Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: myers@netaxs.com (Paul Myers)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:50:49 -0400
In article <1780C94D5S85.MWHICKZ1@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>,
MWHICKZ1@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (Mike Hickerson) wrote:
>
> Look. If your department head told you he had discovered the secret to
> life, and it was this: life is the result of random chemical reactions
> and accidental meteor hits into the primordial ooze that eventually, through
> genetic quirks and mishaps of geology, evolved into rational, moral
> being whose rationality was the refinement of various hunting skills,
> whose morality was the codified rules of survival of the fittest and
> continuation of the species, whose art and music was the result of
> electrochemical activity in extraneous and vestigal parts of the brain
> originally used for mating, and whose religion was the extension of
> numerous inefficient processes normally used to find order and patterns
> in the tracks of fodder and in the behavior of others in the herd,
> would you accept that explanation without first checking with priests,
> ministers, philosophers, and other professors in your university who
> are also seeking "the secret of life" in one form or another? Would you
> accept that expert opinion without first asking the opinions of other
> experts?
>
Nope. If he had concrete physical and chemical evidence for his assertion,
and if he was ONLY making claims about the biology, the last people I would
talk to would be unqualified priests and philosophers. I wouldn't blithely
accept his claims, though -- I would review the evidence with other
biologists, chemists, geologists, etc., and develop a rational opinion
based on the observed facts. Most priests do not have the expertise to
evaluate biological theories, and as long as this is a theory about
biology, I would think their uneducated opinions would be utterly
worthless.
On the other hand, if my chairman claimed to have discovered the social
and philosophical basis of human life, I would take a rather different
approach. I can respect his knowledge of biology, but I don't know about
his knowledge of philosophy, so I'd be a little more doubtful of his
claims. In this case, I would consult philosophers and ministers and
professors in fields outside of the hard sciences, because they are the
ones who think seriously about issues of morality and purpose.
This is where most scientists and creationists are at cross-purposes.
Scientists are perfectly willing to acknowledge the ability of theologians
to discuss matters of philosophy, or social issues; they are also _usually_
willing to admit that their scientific training is of little use in such
discussions. Faith and science are pretty distinct entities to scientists.
Unfortunately, some creationists raise our hackles by _refusing_ to see
that the complement is also often the case: ministers and philosophers
are not qualified to discuss science, although they may be hot stuff
in their own domains.
Or do you, perhaps, think that a priest is qualified to give an educated
opinion in ALL issues, including ones in which he has never been given
a scrap of training? That's the implication in your question above, that
I should go running down the street to the Campus Ministry to ask their
opinion of any and all scientific result. Hey, we're really struggling in
the lab with this problem of replacement of embryonic cutaneous sensory
structures with dorsal root ganglion arbors; who do you think would give
us the best advice, our local rabbi or a baptist minister?
--
Paul Myers Department of Biology
myers@netaxs.com Temple University
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/ Philadelphia, PA 19122
Subject: Next window Sept. 29th, 1996
From: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 01:24:26 GMT
Predictions based on positions of the sun and moon have to be regarded
a trifle more
seriously, since there is evidence that tidal forces may occasionally
act as triggers for
earthquakes otherwise on the point of taking place; in this way the
date and hours of
occurrence ( occurrence -two r's) may show a slight statistical
correlation with the
tides.
- Proof of many of my well documented predictions and dates are to be
found there -
http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html - try it .
This theory is at an early stage and is EXPERIMENTAL only.
Next window is for Sept. 29th, 1996- A window is operational 1200
hours
centering the given date and sometimes a few hours before and after
the window -
Thus 1200 Sept.28th through 1200 hours Sept. 30th - UTC is used. This
theory indicate
only the possibility for UNUSUAL weather and HIGH seismic activity.
Previous
windows have accurately pin pointed earthquakes of a minimum of 6.0
and well above
7.0 " As above as below", everything is interconnected. The windows
do not stop at
earthquakes (HIGH) probability/intensity but include various ways of
mother nature
expressing herself through destructive weather pattern. (
(Andrew/Edouard/Fran/volcanoes/ tornadoes/floods etc.).
This negative celestial energy (cyclonic reasonance) also affects
sophisticated electronics
equipments (planes/ boats/ trains/cars/ airport traffic control
towers, generators/
electronics) thus the high possibility to experience
failures/accidents leading to a lost of
general power as experienced with both "state blackouts" (USGS
equipment failure :)
that struck inside my windows.
Those windows do also affects "physical" computers (viruses) and
(spiritual) computer
(brain) which is reacting with the subtle but real outside "stimuli".
Thus under those
windows, the worse elements of our society will respond and act out
(robotic
expressions) the will of the cosmos "Rodney King dilemma, Los Angeles
riots etc.
producing dramatic news with the police force".
A Supernova month is unfolding. Weeks before January 1996 I posted
my predictions
for a Supernova window. Then, a few weeks later, as anticipated "A
record breaking
weather development" hit New York early January 1996- September 1996
will be one of
the worst month in 1996 in terms of weather development and natural
disasters and both
Edouard and Fran again happened on the posted Supernova windows.
On the following windows for this Supernova month of September 1996,
expect the
weather to go seriously out of hand. The upcoming nefarious energy
will produce chain
reaction accidents, oil spill, sea accidents. On certain given dates
expect volcanoes
eruption, tornadoes, flooding and large earthquakes.
Such has (on the window) the Caribbean volcano eruption-- PLYMOUTH,
Montserrat --
Spewing red-hot gravel, an erupting volcano torched several buildings
in an evacuated
zone and coated with ash the abandoned capital of that West Indies
island. It was the
largest eruption of the Soufriere Hills volcano since it rumbled to
life last year.
This energy will certainly affect airports electronics (USGS
computers :) -- and thousands of travelers will be
stucked "cancelation flights". Black out, lost of power and general
communication is a very high probability on my windows. If NASA decide
to launch the shuttle, they are on for serious
electronics failures and trouble then costly cancellations. A shuttle
exploded a few years
ago and many expansive satellites were lost during these "Supernova"
windows.
