Subject: Managing Risks & Strategic Decisions in Petroleum Exploration & Production Short Course
From: Jim Proud
Date: 3 Sep 1996 20:18:36 GMT
ANNOUNCING a short course:
MANAGING RISKS AND STRATEGIC DECISIONS
IN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION
A practical, hands-on approach to modern techniques in
risk management and strategic decision making for all
aspects of petroleum exploration and production -
prospect evaluation, resource allocation, diversification
and risk sharing, corporate planning, and strategy
development.
Dates: October 30 - November 1, 1996
Location: Golden, Colorado
(Colorado School of Mines campus)
Instructor: Dr. Michael R. Walls
Dr. Walls is a professor of Mineral Economics at the
Colorado School of Mines and is the founder and
Managing Director of Strategic Systems Group, a
Denver-based consulting firm.
Who should attend:
The Seminar is an advanced course designed for staff
and middle- to senior-level managers actively involved
in a variety of functional levels in the petroleum industry.
Oil company vice presidents of exploration and production,
finance and planning, as well as exploration/engineering
managers, economics/planning personnel, and financial
managers will all find the Seminar stimulating and insightful.
In addition, individuals performing similar functions in
consulting firms as well as general mangers from smaller
companies will find the Seminar beneficial.
Seminar Fee: $1,095.00 (US) Seminar fee will be
discounted by $100 if payment is received by
September 30, 1996. Note that the fee includes continental
breakfasts and lunch each day, as well as coffee breaks,
tuition, and a notebook of the lecture and case study
materials.
For a brochure with course outline and complete
details contact:
Office of Special Programs and Continuing
Education at the Colorado School of Mines.
Phone: 800/446-9488, ext.3321 (8-5 MST)
E-mail: space@mines.edu
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:29:52 GMT
In article <322BB966.1B14@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons writes:
>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.
>
Right. But there is something more in the second phrase, something
which I would call an expression of humility (no snickers, please).
It is an admission of lack of certainty or, if you prefer, of the
certainty that I'm not certain and can never be.
>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?
No, I don't reject it, I can't. I can just say that when we reach
this stage, if we don't want to play in semantics (and I'm sure that
this is not your intention) these issues become a matter of inner
convictions, which are personal.
>
>> >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.
Well, good you put this "partly" there as an escape hatch, else I
would argue that a supernatural being would've the knowledge of being
supernatural and I don't have such knowledge. But then, maybe just
the ability to think about such issues is supernatural.
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: Aaron Boyden <6500adb@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:28:52 -0700
On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Judson McClendon wrote:
> > > There is a third [assumption underlying science]:
> > >
> > > 3. The universe is explainable by naturalistic processes.
> > >
> Rule 3 means that we have to explain everything, including the origin of
> the universe and man without God. Isaac Newton would have agreed with
> assumptions 1 and 2, but not 3, for he believed that the world was
> created by God in a special creation, and that the earth was destroyed
> by the Genesis flood.
This doesn't clarify things very much, as of course "God" is at least as
vague as "naturalistic." Still, I think I can safely say that 3 has
nothing to do with science. If the simplest theory which explains the
data involves God, it'll be accepted by science. At present, no theistic
theories are superior to or even competitive with their non-theistic
rivals, but that's merely because God is a worthless hypothesis, not
because it's been ruled out in advance by science.
Of course, this may not apply if your version of God is inherently
unknowable or some such nonsense. Anything inherently unknowable is
pretty obviously outside the realm of science. It's also outside the
realm of worthwhile discourse, so if that is your position, I'm sure
everyone would appreciate your not bringing up God again.
---
Aaron Boyden
"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care
not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained." -David Lewis
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: "Darklady"
Date: 3 Sep 1996 18:39:11 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BB98C4.2CA76340
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Viejo wrote in article
<3228df36.10840824@news.vegas.infi.net>...
> 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.
