Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32952

Directory

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <3227B6F5.D2C@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons  writes:
> >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.
I think I understand this difference.  In the first assertion you admit
the existence of God, but see no sense in following him.  In the second,
you assert that a supernatural being as defined above does not exist.
It is not possibe even in theory that you could be proved wrong.
However, when I defined God as the natural laws of the universe as
above,
does your assertion change in any way?  Or do you simply reject my 
definition as specious?
> >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.
By the way, I am now going to assert that we are partly supernatural,
so it is possible for us to know whether God exists, since we have a
supernatural nature just as God does.
-leonard

Bill Oertell  wrote:
>> But the complications of nearly simultaneous
>> flood basalts in India and rapid changes in sea level need to be further
>> examined to see if they, too, played a role in the overall extinction
>> pattern. 
>
>   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.
>                               Bill
The timing is provably wrong.
A. There are dinosaurs in intercalated sediments in the lower half of
the Deccan sequence.
B. The beginning and end of the Deccan sequence are in a norml
polarity interval, the iridium anomoly occurs in a reversed polarity
layer.
Ergo, the Deccan's CANNOT be due to the Chcxulub impact.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen

Moderation of newsgroups has evolved.
It is no longer the whim of the moderator.  Now using
automated robots programmed by group voting, we can
get rid of those who fill the group with all the off
topic stuff.
At lot of people come here execting things according
to the groups charter and what do they find instead?
   Unity of Science and Religion
   Creation v. Evolution
   One Ugly threat of violence begets another
   [various astrological predicitions]
   Utter futility of arguing with creationists
   We'd like to end the blatherings
So the survey question is.
Would you like to stop the blatherings?
Using the system proposed, the off topic stuff
is kept off the group, and the group controls
the whole process, not some whimsical opinionated
moderator.  It is completely legal for a private
group of people to do this.  A vote of the group
is far more democratic than any other form of
moderation.
Your vote on the survey is an indication that you
would or wouldn't like this for the group.  It
doesn't cause it to happen.  That takes months
and an official RFD and CFV call for votes process.
Survey: snip and mail to:
 Richard Adams 
----------------------------------------------------
(   )  Yes I think the group would benefit from
       self controlled moderation by group vote.
(   )  No, I hate the idea
(   )  Other please offer suggestions

> 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).
   This statement only demonstrates the complete ignorance the author
has on the subject of evolution.  Evolution doesn't strive towards
anything.  Rather, environmental changes allow certain pre-exisiting
mutations to become advantages, which in turn allows those mutations--or
recessive genes--to become dominant.
                               Bill

> Not so. The Deccan Traps began eruption almost a million years before
> the Chicxulub inpact. The Chicxulub iridium forms an identifiable layer
> near the top of the Deccan basalts. There was a paper about this a
> couple of years ago in Geophysical Research Letters.
  I'd read that the Deccan Trapps had been dated before the Chicxulub
crater, but I hadn't heard that the iridium layer had been layed down
upon the Deccan formation.  This would almost certainly rule out that
formation to be the antipodal consequence of the Chicxulub impact. 
Still, it seems that there ought be such a formation.
                                 Bill