Here is the dates and please PRINT THEM!
September 2nd -
September 11th -
September 17th-
September 29th-
The next destructive Supernova window is for December 1996. Then again
the worse of nature devastating forces will plague the world --(just
commemorate this post, better print it!)
To all - A Supernova month is in action, thus be ready for a very
destructive celestial energy affecting the weather, producing
hurricanestornadoes and very large quakes on the given dates for
Sept. 1996.
Sample of previous posts - September 1996 will be one of the worst
month in 1996 in terms of weather development and natural disasters.
On the following windows, expect the weather to go seriously out of
hand. The upcoming nefarious energy will produce chain reaction
accidents, oil spill, sea accidents. On certain given dates expect
volcanoes eruption, tornadoes, flooding and large earthquakes.
Window of Sept. 11th -
Dr. Turi
private@aol.com ()
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Dr. Turi's predictions
Date: 10 Sep 1996 23:05:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Well, today is 9/11 in Japan........Tokyo has a 6.6 earthquake,
centered in the
Pacific.....with a Tsunanmi warning. You were at least on the right
side of the world on
this.
------------------------------
Window of Sept.17th,
Tornadoes strike hurricane-slammed North Carolina - September 17,
1996 - KINSTON,
North Carolina -- Add tornadoes to the weather problems of eastern
North Carolina.
Two weeks after Hurricane Fran thrashed the area with torrential rains
and high winds, at
least three damaging twisters spun through communities that were still
reeling from
floods.
September 17, 1996 - Thunderstorms in East, snow in Utah - Rain
spread across much
of the East Coast states on Tuesday Sept. 17th, and tornadoes hit
beleaguered North
Carolina. In the West, cold air brought snow to the mountains of Utah.
Well before the NWS found names for hurricanes, well before USGS
posted large
earthquakes, well before CNN reported major news (black out/Saddam
Hussein/OK/Atlanta Georgia bombings etc.etc. it was posted on the
net or WWW at http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html -
Thousands have my books and Fate magazine (Jan.1st 1996 issue )
printed my prediction (100 churches burning). Full proof of the
prediction of Kobe/Japan quakes on (Ch.10 Phoenix, AZ/Ch.3 Tucson,
AZ/KTAR radio) are available for the skeptics. See the program and
the date of Jan.16th, 1995 on camera preparing the audience for the
worse earthquake to hit Japan, 2 weeks before unfolding. Listen on
91X radio station San Diego, CA my prediction of the baseball strike
and the O.J. Simpson dilemma.
Again do not let jealousy or ignorance dictate what you should believe
or not! see for yourself the SAMPLE OF SUPERNOVA PREDICTION POSTED
JANUARY 1996 ON THE WWW.
Full proofs of 1996/1997 Universal Predictions and dates are to be
found at http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html
I would like to thanks all the people on this group for their
participation.
Respectfully to all
Dr. Turi
Subject: Re: IMPACT OROGENY ON EARTH
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 25 Sep 1996 02:01:22 GMT
Thank you, Dr. Pixelhead:
Now, add into the equations the stored "tectonic" energy of the plates that
gets released as an immediate consequence of large oceanic impacts. This
is the gravitational energy of "rigid" continental plates that have moved
from one geo-specific geoidal conformity to new global positions where the
undersurface of the plate no longer matches the geoidal shape at the
respectively new positions. This energy increases as the interval of time
between large impacts increases. Did you miss that part of the model? You
have taken so many individual comments out of their original contexts (for
example, I have never stated that Hawaii was formed by a 6 km diameter
asteroid, and believe a much larger and faster moving asteroid was
involved) that it is no wonder that you are (again) confused.
Tell me, are you saying that there are no very large potential impactors in
space? Are you saying that ours is a solar system devoid of interactions
with the debris generated by distant, long ago supernovae, in which the
ballistic trajectories of debris? The last time I heard from you, you were
going to explain away the HST observations of Priscilla Frisch, the UofC
astronomer who mapped the density of space in the vicinity of the solar
system... data showing that our Sun passed through the leading edge of a
supernova's spherical shell of debris somewhere between 8 and 13 thousand
years ago. If I recall, you were going to tell us the effects this had on
radiocarbon isotopes.
I've heard through the grapevine that you've been fuming for the past
month. Sorry 'bout that, and thank you so much for your most recent
contributions. Welcome back to the Internet.
Robert D. Brown, M.D.
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups
From: kjn@netcom.com (Ken Navarre)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 02:00:22 GMT
David Stinson (daves@procom.com) wrote:
: The case could just as easily be reversed on you, Mr. Navarre. Show reason
: why he should be constrained to a mailing list.
There's no reason that he *should* be constrained, David. It is just an
alternative that has proven workable in numerous other areas where a
group of individuals have wanted to clear some "clutter" from their area
of interest.
Richard mentioned:
>I believe I have answered this question each time it was posed by you,
>including the very first time 2 months ago.
Sorry, must have missed it thru some error on my part... :(
Thanks for responding to it again.
>The answer is that a mailing list is NOT a news group. It may be
>similiar but it's distribution is more limited and obscure.
I agree it wouldn't have the immediate audience of new subscribers to
USENET but when people find a newsgroup that peaks their interest it
isn't unusual to learn tht a maillist also exists that screens some
messages and forwards others to the group of subscribers.
Mail lists are usually used by people with a limited amount of time and a
large interest in a specific area. They rely upon bots and moderators to
do the work of screening, much like the system that you're proposing.
> There are people that want a moderated news group.
Yes, there are. I look forward to the day when the Call for Votes arrives
so that we can see the ratio of those who want a moderated group vs those
who don't.
>For that matter, web pages, e-mailed magazines, IRchat are all channels
>of communication that could be used but they are likewise not news
>groups.
Nor do they fulfill the role of a moderated mail list. One of your
earlier arguments dealt with the problem of regional feeds such as
ca.earthquakes being unavailable to USENET subscribers throughout the world.
