Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 38335

Directory

A good field trip guide through Red Rock Canyon State Park area (including
a general description of the Ricardo Formation) can be found in the
February 1990 issue of California Geology. The article was written by E.
Joan Baldwin of El Camino College in Torrance, CA (Dr. Baldwin may still
be working there).
Enjoy your trip!!
T.L. Ryland

I need help.   I am in a geology class and I have to write a 2 page essy 
on "the nature of environmental information on the internet."  Can 
anybody help me?  Someone please respond.

I'm a journalist looking for a cool volcano story to cover.  I've been 
assigned the topic, and want to find some people who go up the mountains 
when they're erupting...or something equally as interesting.  
Also (as I'm a television journalist albeit behind the scenes) if anyone 
knows of any great footage, please let me know.
Thanks so much

In article <32ECD9A0.7C35@gps.caltech.edu>, lucy_jones@caltech.edu wrote:
>Dennis Gentry wrote:
>> 
>> In article
>> ,
>> timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article ,
>> >gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article , jewett@netcom.com (Bob Jewett)
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Which he seems to be doing without any understanding of the physical
>> >> >processes that Tim has included in his theory.  Neither of them
>> >> >is any Wegener.
>> >>
>> >> I know I'm getting to sound like a broken record, but you guys seem
>> >> to keep conveniently forgetting that back in Wegener's day the same
>> >> thing was thought of him.
>> >
>> >They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
>> 
>> And they stopped laughing at Wegener.
>
>No, they didn't. Wegener was wrong. He thought that continents plowed
>through the oceans like spoons through a bowl of pudding. His theory was 
>absurd, laughed at by geophysicists who knew that the ocean crust was 
>denser than the continents and couldn't be plowed through, and still 
>laughed at by geophysicists. Wegener was right only that the fossils and 
>rocks matched up across the Atlantic but WRONG about how it was 
>accomplished. 
Huh?  I thought that is what I said somewhere.
The point is, though, that he was right about it occurring.  He was
only wrong in how it occurred.
Which tells me a great deal about how science works.  :-(
Dennis

dowyramc@coffey.com wrote:
> 
> Deana Sanders  wrote:
> 
> >I am posting this for a friend of mine.  She can read but not
> >post to the newsgroups.  She wantes to know the type locale or
> >outcrop of the Blue Laterite Quartz in central Texas.  Can
> >anyone help her?  E-mail to
> >jeathomp@plains.nodak.edu or reply here.
> >
> >Thanks, Deana
> 
> I assume you're refering to Llanite, a blue quartz rhyolite from the
> Llano, TX area which when weathered could be a blue qtz laterite.  The
> easiest (type?) locality is approximately 9 miles north of Llano, TX
> on State Hwy 16 located in a low roadcut.  The state rock of Texas,
> llanite is found only in Llano Co..  The county jail is constructed of
> this rock.
> 
> For the best info, check out Bob Reed's great page on llanite at:
> http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~`rmr/llanite.html
> 
> Dayton Lewis - Texan in Windy & White Wyoming
I just thought I'd barge in on your discussion and let you know that the 
blue coloration in the quartz is due to fluid inclusions of water.  
I did a thesis on it at Southwest Missouri State University.  Bye!
Dan Buehner - P.S. Bring a monster hammer because the aforementioned
Hwy 16 roadcut is for real.

I am a newspaper reporter, and when we have a local tremor, I often
need to try to compare it to previous quakes.
  The question is how to compare, say a 3.0 to a 3.5. Is there as formula
for dealing with these logarithmic values. 
  The first issue would be computing a less-than-whole-number change
on a 10-base logarithmic scale. The second issue would be converting
the 30-to-35-fold difference in energy release between whole numbers 
on quakes, when a partial number is involved.
  Any help would be appreciated.
Rick Hull
rickhull@netrix.net
Kalispell, MT