Yes, this is how religionists generally choose to resolve
conflict.
>
> It is happening now throughout Bosnia, Chechnya, Israel, Iraq,
> Muslims/Jews, Muslims/Russians, Muslims/Croats/Serbs.
Nice, peace-loving, god fearing nations. Another ringing endorsement
for the healing force of religion.
>
> And all of them against us as we march proudly into the 21st
> Century at the head of the UN Vanguard!
Oh, are they concerned about creationism vs. evolution in the U.S.
school systems? Or maybe they find our abortion policies problematic?
No, wait! It's women...they're really upset about the liberties those U.S.
bitches have...why in their countries they know how to deal with such
immorality! Here...in this holy book, let me show you...oh, your view of
god is different from theirs? Well, infidel, meet your god in its pathetic
hell tonight!
Yeah, I'm running out to convert right now.
---- Darklady
------=_NextPart_000_01BB98C4.2CA76340
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Viejo <tomitire@vegas.infi.net> wrote in article <3228df36.10840824@news.vegas.infi.net>...
> 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.
Yes, this =
is how religionists generally choose to resolve
conflict.
> =
> It is happening now throughout Bosnia, Chechnya, Israel, =
Iraq,
> Muslims/Jews, Muslims/Russians, =
Muslims/Croats/Serbs.
Nice, =
peace-loving, god fearing nations. Another ringing =
endorsement
for the healing force of religion.
>
> And =
all of them against us as we march proudly into the 21st
> Century =
at the head of the UN Vanguard!
Oh, =
are they concerned about creationism vs. evolution in the U.S.
school =
systems? Or maybe they find our abortion policies =
problematic?
No, wait! It's women...they're really upset about =
the liberties those U.S.
bitches have...why in their countries they =
know how to deal with such
immorality! Here...in this holy =
book, let me show you...oh, your view of
god is different from =
theirs? Well, infidel, meet your god in its pathetic
hell =
tonight!
Yeah, I'm running out to =
convert right now.
---- Darklady
------=_NextPart_000_01BB98C4.2CA76340--
Subject: Conference Proceedings Update
From: Jim Proud
Date: 3 Sep 1996 20:38:45 GMT
Conference Proceedings Available
The following proceedings are available from the Colorado
School of Mines Office of Special Programs and Continuing
Education.
All prices are **postpaid** within the U.S. Contact us for
outside U.S. shipping prices.
***A copy of the table of contents of each volume can be
e-mailed. Contact the address below.***
1) 4th Tunnel Detection Symposium on Subsurface
Exploration Technology, April 1993, Denver, Colorado
$25.00
2) Third International Symposium on Mine Mechanization
and Automation, June 1995, Golden, Colorado
(2 volumes) $50 per volume
3) Rocky Mountain Symposium on Environmental Issues
in Oil and Gas Operations, Golden, Colorado
1994 and 1995 conference proceedings available.
1994 edition: $25.00; 1995 edition: $50.00
4) North American Tunneling ‘94, Conference and Exhibition
June 6-9, 1994, Golden, Colorado $25
5) International Workshop on Underwater Welding of Marine
Structures, Dec. 7-9, 1994, New Orleans, Louisiana $20
6) 15th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
August 13-15, 1996. $50
Credit cards and purchase orders accepted. For further details
contact the Earth Science Resource Center of the Colorado
School of Mines at: jproud@mines.edu
Subject: Re: Creationists prohibit GOD from using HIS method !?
From: "Tom Wilson"
Date: 3 Sep 1996 11:53:02 -0700
How could they be literal days when the sun was not
created until the 4th "day"?
Tom Wilson
Flagstaff, Arizona
Landis D. Ragon wrote in article
<50bc2v$20ne@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>...
> 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: Creation VS Evolution
From: tomitire@vegas.infi.net
Date: 3 Sep 1996 19:03:57 GMT
On 1996-09-01 lefty said:
>All it takes is:
>1) Some coding of the phenotype of a system -- its behaviour say.