A moderated earthquake mail list would be a solution to issues like that
and would a single source for eq information for several newsgroups with
redistribution back to the original group. It'd be available to everyone
with e-mail service whether or not their ISP offered the specific USENET
ngs.
> Why should the people that want a moderated newsgroup have to place it in
> more obscure place? Other moderated newsgroups exist without being so
> hidden.
Of course, they shouldn't. Which is why we'll vote on the issue. If it
passes, fine. If it doesn't, I'm sure well be having this discussion
again... :)
>I apologize that I took an offensive position with you by turning
>the question around.
No problem. No offense taken. We're both just voicing opinions held by
ourselves as well as others.
>The fact is some people want a moderated newsgroup for these topics,
>and I believe it will have no negative impact on you personally, and ask
>that you not stand in the way of allowing other people to have the group
>they want. You'll still have your existing forums.
So, you're asking that I refrain from offering a "NO" vote when the CFV
arrives??? Ummmmm, I'll have to think about... Wouldn't that imply that
whenever a vote was offered all the "nays" should just "stay at home" and
let the issue pass???
take care.
Ken
--
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups*ILLEGAL MODERATION*
From: lofstrom@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 04:28:29 GMT
mikejm@westworld.com wrote:
: The 30,000 messages that were cancelled throughout usenet were
: cancelled from a bot program ran on a server owned by cottagesoft.
: This domain is a rogue site that leases their connectivity from
: Sprintlink and its main source of income is SPAM. They are located in
: Northern Oklahoma and complaints to their postmaster have in the past
: resulted in 5000 line nastygrams from the sites postmaster.
Close but not quite. So far there are reports of ONE spammer at
cottagesoft, who is presumed to have been the canceller, though we
don't know for sure. Cottagesoft did cut off the canceller, so they
can't be presumed to be rogue.
People complained to the upstream postmaster, at galstar, about the
spam and got nastygrams. This was NOT the postmaster at cottagesoft.
I know that we're all outraged by this attack on Usenet, but do let's
try to keep a sense of proportion and fair play.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofstrom@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Is this the Gordian knot? The thing doctors sever upon birth?
Personally, I like navel oranges the best." -- Ludwig Plutonium
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
From: david ford
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 01:00:28 -0400
Someone sent me personal reply about a month ago out of sci.geo.geology,
and I deleted the thing without replying. I'd here like to say that I'm
sorry for not replying, and say "thank you" for the reply. Concerning the
numerous "Creation VS Evolu..." posts sci.geo.geology has seen, and how to
get rid of them, you could ask people to not send the newsgroup stuff that
doesn't pertain to geology, or could get involved in the debate and snip
out sci.geo.geology in your posts, continue the discussion for a short
while in another newsgroup (if needed), and then let the thing go. Soon,
only a few stragglers will be left, and hopefully they'll have something
to say that relates to geology. Maybe.
Subject: Fun Science Projects for Kids!
From: David Englund
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:27:34 -0600
Check out http://edventures.com and let me know what you think.
Edventures! is a terrific new way to learn about your world. You'll have
fun with LEGO=AE products, surf on the Internet, send e-mail, participate=
in exciting contests, and meet new friends from all over the world that
are doing the same hands-on projects just like you. =
Sound like fun? =
You'll learn about everything from airplanes to dinosaurs -- from
fossils to fossil fuels. You'll build working models of all sorts of
machines, from four-wheel-drive vehicles to robots. You'll create useful
electronic stuff, like a real alarm system for your room.
=
You'll do chemistry experiments in the kitchen sink where you make your
own slime and ooze. You'll check out the latest and greatest computer
games and animation software. You can even make your own comic book!
There are tons of fun projects you can do starting today, no matter what
your age or skill level.
You can register now for FREE!
Examples:
Description of Chemistry Projects:
Chemistry covers the various elements and compounds that
make up everything in the world around us. Chemists design and
develop vital technology ranging from air and water purification
and treatment systems to new formulas for automobile paint and
soft drinks. Chemists need to also understand electronics,
physics, biology, mathematics, and geology. =
Within Edventures! students learn about Chemistry by first
studying the relationships between protons, neutrons, electrons,
atoms, compounds, particles, and the periodic table. Fun
experiments vary from making slime and ooze in the kitchen sink
to distilling a complex compound and identifying contaminants in
air and water samples. =
Description of Life Science Projects:
Life Science is the study of plants and animals in the world
around us. Biologists, Zoologists, and Botanists design and
develop technology ranging from new miracle drugs that cure
diseases to safe ways of eliminating solid and liquid wastes. =
Life Scientists need to understand many other areas in order to =
do their work, including electronics, computer modeling, animal and
plant development, geology, and organic chemistry. =
Within Edventures! students begin to learn about Life Science by
caring for and studying their own pets and progress to the study
of box turtles, iguanas, and other zoological topics. Life =
Science projects include plant identification and taxonomy, compiling
field notebooks and journals, and creating computer models of
populations with simulation software. =
The following are some of the first subject areas that Edventures! will
be offering upon its initial debut. In the following months, additional
areas will continue to be added making Edventures! a dynamic, growing
learning system. Best of all,these areas will be developed based heavily
upon student requests! So don't be shy, tell us what you are interested
in and we'll do our best to make it available soon! =
Mechanical Engineering
Architecture
Computer Graphics
Flight Studies
Chess
Physics
Life Sciences
Chemistry
Subject: Declassified/Unpublished Technical Information on Geological Topics Now Available
From: Michael Ravnitzky
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 01:49:57 -0600
At a government agency--often obscure to outsiders--called DTIC: Defense
Technical Information Center, there are a large number of govt technical
reports on almost any subject under the sun.
You'll have to select your own keyword(s) for the exact subjects you¹re
interested in. I suggest you select about a dozen keywords or less.
Please select your keywords carefully and include plural(s).