In article <5cj8gu$ko7@news.Hawaii.Edu>, gerard@hawaii.edu wrote:
>In article <32ECD9A0.7C35@gps.caltech.edu>, Lucy Jones
 writes:
>>Dennis Gentry wrote:
>[...]
>>> 
>>> And they stopped laughing at Wegener.
>>
>>No, they didn't. Wegener was wrong. He thought that continents plowed
>>through the oceans like spoons through a bowl of pudding. His theory was 
>>absurd, laughed at by geophysicists who knew that the ocean crust was 
>>denser than the continents and couldn't be plowed through, and still 
>>laughed at by geophysicists. Wegener was right only that the fossils and 
>>rocks matched up across the Atlantic but WRONG about how it was 
>>accomplished. 
>
>Agreed. There is tremendous revisionism applied the Wegener history. He
>did not propose anything like plate tectonics, he only proposed that
>there was such a thing as continental drift. He was also far from
>ignored. South African and Australian geologists accepted Wegener
>almost immediately. Others found his suggestions disquieting, but
>nobody tried to suppress his ideas. On the contrary, his case was
>repeatedly argued at meetings of the Geol Soc Am and elsewhere. The
>fact that there was so much argument meant that Wegener had vocal
>supporters (mainly among the field geologists). A chapter in James
>Trefil's book "Meditations at 10,000 feet: a scientist in the
>mountains" has a reasonable (if somewhat northern-hemisphere-parochial)
>reconstruction of the Wegener history. Now if Dennis had said "And they
>stopped laughing J. Harlan Bretz," then perhaps he'd have a point...
Oh well!  Informative post Gerard although I was under the impression
that it wasn't until the 50's before his case was accepted.  Close
to 50 years after he had came forth with it.  That sure was a lot
of meetings and arguments.
But then again, those discussions probably is what kept his theory
alive and not forgotten.
Not to change the subject but the above scenario sounds like history
is being repeated with the VAN method.
I wonder how the UC Berkeley project is doing with their research
on electrical currents and magnetism as precursors?  Anybody know?
Dennis

In article <32EB918A.543A@earthlink.net>, obrlndr@earthlink.net wrote:
>Dennis Gentry wrote:
>> 
>> In article
>> ,
>> timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article ,
>> >gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article , jewett@netcom.com (Bob Jewett)
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Which he seems to be doing without any understanding of the physical
>> >> >processes that Tim has included in his theory.  Neither of them
>> >> >is any Wegener.
>> >>
>> >> I know I'm getting to sound like a broken record, but you guys seem
>> >> to keep conveniently forgetting that back in Wegener's day the same
>> >> thing was thought of him.
>> >
>> >They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
>> 
>> And they stopped laughing at Wegener.
>
>
>But they still laugh at a hundred other "semi-scientists" who put forth
>countless other theories like the "Dew Point Theory" and the "Moon is
>Cheese Theory." and will continue to do so, especially if the proponent
>of said theory does not put forth any kind effort to carefully document
>it to those which he wishes to convince.
This is getting funnier by the minute!
That is exactly what Wegener did.  And they still *laughed*.
I'm willing to bet that no matter how refutable the evidence is
that is presented, if it ever is :-( , somebody will find a way
to disprove it.
Dennis

> Jason Morris  wrote in article
> <5c819b$dmj@godzilla.gol.com>...
> > I am an English teacher in Japan, and in one of my conversation
> > classes, I certain issue came up which we could net resolve and which
> > I am very interested in finding out for the sake of interest.
> >
> > The north of Australia is 3 times as far away from the Equator as the
> > north of Japan, and yet winter in the north of Australia is warm
> > enough to swim and yet winter in the north of Japan brings snow so
> > thick that roads are blocked off.  Does anyone know why this is so.
> >
> > Sorry if this seems like a silly question, but it is something that I
> > just can't work out, considering the fact that the equator is the
> > closest part of the earth to the sun it seems common sense that the
> > north of Australia would be much further away from the sun and
> > therefore much colder.  
    In addition to the previous answers about Japan's latitude being higher than Australia, 
differences in climate between the tropics and temperate regions have nothing to do with the 
distance from the sun. Compared to 93 million miles, the extra couple thousand miles would be 
insignificant 
    The different climates are the result of the angle of sun, the hunge difference in daylight 
hours between summer and winter at higher latitudes, and weather systems that dominate the polar 
and tropic regions -- which are all linked to the tilt of the Earth's axis.
Rick Hull