And I wonder who does the coding?
All the cites you gave for computers are the result of an outside
entity doing the coding. You don't function on any level on a
computer without the basic microcoding of the CPU.
Takes design, intelligent design.
Notice the computer still can't be Kasparov. Do you know why?
Simple. All those who programmed the computer, as agroup, could
not beat Kasparov.
If you still wish to go with computers, how about you start with
a computer I build, which will not have a microcoded CPU to begin
with. I will bet that computer will do zilch except sit there.
tomi
`[1;32;47mNet-Tamer V 1.05.1 - Registered
Subject: Re: SURVEY: Take back your news group from the nonsense off topic posts
From: Richard Adams
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 12:21:28 -0700
Chuck Karish wrote:
>
> In article <322BB712.3BBE@oro.net>, Richard Adams wrote:
> >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.
>
> And turn the newsgroup into a discussion forum on the topic
> of who should be excluded from the forum.
>
> Richard, please go to your local video rental shop, get
> a copy of "Brazil" to watch, and stop pushing this nonsense.
> --
>
> Chuck Karish '81 Guzzi CX100
> karish@well.com '83 Guzzi Le Mans III (Fang, RSN)
> DoD #89
Actually yes, the group has the right to discuss
when necessary the topics that should be excluded
and enforce their charter. These discussions are
now taking place and will get worse as the cross posted
off topic stuff gets more frequent. Right now, the
group has no facility to enforce their charter.
The ability to enforce the charter is the benefit
of what I'm proposing.
In practice, the discussion forum you refer to would
occur less often than it does now once the group had
the facilty to keep off topic junk out, wouldn't it?
Richard
Subject: discussion of procedure to vote as to which posts are excluded by automated robot moderation
From: Richard Adams
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 12:40:30 -0700
I have no plans to change or moderate ca.earthquakes.
The suggestions you've presented below are good ones
and I'd like others should join into that discussion. Since.
these are actually for the proposal I'm doing with the
sci. hierarchy, I've crossposted your sugestions over there.
Other suggestions made by e-mail include the following:
the system can reject or approve posts based on the
orignator, the route it took getting there, the subject
listed, the other groups its cross-posted to or the
quantity of groups its cross posted to. Whatever
a reasonable computer program with string search
features could accomplish according to the group vote.
It's possible that artificial intelligence may have
some application here someday, but not
at this stage, since we may be faced with the
whim of the machine or a reflection of the
programmer's whim & opinions in that case.
The stuff about excluding subject topics is more
relevant to the spreading "creation versus evolution"
and related subjects debate which is a hot topic,
but off topic.
Richard
Al Cooperband wrote:
>
> Let me start by saying that I don't think we need a moderated newsgroup
> for CA earthquakes. But if you insist on submitting a proposal for one,
> I would like to see the following changes:
>
> Adams:
> > 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.
>
> Cooperband:
> Period of time should be indefinite with the excluded poster allowed
> to request another vote after 6 months.
>
> Adams:
> > 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.
>
> Cooperband:
> The votes should be collected for 30 days (to accommodate readers who
> are on vacation or trips).
>
> Adams:
> > 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.
>
> Cooperband:
> The criterion for exclusion should require at least 30 votes AND a
> super majority of at least 90%; the suggested procedure allows someone
> to be excluded with as few as 9 affirmative votes.
>
> Adams:
> > 11. The period of exclusion shall be the average of all exclusion
> > period duration from all "yes" votes.
>
> Cooperband:
> See #7, above. Keep it simple.
>
> Adams:
> > 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.
>
> Cooperband:
> See #7, above. If you don't limit how soon and at whose instigation a
> vote for re-inclusion can occur, you will find the newsgroup inundated
> with requests for votes of reconsideration coming from supporters of
> an excluded reader.