The fee is likely to be free or only a few bucks. You probably want to
include a statement in the letter such as ³I agree to pay reasonable
fees associated with this request.², so that they won't delay the
processing of the request.
To get your bibliography (list) of technical reports, send a letter of
request as follows:
To: Defense Technical Information Center
Attn: DTIC-RSM (Kelly D. Akers, FOIA Manager)
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6128 USA
Phone: 703-767-9194
Dear Ms. Akers:
I request the following records under the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act:
A computer generated technical report bibliography (all computerized
years) of reports on the subject(s)/keyword(s) of:
________________ OR _________________ OR ________________ OR
_______________ OR _________________ OR _______________
This is a request for DTIC records, please don't forward my request to
NTIS. Please include both classified and unclassified records in your
search. If any of the records are classified, please review them for
release, or the release of nonsensitive portions.
I fall into the fee category "all other requesters" because I am an
individual, noncommercial requester and this request is not being made
for commercial purposes. [OR YOU MIGHT INSTEAD SAY THAT YOU ARE A
COMMERCIAL REQUESTER, OR AN EDUCATIONAL OR SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION, OR A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MEDIA] I also agree to pay up to $35 for
reasonable fees associated with this purpose.
Sincerely, ______________
Subject: Geotech. Geol. Eng. Vol 14. No 2. Contents.
From: David Toll
Date: 25 Sep 1996 07:26:42 GMT
GEOTECHNICAL & GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
an international journal
CONTENTS - ISSUE 14:2 (May 1996)
M.T. Manzari
Finite deformation analysis of liquefaction induced flow
failure in soil embankments
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 14, pp 83-110.
G. Bouckovalas, A. Anagnostopoulos, A. Kapenis & T. Karantoni
Analysis of soil effects and distribution of damage from Pyrgos
1993 (Greece) earthquake
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 14, pp 111-128.
M.G. Karfakis, C.H. Bowman & E. Topuz
Characterization of coal-mine refuse as backfilling material
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 14, pp 129-150.
Gang Chen & Yoginder P. Chugh
Estimation of insitu viscoelastic parameters of weak floor
strata by plate-loading tests
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 14, pp 151-167.
*ELECTRONIC IN 1996*
See World Wide Web URL:
http://www.chaphall.com/chaphall/journals.html
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT GEOTECHNICAL & GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering has as its main aim
the publication of papers in the areas of soil and rock
engineering and hydrology as they relate to the civil
engineering, water engineering, mining and offshore
industries. The emphasis is on practical applications of
geotechnical engineering and engineering geology, although
papers on theoretical and experimental advances in soil
mechanics and rock mechanics are also welcomed for
inclusion.
The Journal publishes contributions in the form of original
and review papers, or as short technical notes. A book
review section informs the discerning reader of the type and
quality of literature available to the geotechnical engineer
and engineering geologist. Reports on recent meetings and
symposia are included.
For more information contact the editors:
D. G. Toll, School of Engineering, University of Durham,
Durham, DH1 3LE, UK.
e-mail: d.g.toll@durham.ac.uk.
www: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0dt/
K. Kim, Henry Krumb School of Mines, Seeley W. Mudd
Building, Columbia University, 500 W 120th Street, New York,
NY 10027, USA.
e-mail: kk21@columbia.edu
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering is published by:
Chapman & Hall, 2-6 Boundary Row, London SE1 8HN, UK.
For subscription information e-mail: chsub@itps.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr David Toll Tel: (+44/0) 191 374 2566
University of Durham Fax: (+44/0) 191 374 2550
School of Engineering e-mail: d.g.toll@durham.ac.uk
South Road www: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0dt/
Durham, DH1 3LE, UK
Subject: Shallow-depth DC investigations and software
From: "Eugene V. Pervago"
Date: 25 Sep 1996 13:43:02 +0400
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia, Moscow, 119899, MSU, Faculty of Geology, Dept. of Geophysics,
Phone and fax: (7-095) 939-49-63, E-mail: JOHN@GEOPHYS.GEOL.MSU.SU
The laboratory of shallow-depth electrical prospecting
of geophysical department at MSU Geological faculty
The scientists of the laboratory are developing algorithms and
computer programs for decision of forward and inverse problems of
resistivity method. The program's products: IPI-1D, IPI-2D, IE2DL
are widely known in Russia and are applied in many countries abroad.
IPI-1D - is a set of programs for processing and
interpretation of VES data within the framework of
horizontally-layered models.
IPI-2D - is a set of programs for processing, visualization
and interpretation of VES data along profiles, received with the
Total Electrical Soundings technology (TES), developed in MSU.
The IPI-2D programs effectively work in 2D inhomogeneous media
and in horizontally-layered media, as their application allows to
suppress distorting influence of near-surface inhomogeneities (NSI
or geological noise) and as a result to increase considerably an
accuracy of interpretation.
IE2DL - the set of the programs for VES data modeling in 2D
inhomogeneous media. IE2DL programs are used for study of
influence of typical inhomogeneities, to choice of an optimum
technology of investigation, to develop interpretation technology
in inhomogeneous media and etc..
Except programs already listed above, our specialists
developed some programs for modeling, studying, visualization and
interpretation of resistivity data in anisotropic media
(anisotropic half-space, two- and multi-layered media with
anisotropic bedrock and for vertical contact of two anisotropic
media). There are also modeling programs for the case of 3D
inhomogeneous media, for inhomogeneous 3D objects in the
half-space and in layered medium.
There are programs of modeling and interpretation of the
electrical soundings data measured on aquatorias for the cases of
floating, bottom and vertical arrays for bottom layers' sounding.
We can model the distribution of electric current lines and
potential isolines in 2D inhomogeneous media. This modeling help
to imagine better an electrical field behavior in inhomogeneous
media and select the optimal technology for such media study.
The investigations of a topographic effect of the earth-air
boundary over inhomogeneous 2D media are also executed.