Several major finds have been made and permitting is in progress, with 
at least one past the environmental permit stage. The finds promise to 
be major. Several articles over the past few months have been published 
in Northern Miner. The possibility is for Canada to be a major player 
in diamonds.    John

Nicholas Latheron wrote:
> 
> What no answers from the Creationists!!!
Ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe they've stopped spamming this 
group (fat chance)
-- 
Duncan H.B. Irving
Alpine Periglacial Processes
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Wales Cardiff

Can you send me any data or papers ref ICELAND?
Thanks very much
-- 
Systems Administrator

------------25981C7442930
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
for more information on the Penrose Conference, go to:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vdpluijm/penrose.htm
------------------------------
Ben A. van der Pluijm  --  Dept of Geological Sciences, University of
Michigan
2534 CC Little Bldg, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; (313)764-8545,
fax:(313)763-4690
vdpluijm@umich.edu  --  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vdpluijm
------------25981C7442930
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

for more information on the Penrose Conference, go to:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vdpluijm/penrose.htm

------------------------------

Ben A. van der Pluijm  --  Dept of Geological Sciences, University
of Michigan

2534 CC Little Bldg, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; (313)764-8545, fax:(313)763-4690

vdpluijm@umich.edu  --  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vdpluijm

 


------------25981C7442930--

In article <00002089+000031b2@msn.com>, Limestone_Cowboy@msn.com (Nicholas Latheron) writes:
> Simple question......can someone give me an answer.
> 
> 
Older than me.

Peter Kirby  wrote:
>JeffMo wrote:
>> 
>> ad651@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Louis Johnson) wrote:
>> 
>> >and the designer and creator is one I can call upon
>> >in times of need and He will answer before I even ask.
>> 
>> OK.  Tell me what number I'm thinking of.
>Answer:   He doesn't need to know the number.  He said that God will
>meet his needs, not fulfill every whim.  (Of course, I suppose he'll
>make it nicely circular so that, whenever God doesn't fulfill his
>request, you can be sure that he didn't need it.  Oh well.)
I bet he can't even get the results of trigonometric calculations from
God "before [he] even ask[s]", and yet my Win-95 calculator can do
them all day long.
I like your "circular" explanation.  Really takes the luster off this
God-concept that HE decides when you are in times of need, and any
time you try to get a straight, concrete answer from him, he decides
you don't need it! 
>DumbAnswer: 42. :)
Hmmmm, that's 6 times 9, right?   ;-)
JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
For email replies, remove the "dipstick." from my eddress.
It should be self-evident that I am not a dipstick.  ;-)

The earth celebrates its 6000th birthday October 1997 according to
Bishop Ussher :-)

Looking for a Brunton Pocket Transit, M-2, Classic, etc. in good 
condition.  Must be a Brunton, there are a number of M-2 pocket 
transits issued to military, I am looking for Brunton products only.  
Thanks, Thomas C. Pleger

------------3D61323A36360
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 There is a software firm called TASA that makes a CDROM on plate
tectonics for the PC and MAC.   It is called "The Theory of Plate
Tectonics".  They can be reached at:         Tasa Graphics at
1-800-293-2725        The URL is:
http://www.swcp.com/~tasa/tasacds.html
------------3D61323A36360
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

 There is a software firm called TASA that makes a CDROM on plate
tectonics for the PC and MAC.   It is called "The Theory
of Plate Tectonics".  They can be reached at:        
Tasa Graphics at 1-800-293-2725       
The URL is:     http://www.swcp.com/~tasa/tasacds.html 