Richard Adams  wrote:
>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
[Snip snip snip - another utterly unintelligble  pile of newspeak
gibberish]
>Hi Oliver,
Note the patronizing greeting. I don't know this person.
>Now I'll apply items 1-3 to the recent discussion with
>Oliver Seeler.
There has never been nor will there be any "discussion" with me.  I'm
not discussing anything with Adams,  rather,  since he's chosen to
present himself as a publicly meddlesome figure who has his thumb in
my soup ,  I'm commenting on him. The implication that I have had any
dialoge with Adams is misleading (and  offensive).
>  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
>     existing proposal.
>    [Oliver offered nothing]
There is nothing to offer other than to repeat the often-heard
request that  Adams cease his attempts to tamper with Usenet
newsgroups. I've already offered that and unlike Mr. Adams I see no
reason to repeat myself endlessly.
>  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
>     existing proposal.
>    [Oliver offered nothing]
To the contrary I offered, though obliquely,  the observation that
this "existing proposal" exists only because of one  individual with
unknown - and perhaps quite unusual - motives. 
>  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. 
Exactly. In my view, and the view of quite a number of other long-term
participants in this group, the primary issue is not the dead-anyway
proposal(s) per se but rather the singularly devious and obtuse way in
which the "proponent" is  attempting to sell his doomed ideas.  Among
other things it seems that an effort is underway to create a climate
in which control and censorship (direct or de facto) seem desirable,
even to  some of those who would ordinarily resist the concept.  Such
tactics are of course common in other arenas - for example irrational
hysterias regarding crime,  illegal immigration, smut on the net and
so on are each intentionally fanned by those who have something to
gain - usually morally bankrupt politicians who have no legitimate
claims to the power they seek. The issues themselves are in a sense
less threatening and dangerous than the personalities exploiting them.
> 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. 
Well, we've now heard all about Mr. Adam's family matters and so next
he's apparently going to expand into gossiping about others'
relationships.  Why? Read on.
> They haven't revealed why this
>is a negative in their own application. 
Note here how  cleverly Adams has  tied me to Bob, moving smoothly
from a bit of hearsay to referring to  "their" and "they."  The
presumption is that anyone who has written Bob off will thus classify
me likewise. A classic propaganda technique, applied by someone with
obvious experience. For the record,  I speak for myself here, period.
I don't even subscribe to Pinpoint, although Bob is indeed an old
friend. I have only one application for this newsgroup - the rapid and
free exchange of ideas and information concerning earthquakes, and
Adam's proposals - all of them - are detrimental to that end  (an end
that is of more than casual concern to me, aside from issues of
freedom, as a firefighter and EMT (20 years and counting).
>I'd give any such concerns complete consideration.
What?! The arrogance! Who is this who condescends - who has the gall-
to think that he is in a position in which his "complete cosideration"
is of the slightest import to anyone?  Are we to petition some
medieval inquisitor? Madness! The March Hare lives. 
>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.
I have no reason to disbelieve the first sentence - or it's opposite -
but I am most certain that the second sentence is inaccurate. 
>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.
I think so too. It means that people are beginning to see through the
obfuscation to what lies beneath.  Or should we stay with the Marge
Schott school of ethics...?  Also, it may be recalled that my reaction
from the very beginning was that the "proponent" is the only
significant problem in this newsgroup.  Adams could be selling
girl-scout cookies, and most of us still wouldn't bite.  Hands off
Usenet! 
Oliver Seeler 

In article <32290DC3.4F21@pacific.net.sg>, Daniel & Denisa Tan says...
> 
> 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?
	Hmm.
	And just, please tell me, what does putting a frog through a blender 
have to do with the change of gene freqencies in a population over time?
-- 
	Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., lawstudent	
	*		*		*     
     He that would make his own liberty secure, 
     must guard even his enemy from oppression; 
     for if he violates this duty, 
     he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
                                             Thomas Paine

In article ,
mwfisher@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher) wrote:
|         Right now your ignorance is painful. It'd be easier to explain an 
| internal combustion engine to an aboriginee.
Retract that. Most aborigines I've met understand internal combustion only
too well, better than I do (I'm a mechanical clutz). Jared Diamond
observes that the second generation descendents of Papua New Guinean
cannibals are now jet pilots.
Be careful - your cultural norms are showing.
BTW, I heartily second the Mayr ref.
-- 
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research

It is the glory of science that it finds the patterns 
in spite of the noise - Daniel Dennett

"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?
One thing you ought to consider is that the earth's rotational
velocity at the equator is roughly 1600 km/hr. If the planet stops but
the people don't stop with it, everyone will be killed. The only way
to avoid that would be to have the force that stops the planet also
act directly on the population and everything around them. The only
force that would act simultaneously on the planet and the people would
be gravity. I'm not sure what sort of gravitational field, if any,
would stop the earth's rotation.
I don't know if this helps but it may be something to think about.
Sincerely yours,
Richard B. Winston
Dept. of Geology and Geophysics		rwinsto@lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu
Louisiana State University	http://aapg.geol.lsu.edu/rbwinsto.htm
Baton Rouge, La 70803		ftp://aapg.geol.lsu.edu/pub/winston
U.S.A.
504-388-2337
Fax 504-388-2302