The main sphere of our practical interests - is the decision
of complex engineering-geological and geoecological problems. The
laboratory has experience of field researches of ecological,
permafrost, archaeological, engineering and ecological objects
(pollution by petroleum, waste deposits, study of low-amplitude
tectonics on the surface over coal deposits, study of a subsurface
at the side of profiles of investigation, including that under
buildings, research the surrounding of pipelines and so on).
We have an experience of researches on shallow-water and
deep-water rivers and ponds, so in walking variants and from
different vessels.
On territories with complicated conditions of electrodes
grounding it is possible to apply special technology of electrical
sounding or profiling without galvanic contacts. This technology
was developed by B.G.Sapognikov (St.Petersburg) and advanced in
MSU. Non-grounding electrical prospecting can be used both in
summer, and in winter seasons.
On any question, mentioned in the present message we can give
the additional information. It was published in three monographs
on resistivity method, in numerous scientific publications. There
are also advertizing information and the detailed instructions to
the sets of computer programs, both in Russian and English language.
==================================================================
Please, ask directly by E-mail
Best regards,
Eugene Pervago
Subject: Re: NEWSGROUP ABOUT GOLD DEPOSITS
From: "Tedd F. Sperling"
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 08:20:30 +0000
v.bouchot wrote:
>
> I am looking for a relevant newsgroup where it's possible to discuss about
> gold deposits, gold metallogeny, news concepts, gold exploration...
>
> WHO CAN HELP ME ?
>
> Thank You
> Vincent
Vincent:
Why not here (sci.geo.geology)? After all, this newsgroup is supposed to
about geology topics. I can think of nothing more interesting than
finding stuff within the earth.
Disregard all the Creation VS Evolution stuff, and other such arguments,
those are pointless (IMHO). There is no answer. It's a question of
faith.
However, finding gold is another matter. It's a matter of fact and I,
for one, would look forward to gold topics.
tedd
_______________________________________________________________________
sperling@geophysics.com
Subject: Re: Religion of science and science of Relligion
From: Michael Martin-Smith
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:43:27 +0100
In article , Douglas Bashford
writes
>Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>
>
>
> Re: Religion of science and science of Relligion
>
>
>talk.philosophy.misc is a low volume newsgroup and we are being
>swamped by off-topic creationism/religion vs. science
>and related debates, some of a political nature. In fact these
>are now in the majority.
>
> talk.philosophy.misc has discussed this and reached
>the overwhelming consensus that these are off-topic here.
>While everything may have a philosophical angle, we do
>not wish to have everything crossposted here.
>
>Please remove talk.philosophy.misc from all related threads.
>
>You are welcome to subscribe and participate with talk.philosophy.misc
>where on-topic discussions like the below are not being crossposted:
>
>
> Yep, zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) wrote on 13 Sep 1996
>19:10:14 GMT about:
> Re: Is Ayn Rand Real Philosophy?
>
>>kjbeirne@usa.pipeline.com(Kenneth J. Beirne) writes:
>>>'zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)' wrote:
>
>>>>For given your statement, it is possible merely to identify facts
>>>>with event-tokens.
>>
>>>Sure, one can identify "facts" with anything, since they are "made up
>>>things." One should not mistake "facts," for existing beings, or one ends
>>>up with Wittgenstein in the Tractatus, laboring under the notion that the
>>>world is the totality of facts.
>>
>>There is a vast gap between realism about states of affairs and
>>Tractarian nominalism. An ability to recognize such differences is
>>just one of the benefits conferred by the academy. Speaking as one
>>intimately familiar with both kinds of practices, autodidacticism
>>has much in common with autoeroticism: sooner or later, it becomes
>>necessary to seek intercourse with other rational animals.
>
>>>>Since not every kind of legitimate scientific study either affords or
>>>>requires an axiological insight, your original claim remains falsified.
>>
>>>Hardly. My original claim was that science had nothing useful to say about
>>>human ends. That stands. Science in itself does not even have anything
>>>useful to say about the criteria for "useful."
>
>>You are overlooking the possibility -- nay, likelihood -- that science
>>might reveal functional aspects of human nature upon which all correct
>>ascription of human utility depends. For instance, human physiology
>>is a partial determinant of being useful for humans. Again, there is
>>a vast gap between adumbrating a proposition that T is good for H and
>>determining the conditions of fitness of H that render any ascription
>>of finality thereto plausible -- or even possible. As Kant remarked,
>>human ends differ from the ends of angels; and whereas one may only
>>speculate about the nature of angels, it falls upon the scientist to
>>uncover human nature.
>
>>>>This sounds like a political doctrine scarcely suitable to rebut a
>>>>philosophical point. Science is as science does. In particular,
>>>>the quantitative aspects of, say, Durkheimian sociology are as
>>>>readily susceptible to falsification as the predictions of quantum
>[...big chop...]
>
>
>Thanks for removing talk.philosophy.misc from your
>newsgroups lists in the future!
>--Douglas Bashford,
>
Science has shown us, so far, that Life on Earth is subject to mass
extinctions; that Mind is probably extremely rare, and a precarious
growth on any solar system ( probably most) threatened by collision with
Long period comets from Oort's cloud or its equivalents, and that Life
tends to evolve from the less complex to the more intelligent, over a
long time, and at an increasing rate. Science, Mind, and technology make
perfectly evolutionary sense, contrary to the views of some latter day
Luddites, in that they alone give us the tools for survival and
development, namely the ability to spread Life out into the Galaxy, and
do there what Gaia has done on Earth. A new creed for the next
Millennium propses that as a step towards the EVOLUTION OF A UNIVERSAL
MIND, the human role is to use our Intelligence to perform this one
task not open to any other creature on earth. It seems that this has
not been done , at any detectable scale, by any other race (Fermi's
paradox). Science thus gives Man a concrete purpose outside
metaphysics. Of course, to do this, we will need to build a farsighted
disciplined society in which hedonistic goals are replaced by respect
for learning, aplplication and co-operation, without petty nationalistic
or sectarian trivia, or mental pollution by drugs or pornography. In a
word, a Universal religion of the best type. In many ways the Bahai
Faith fits the bill, if they can be induced to buy the destiny in Space
concept. As for the ideology of Humna destiny in Space, my friend
Stephen Ashworth has coined a new name- "Astronism" see http:people.delp
hi.com/astronist/index.html
--
Michael Martin-Smith
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: Anthony Potts
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:01:27 GMT
On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Mike Turk wrote:
>
> However, you used a great deal of energy to stack up the salt
> crystals. Entropy increases.