>
> /Al Cooperband
> ... unattributed opinions are my own
Subject: Re: Shift from UNIX to NT in progress?
From: will@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Will Morse)
Date: 3 Sep 1996 15:52:09 -0500
In article <01bb96d5$f6a157f0$a59feecd@firefly>,
Hugh Winkler wrote:
>Will,
>
>Why does depth-imaging profit from 64 bits?
>
>NT of course does multithread, but 32 bits.
>
>-------------------------------------------
>Hugh Winkler
>Scout Systems hughw@scoutsys.com
>Austin, Texas 512-452-3290
>
>
By depth imaging, I am referring to a group of
processes where 2D and 3D pre and post stack
time and depth migration are major components,
along with less computational processes such
as velocity modeling, ray tracing, etc. While
AVO and multiple suppression are not strictly
depth imaging, really anything that is done
to result in a depth image would count somewhere.
Basically, the benefit is a result of more
efficient access to the large size of the data.
Files start at about a gigabyte but more and more
we are seeing files around 40 to 60 gigabytes.
This is actually a 64-bit file in a 64-bit filesystem as
opposed to a 64-bit CPU itself, but a 64-bit CPU
can process the pointers in one chunk rather than
trying to use page registers or something.
We are currently pretty cramped in 2 gig of RAM
and I expect by next year to be moving up to
6 gig of RAM. The maximum directly addressable
by 32 bits is 4 gig, but most machines seem to
use 31 bits and a sign bit resulting in 2 gig
limitations.
This is using a shared memory multiprocessing
model, of course.
There are a lot of ways around this, such as
partitioning the problem and sending it out to
multiple small nodes using PVM or the like. The
problem is that you essentially double the total
RAM requirement, it just doesn't have to be in
one place.
The processing times for this type of work vary
from a several hours for post-stack, 2D data to
several weeks for pre-stack 3D. It is entirely
possible to handle these sizes of data (albeit,
probably not with standard compilers) using 32
bit systems using some method of partitioning the
data, but this means every data access involves
multiple steps, whereas with a 64-bit system
everything happens in one register. The time
and cost savings can be pretty substanstial.
Will
--
# Gravity, # Will Morse
# not just a good idea, # BHP Petroleum (Americas) Inc.
# it's the law. # Houston, Texas
# # will@starbase.neosoft.com
#
# These are my views and do not necessarly reflect the views of BHP !
Subject: Re: glacier temperature profile
From: khenders@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Keith A Henderson)
Date: 3 Sep 1996 21:02:04 GMT
In article <09960803203419.OUI58.100342.3513@compuserve.com>,
Horst Penschuck <100342.3513@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>I see I put my question quite naive. It arose just from a discussion
>during a visit to Iceland and its glaciers. The starting point was, that
>the average yearly temperature on top of the glaciers there should be
>somewhat below zero degree Celsius.
Assuming the glacier is not in negative balance (ie., wasting away), that is
true. And the 10m (depth in glacier) temperature should reflect the average
annual temperature, and should also be sub-zero accordingly. Unless there is
significant seasonal melting, in which case the 10m temperature may be several
degrees warmer than the average annual temp.
>The question: What would be measured inside the glacier looking down from the
>top to the ground (given the high pressure inside but without taking into
>account that there might be a volcano beneath)? Perhaps a more general answer
>could be possible for the icecaps of Greenland?
Well, for Greenland in summer, you'll have maybe -10C or so at the surface,
dropping very rapidly with depth to about 10-15m where the temp. would be about
-30C, and then leveling off and beginning to rise again below that. Because
the Greenland ice sheet has ice that formed all throughout the last glacial
cycle, there is a significant (smoothed out) temperature residual from when the
snow fell, ie. it contains a climate record in itself. I don't have the paper
in front of me, but Cuffey et al. just recently published a detailed analysis
of the Greenland temperature profile. I'm not sure what the bottom temperature
is, but it is very possible it is only slightly below zero. As far as I know,
though, there aren't lakes under the Greenland ice sheet, but I may be wrong.
