty KreouzisIf it was true that life evolves toward a more optimal state than why
life has evolved from the state of a bacteria ( that does not die but
divide itself to multiply ...) to a more complexe fragile state?
Theories of evolution that suggest that adapting to the environement is
the sole motivation for evolution are necessery flawed because more 
complexe form of life are less stable than simpler form and yet life
strive for higher complexity.  Furthermore, those theories do not 
provide complete or remotely satisfying explanation of the mecanism by
which transformation may occur (random genetic mutation is not an a 
complete explanation, but only a specullative one).
Pascal

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> From:         DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison)
> Date:         1996/09/02
> Message-Id:   <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
> Organization: Concentric Internet Services
> 
> In article <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
> DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison) writes:
> 
> > Michael Varney 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 Varney will die.
Ahh,  Pu forged Mr.  Garrison's Post.
> In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>
> Michael Varney  writes:
> 
> > Now to get on with buisness,  and I apologize to any other than Garrison
> > for the upcoming language.
> >
> > Listen Darren Garrison 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.
> >
> > Darren Garrison,  go to hell,  styx that is.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Varney
> >
> > Department of Physics
> >
> > Colorado State University
Ahh,  PU forged my post.
>   Hey, you two guys, slow down there, calm down, don't be killing off
> each other or making these threats on the Net. Remember there are old
> and mature and polite people who read the Net. Besides, I need you two
> to show how good white and true I am, compared to you two dark horses,
> in German I believe that is translated Schwarz Ferd.
> 
>  With love,
> Archimedes Plutonium
You,  PU,  translated in German,  are Adolf Hitler.  (Only with less
brains,  shorter penis,  and less hair.)
Say goodbye to your net access.
-- 
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
Copyright 1996.  
If the original content of this authors document is altered, the
offending person or persons will be subject to fines.