>
> > -Morty
>
It can be shown that any method of storing information increases the
entropy of a system, so stacking some salt most definitely would.
The fact is tha we can only be certain of an increase of entropy in a
closed system. If any photons are allowed tyo escape, we don't have a
closed system, and so the increasing entropy argument may well be useless.
People who try and use thermodynamics to show that life couldn't have
evolved rarely have any working knowledge of the subject.
I will state my view of it, as a physicist, so that all the creationists
can write it down, and look at it when they feel an argument about to
start.
There is nothing in thermodynamics which disallows the formation of highly
ordered life forms, by purely natural means, from a disordered set of
starting conditions.
A pool of proteins arranging themselves into complex organic moleculesis
not a violation of the flow of entropy.
To think that it is, is to have misunderstood the whole point of this part
of physics.
Subject: Re: Public note- request from a French man!
From: Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 14:44:34 GMT
In article <52al2u$bjq@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi) says...
>
>I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people voting
>no for a "controlled/moderated" newsgroup. Free speech is and must
>stay a part of this great nation (and the net). Many have tried to
>get rid of me hidding they desire for "power" behind the word
>regulation and netiquete. I am pleased to realize that the majority
>of people on this group do not want to be regulated in any way.
>
Aw, rats! There goes any chance we had of keeping s.g.* unmoderated. :-)
Seriously though Turi, you may be a raving loony but, as long as you stick
to on-topic stuff like earthquake prediction (even if it's based on what
colour the elephant at the foot of your bed was this morning), then I'll
defend your right to post such material. Of course, I'll also defend my
right to ignore/poke fun at it.
--
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com or fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.
Subject: Re: SURVEY - all voters kept secret - here's your chance to have a say & make a difference without being flamed -for sci.geo.geology and sci.geo.earthquakes
From: Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 14:49:34 GMT
In article <32483363.2C20@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams) says...
>
>Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>>
>> In article <3246EC20.15E2@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams)
says...
>> >
>> >Other claims have been stated that when the results of such surveys are
>> >posted, they may unfairly influence the group.
>>
>> Only by you. This is your excuse for keeping thge results of your surveys
>> secret.
>
>
>Interesting how you removed, without acknoledgement, the relevant
>information from the post you quoted me on where I identified that the
>survey itself claimed the results would not be posted. It's not an excuse,
>I'm just doing what I promised.
>
>Richard
But your excuse was all I was interested in and, unlike you, I try not to
bury the salient points in a load of crud.
You're the only person to have claimed that posting the results of such
surveys may unfairly influence the group. In your post above you imply that
others have made the same claim. The rest of your post bore no relation to
this point so I snipped it. If you insist on posting >100 line rants then
they'll get snipped.
So, who - apart from you- has claimed that the group would be influenced if
you published the results of your survey?
--
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com or fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.
Subject: Re: Religion of science and science of Relligion
From: Keith Stein
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 16:01:34 +0100
In article , Michael Martin-Smith
writes
>
>Science has shown us, so far, that Life on Earth is subject to mass
>extinctions; that Mind is probably extremely rare, and a precarious
>growth on any solar system ( probably most) threatened by collision with
>Long period comets from Oort's cloud or its equivalents, and that Life
>tends to evolve from the less complex to the more intelligent, over a
>long time, and at an increasing rate. Science, Mind, and technology make
>perfectly evolutionary sense, contrary to the views of some latter day
>Luddites, in that they alone give us the tools for survival and
>development, namely the ability to spread Life out into the Galaxy, and
>do there what Gaia has done on Earth.
Why wouldn't Gaia have done it in those distant Galaxy's him/her self?
I admit i don't know who or what Gaia is Michael, but whatever, it's got
a lot more chance of getting to another galaxy than any human, i think.
> A new creed for the next
>Millennium propses that as a step towards the EVOLUTION OF A UNIVERSAL
>MIND, the human role is to use our Intelligence to perform this one
>task not open to any other creature on earth.
Most of the other animals are not impressed with our 'Intelligence'.
Most of the other animals are worried that we are so dumb that we are
going to destroy the whole Earth for inhabitation by ourselves and all
the intelligent life forms.
> It seems that this has
>not been done , at any detectable scale, by any other race (Fermi's
>paradox). Science thus gives Man a concrete purpose outside
>metaphysics. Of course, to do this, we will need to build a farsighted
>disciplined society in which hedonistic goals are replaced by respect
>for learning, aplplication and co-operation, without petty nationalistic
>or sectarian trivia, or mental pollution by drugs or pornography. In a
>word, a Universal religion of the best type.
Not everyone would agree with you about any of that Michael!
> In many ways the Bahai
>Faith fits the bill, if they can be induced to buy the destiny in Space
>concept. As for the ideology of Humna destiny in Space, my friend
>Stephen Ashworth has coined a new name- "Astronism" see http:people.delp
>hi.com/astronist/index.html
personally Michael i beleive that the only true religion is
"THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND":-). (They excommunicate anyone who
beleives that:-)
--
Keith Stein
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: Doug Craigen
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:03:06 -0700
Anthony Potts wrote:
> People who try and use thermodynamics to show that life couldn't have
> evolved rarely have any working knowledge of the subject.
>
> I will state my view of it, as a physicist, so that all the creationists
> can write it down, and look at it when they feel an argument about to
> start.
>
> There is nothing in thermodynamics which disallows the formation of highly
> ordered life forms, by purely natural means, from a disordered set of
> starting conditions.