As far as volcanos go, I suppose that *is* a possible factor in a place like
Iceland, and also in certain places in the Andes, and maybe even Alaska, but
when I was talking about 'geothermal heat' affecting the temperature profile of
a glacier, I was really talking about the normal upward flux of heat eminating
from the crustal rocks due to the natural deacy of radioactive elements. Hope
this didn't confuse you. This, of course, affects all glaciers, and is why all
of them have positive downward gradients. Some heat may also come from the
friction created as the glacier 'slides' over the bed, but I'm not sure what
the relative contributions are. Presumably, temperate glaciers would have very
little heat coming from friction, as they'd be lubricated by the presence of
meltwater at the interface.
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Keith Henderson-Byrd Polar Research Center (khenders@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
"If you think you've got an answer for everything, you're part of the problem."
(George Carlin)
Subject: Re: SURVEY: Take back your news group from the nonsense off topic posts
From: karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Date: 3 Sep 1996 21:07:02 GMT
In article <322C8538.3A13@oro.net>, Richard Adams wrote:
>Chuck Karish wrote:
>> And turn the newsgroup into a discussion forum on the topic
>> of who should be excluded from the forum.
>
>Actually yes, the group has the right to discuss
>when necessary the topics that should be excluded
>and enforce their charter. These discussions are
>now taking place and will get worse as the cross posted
>off topic stuff gets more frequent.
Imminent death of the Net predicted. Details at 11.
>Right now, the
>group has no facility to enforce their charter.
>The ability to enforce the charter is the benefit
>of what I'm proposing.
>
>In practice, the discussion forum you refer to would
>occur less often than it does now once the group had
>the facilty to keep off topic junk out, wouldn't it?
I don't see why. There'd be a discussion period of several
weeks for every change, like it or not; net propagation delays
make it difficult to shorten this. The type of discussion you
envision is sure to be a magnet for flames and personal
attacks.
The proposal also has the technical deficiency that people who
have previously been excluded have no way to participate
in the discussion that relates to their being reinstated.
This can't be avoided without adding more bureaucratic
features to the administration scheme.
This whole selection process is something that's more
appropriate on an individual level than for the group
as a whole. Suggestion: make a kill file available
for those who want to use it. You can do others a service
by keeping it updated.
--
Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com
(415) 323-9000 x117 karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Proposed Charter for ca.earthquakes
From: Richard Adams
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 14:37:31 -0700
Joel Garry wrote:
>
> It would only be a matter of time before immature adults would take
> over. Actually, just one message-bombing kid, if you think about it.
> You appear to be proposing a newsgroup for control-freaks, rather than
> for earthquakes. Science works best through creativity and research,
> not lowest-common-denominator witch hunts. Nice try, but you've made
> a typical programmers mistake of trying to program a solution with
> inadequate analysis of the problem set.
I'm not certain if you mean that the automated robot
could be defeated, or what. If that's the case, there's
enough experience with bots like this already to know
they can and do work effectively even against breakins.
It's not a group for control freaks, it is a method
to allow the group to remain focused and on topic.
This message was cross posted by me into the applicable
groups in the sci. hierarchy. It originated in the
ca.* hierarchy which is included in these discussions.
Richard
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 21:35:40 GMT
In talk.origins tomitire@vegas.infi.net wrote:
>On 1996-09-01 lefty said:
> >All it takes is:
> >1) Some coding of the phenotype of a system -- its behaviour say.
>And I wonder who does the coding?
>All the cites you gave for computers are the result of an outside
>entity doing the coding. You don't function on any level on a
>computer without the basic microcoding of the CPU.
>Takes design, intelligent design.
In GA work, at least, the coding involved is analogous to the laws of
physics. It takes no more "intelligence" than those laws exhibit.