>
> A pool of proteins arranging themselves into complex organic moleculesis
> not a violation of the flow of entropy.
>
> To think that it is, is to have misunderstood the whole point of this part
> of physics.
Amen.
If anybody wants to follow up this point in more detail, I would recommend my
web page at http://www.freenet.mb.ca/iphome/a/accc/evol.html, and the page
referenced at the end of it.
The casual statement that we give students, that entropy is disorder, may help
their understanding of entropy a bit, but it has confused this particular
issue immensely.
A simple challenge could go something like this:
If evolution violates any laws of thermodynamics, then at least one of the
steps involved in evolution must violate one of the laws. The challenge then
is to find any chemical reaction or other process necessary to evolution that
violates a thermodynamic law.
Entropy in particular is just a number for any given system. The second law of
thermodynamics says that this number never decreases if the system is perfectly
isolated from its surroundings. In order to show that the second law of
thermodynamics is violated by evolution, it would be necessary to show some step
along the line where the entropy of the whole system decreased. If such a step
doesn't exist, then the final number cann't be smaller than the initial number,
and there is no violation of the second law.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 16:52:44 GMT
In article ,
Richard Freeman wrote:
#In ,
#William H. Jefferys wrote:
#
#> Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
#>
#> In article <51t9ag$s3j@news.cc.ucf.edu>, Morty <> wrote:
#> #walter@physics7.berkeley.edu (Walter K. Stockwell) wrote:
#> #
#>
#> My specific comment and question is this: It is a fact that entropy
#> and order have nothing to do with each other. This is a consequence
#> of the fact that gravitating bodies of gas have negative
#> specific heats. In particular, the largest producers of entropy
#> in the universe are stars, operating through a process of
#> transforming gravitational energy into high-grade heat, which is
#> then dumped uselessly into the 3 Kelvins background. (Almost
#> uselessly, as the interception of a minute fraction of this by
#> planets like the earth is what enables them---the Earth at least--
#> to remain in a far-from equilibrium thermodynamic state). The
#> creation of stars and galaxies from a uniform initial gas
#> simultaneously creates higher degrees of order at the same time as
#> it creates additional entropy.
#>
#> So, my question to you is as follows: Using any of your corrrect
#> statements of the Second Law, prove that increasing entropy
#> entails decreasing order. (Hint: You can't. I've just provided a
#> counter-example).
#>
#
#If your counter-example was star formation, then it isn't much of a
#counterexample. First, nobody has ever seen it happen. Next, assuming
#that it were to occur, even the formation of the star would represent an
#increase in entropy (for it to even occur). Even in the process of
#collapsing, the star releases tremendous amounts of heat into space, which
#is an increase in disorder. While the matter is condensing, heat would be
#released. In any case, nobody has ever seen it happen (at least not to my
#knowledge). And I don't mean observing multiple stars in stages of
#development - I mean one star going progressively through stages.
The counterexample isn't star formation, and it isn't stellar
evolution, it is quite simply the known physics of gravitating
bodies, which is easily calculable from first principles.
It can be PROVED that the second law in this case ENTAILS
increasing order.
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
E-mail: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 17:07:39 GMT
In article <5294sk$j8s@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
Brad J Cadle wrote:
#In article ,
#William H. Jefferys wrote:
#>Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
#>
#>In article <51t9ag$s3j@news.cc.ucf.edu>, Morty <> wrote:
#>#walter@physics7.berkeley.edu (Walter K. Stockwell) wrote:
#>#
#>#>What does the existance of many species have to do with entropy?
#>#>The laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the number of species or
#>#>the types of life. Do you know what the laws of thermodynamics actually
#>#>say beyond some vague statement like "things tend to revert to higher
#>#>entropy . . ." How do you do physics with that?
#>#
#>#Yes, I am aware of their traditional textbook verbiage:
#>#LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS:
#>#1. The change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the heat
#># transferred to the system minus the work done by the system.
#>#2. It is impossible to construct a heat engine operating in a cycle
#># that extracts heat from a reservoir and delivers an equal amount
#># of work.
#>#3. It is impossible to reach absolute zero in a finite number of
#># steps.
#>#
#>#It should be noted that these are traditional textbook forms of the
#>#laws used to illustrate applications. (The second, for instance is
#>#also referred to as the "Kelvin-Planck statement", and you will find
#>#that Carnot's and Clausius' restatements of the law are also
#>#frequently used.
#>
#>Congratulations on being the first supporter of Creationism that
#>I have seen in my 12 years of reading on the net to be able to
#>provide even one (much less three) correct statements of the
#>Second Law.
#>
#>#If you wish me to elaborate on all that these laws imply, and why they
#>#are pertinent, I can do so in another post upon request...
#>
#>Yes, I really would like you to do so (see specific question below).
#>
#>#>And do you think living things really violate the second law? That when
#>#>we eat food, extract energy from it, and excrete the waste, we are
#>#>somehow pulling some cosmic trick, and violating thermodynamics?
#>#
#>#Thank you for bringing this up! I LOVE that topic, although you may
#>#not care for my conclusions...
#>#Yes, I think that certain living things violate this in a sense. More
#>#specifically, THINKING things go against the tendency that this law
#>#describes. I used an example of this in my previous post. I, for
#>#instance can stack items (such as grains of salt in my previous
#>#analogy) in an orderly manner. The ability to choose, and think seems
#>#also to be the ability to oppose this entropic tendency. Sort of the
#>#"equal and opposite force" to randomness if you will let me play
#>#semantics with physical laws....
#>
#>My specific comment and question is this: It is a fact that entropy
#>and order have nothing to do with each other. This is a consequence
#>of the fact that gravitating bodies of gas have negative
#>specific heats. In particular, the largest producers of entropy
#>in the universe are stars, operating through a process of
#>transforming gravitational energy into high-grade heat, which is
#>then dumped uselessly into the 3 Kelvins background. (Almost
#>uselessly, as the interception of a minute fraction of this by
#>planets like the earth is what enables them---the Earth at least--
#>to remain in a far-from equilibrium thermodynamic state). The
#>creation of stars and galaxies from a uniform initial gas
#>simultaneously creates higher degrees of order at the same time as
#>it creates additional entropy.