>Notice the computer still can't be Kasparov. Do you know why?
>Simple. All those who programmed the computer, as agroup, could
>not beat Kasparov.
But the programs can beat any and all of their creators.
>If you still wish to go with computers, how about you start with
>a computer I build, which will not have a microcoded CPU to begin
>with. I will bet that computer will do zilch except sit there.
If the world were different it would be different. But we can build
simple compute system that evolve complex code.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which comes a might surprise to them.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Wayne Shanks
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 17:49:08 -0400
tomitire@vegas.infi.net wrote:
>
> On 1996-09-01 lefty said:
>
> >All it takes is:
>
> >1) Some coding of the phenotype of a system -- its behaviour say.
>
> And I wonder who does the coding?
>
> All the cites you gave for computers are the result of an outside
> entity doing the coding. You don't function on any level on a
> computer without the basic microcoding of the CPU.
>
> Takes design, intelligent design.
>
>
>
> If you still wish to go with computers, how about you start with
> a computer I build, which will not have a microcoded CPU to begin
> with. I will bet that computer will do zilch except sit there.
>
> tomi
>
> `[1;32;47mNet-Tamer V 1.05.1 - Registered
You are missing a subtle point. The software of the computer is to the
CPU as the laws of physics are to reality. To continue the computer
analogy, reality is hard coded for self organizing systems. I put it to
you that GOD does not tinker around with the universe like so many
legos, or a giant erector set. If you want to talk about "creation" and
inteligent design then you must talk about the structure and design of
the very fabric of reality, not the curent state of the universe. God
does not monkey around with "things"
I find it more satifying to think that GOD simply said "let there be
light", or maby just "let there be", and the rest is a trivial outgroath
of his/her initial creation of infinite subtlely
Personaly, I find the fact that life and existance seems not to need an
"assembler" to be the greatest reason for a beliefe in a designer.
I figure it will be about 3 years before we see man made, self
replicating "compounds", and probably another 3 years before it is
demonstrated that similar conditions were ultra wide spread on the early
earth, and possible mars, and europa.
Wayne Shanks
Subject: carleton geology students
From: rrothste@chat.carleton.ca (Rob Rothstein)
Date: 3 Sep 1996 19:13:53 GMT
If you know Grant Fowler, help play a gag on him. Since he was gone all
summer, we could really pull something off on him. Next time you see him,
tell him that you saw him on channel 10. Pretend that it was a one of
those introductory/dating service commercials and they showed Grant working
out. He would then force himself to watch the french channel hoping to
see the commercial that everyone is pestering him about.
By the way, if you are reading this Grant, you suck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Rothstein
Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
CALGARY ROB - CALGARY FLAMES RULE
Email address: rrothste@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant likes gravy!!!
Subject: Re: Religion of science and science of Relligion
From: flonesaw@netonecom.net (Arne W. Flones)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 22:19:50 GMT
ALL LIVING THINGS ON EARTH ARE IN TRANSITION.
Regards,
Arne
flonesaw@netonecom.net
richhall@seanet.com (Richard F. Hall) wrote:
>In article Fred Edwords writes:
>>> >
>>> > My favorite current transitional life forms are the various
>>> > species of penguins.
>>My choice would be the hippo, an animal which occupies the same ecological
>>niche that the land-mammal ancestor of modern whales once did. The hippo
>>spends most of its life in the water, gives birth in the water, yet
>>grazes on land, eating grass. It's nickname of "sea cow" is most
>>appropriate, given the common creationist charicature of cetacian
>>evolution. But will the hippo evolve into a completely aquatic or marine
>>mammal as did the ancestor of the whales and dolphins? I dunno. Do I
>>look like a wizard with a crystal ball?
>My choice would be the human being who has attained the ability to read in
>only the last 1,000-4,500 years. Although this is a very small portion of the
>brain, it appears to be extremely important in the propogation of the species.
>richard f hall
>http://seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html