#>
#>So, my question to you is as follows: Using any of your corrrect
#>statements of the Second Law, prove that increasing entropy
#>entails decreasing order. (Hint: You can't. I've just provided a
#>counter-example).
#>
#>Bill
#>--
#>Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
#>E-mail: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
#>Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
#>Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
#
# Hi Bill, Strictly speaking you are correct in that the The second Law
#of thermodynamics is a Macroscopic law describing heat. However, It can be
#shown that one can relate microscopic propoerties of a system to the
#general macroscopic state described by the second law. This is the area
#of statistical Thermodynamics. Indeed one can express entropy as
#
# S = k Times The natural log of Omega
#
#where S is Entropy, k is the a postive constant having the dimensions of energy
#and Omega is the number of available states in the system being examined.
#If one correctly defines the number of states in a system so that
#the Entropy above has the same value as that described earlier, and
#one interpretes the number of states as the Degree of Disorder in a system
#than Entropy does provide a means of measuring order. My source for the
#above argument comes from my undergraduate text
#
#"Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" by F. Reif
# 1965 (original publication date)
#
#To fully understand the relationship several chapters must be read, but
#the relationship between Statistical Thermodynamics and the second law can
#be found on pages 122-124.
#
# So In summary you are correct that the Second law of Thermodynamics
#n and of itself is a macroscopic statement, not dealing with the degree
#of disorder, but it can be shown that the micrscopic order of the system
#can be realted to it.
#
# Incidently, in the example you gave regarding the formation of stars
#and galaxies, you never defined what qualifies as a state of the system,
#hence order was not defined. I am not sure how you can argue for or
#against your proposition without defining all your terms. In addition
#you did not show that your system was a closed system.
#
# I guess this is part of the problem with the popular
#conception of Thermodynamics in terms of order in that people don;t
#realize that when the comparison is made to statistical mechanics
#the term order must be specifically defined.
Interpreting "order and disorder" in terms of the number of
states rather begs the question, doesn't it? In any case,
I'm specifically referring to the fact that gravity enforces
a hierarchical structure on the distribution of matter in
the universe. It makes matter "clumpy," and clumped matter
is more ordered. Considered as a distribution of the matter
itself, there are fewer states available to matter, given
that it is clumped and hierarchically distributed, than are
available to unclumped matter. (E.g., consider partitioning
space into boxes: suppose all the matter is in one box of N;
there are clearly fewer ways to do this than there are to
distribute the same matter uniformly).
This doesn't violate the second law because there is a net
increase in entropy when you also consider the photons
liberated when the gas heats under gravitational collapse.
And, as I point out, it is the gravitational energy liberated
by gravitional collapse, radiated into the universe, that
is ultimately the source of the out-of-equilibrium state of
the surfaces of the planets (at least, most of it).
In actual fact, the universe isn't a thermodynamically
closed system, because it is expanding. As a result, the
_specific_ entropy of the universe (entropy per unit
volume) is actually decreasing. As a result, the universe
is actually getting further from thermodynamic equilibrium
with time. See the article by David Layzer in
Entropy, information, and evolution : new perspectives on
physical and biological evolution / edited by Bruce H.
Weber, David J. Depew, and James D. Smith.
Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c1988.
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
E-mail: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Subject: Re: SURVEY - all voters kept secret - here's your chance to have a say & make a difference without being flamed -for sci.geo.geology and sci.geo.earthquakes
From: Richard Adams
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:56:33 -0700
Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>
> But your excuse was all I was interested in and, unlike you, I try not to
> bury the salient points in a load of crud.
>
> You're the only person to have claimed that posting the results of such
> surveys may unfairly influence the group. In your post above you imply that
> others have made the same claim. The rest of your post bore no relation to
> this point so I snipped it. If you insist on posting >100 line rants then
> they'll get snipped.
>
> So, who - apart from you- has claimed that the group would be influenced if
> you published the results of your survey?
Ah, but an excuse it was not, and my post from which you snipped the
relevant information was a mere 12 lines including spaces and signature
which is just a little longer than your signature alone TQ!
Each post that an open minded person reads will have some influence
on them, that is why many of us come here to learn, contribute and
be entertained. The ability of polls to influence voting outcomes
is will documented throughout history. It is why a close call in
the polls can be a landslide in an election as people may choose to
vote for the leader in the polls. A continued debate as such is
beyond the relevant topic here.
Actually, while keeping the survey respondent's anonymous, I've
utilized the results by remolding the proposal, all as I promised.
Sorry to totally blow away your suspicions.
Richard
Subject: Re: Hubble's Bubble
From: Wfbrown@cris.com (Bill Brown)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 18:36:56 GMT
Rob Said...
: I think the universe is infinitely old, without beginning or end. Being a
: human, I am more interested in our origins and our planet's destiny.
I hate to say this, but this rock is a closed system. Energy in and out
are our only real exports and imports. I persoanlly don't feel that even
if I live in a well maintained fish bowl, I should keep my complete
attention in it. And I hope you weren't serious about the angels and the
pin. :)
: Red
: shifts and elemental abundance's have alternative explanations (than the
: ones provided by Big Bang cosmology), but you'd have to read more of the
: classic philosophers to comprehend the discussion. Sorry, Richard, you're
: not ready for such topics and few others are interested. Let's not clutter
: the CME board with childish issues.
Ouch, thats a bit stiff. Hey, how about the easiest of all explanations:
About 6000 years ago, God created teh heaven and teh earth. Only one
catch, He created them .... Old. 6000 years ago a 7-15 billion year old
universe was created. It is logically plausable given God being God.
I find it funny that not a single person I have met that says 6000 years,
and no evolution, won't even consider that God might have made the place
with a history. Foolish people.. (much head shaking)
Bill.