------------3D61323A36360--

In article <01bc0c42$619e7240$045078cb@tommy>, scs@pacific.net.sg 
typed...
> Does anyone know of a source for clipart, powerpoint "fills" or a simple
> graphics program for drawing  geological formations - just for purposes of
> illustration.
Don't know Powerpoint, but serious Mac & Windows programs with which you 
can edit vector, Postscript, and bitmap graphics to varying degrees 
include Canvas (Deneba), Freehand (Macromedia), Illustrator (Adobe), 
CorelDraw (Corel), and ClarisDraw (Claris). Grapher (Golden) is as good a 
DOS program as you might find. I avoid bargain programs, but there should 
be plenty to try out at www.shareware.com. Some paint and drawing 
programs allow editing of the bitmap fill patterns, which are often 
sufficient for indicating earth material types. Using any modern word 
processing, spreadsheet, or presentation program (even one by Microsoft) 
one could draw & duplicate repetitive squiggles, & paste these within a 
polygonal boundary. One could even use typed characters as fills, but run 
the risk of appearing not quite so modern:
[v v v][*_*_*][^ ^ ^][/ / /][\ \ \][@ @ @][ls ls][ss ss][1 1 1][2 2 2]
Good luck, Bob
-- 
\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
 Bob Stahl  
 bobstahl_sirius.com
///\\\///\\\///\\\///

In article <...> gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
 > Oh well!  Informative post Gerard although I was under the impression
 > that it wasn't until the 50's before his case was accepted.  Close
 > to 50 years after he had came forth with it.  That sure was a lot
 > of meetings and arguments.
So?  As I have remarked earlier, science is a skeptical and conservative
philosophy.  It takes a lot of work to convince a skeptical audience of
a new idea.  50 years is enough time to build up a convincing case and
refine the hypothesis to the point where it provides a better
explanation than existing thought.  The entire period of argumentation
is what the scientific process is about.
-- 
Thomas A. Russ,  USC/Information Sciences Institute          tar@isi.edu    

Hmmm - you'd think that someone claiming to know something about 
geophysics would realize that there is no Nobel Prize awarded in that 
discipline.  Looks like someone has escaped from the Cold Fusion lab 
again.  The problem is, some fool out there might actually invest MONEY in 
this scam if no one comments.

Marian Sutton wrote:
> 
> In article <32cda2f7.4368624@news>, mikejm@westworld.com writes
> >I've been working toward my bach degree in geology and am considering
> >dropping out of school on Monday and quitting.
> 
> > wondering if any of this has ever been worth it.
> >
> I know just what you mean
> --
> Marian Sutton
Nothing that's worth anything is free of effort.  It takes
effort to achieve anything meaningful in life.  I've known 
rich people who inherited their money, e.g. with no effort 
on their part, and they don't even know how to enjoy their 
life.  The meaing in life is gone for them because they never 
had to try and fail at anything.  For these people life is a 
continual search for meaning.    
I put 4 years into a study that I do not pursue today, but,
the effort and perseverence to succeed helped me get my first
career job.
Read a poem.  Decide what's important and meaningful to you 
and go after it with all your heart. 
Decisions like dropping out should be taken very seriously.
Anything that you choose in life is going to be difficult.
Opinions are free and everyone has 1.
Russ
  "Watch your thoughts; they become words.
    Watch your words; they become actions.
    Watch your actions; they become habits.
    Watch your habits; they become character.
    Watch your character; they become your destiny."
       - Frank Outlaw

In article <5cbe3q$k8d@uc.msc.edu>, Leslie J Bertsch 
writes
>Eleanor, the Megaflow Junkie (megaflowjunkie@enterprise.net) wrote:
>
>: Surely if God wishes to change his creation once it has come into
>: existance he can, and that would by necessity give all of the
>: appearance of being evolution; one form would become another...
But if God was omnipotent and omniscient, there would be no need: he
could create the perfect beings from the start. No need for half-assed
creations. And evolution, with all of its deformed unsucessful mutations
along the way seems a bit of a callous, cruel method of improvement for
a supposedly omnipotent, caring God. 
-- 
David Weinstein

On 23 Jan 1997 22:04:50 GMT, gerys@aol.com (GERYS) wrote:
>Are diamonds considered to be of organic origin like coal/
I'll pass on that one.
>Also, some texts define minerals as always inorganic, while others say
>usually inorganic. Which is correct? Why the discrepancy?
Depends on whether or not you consider oil, gas, and coal to be
minerals or not.  There are actually two common uses of the term
"minerals".  One is economic and applied to anything that can be
produced from the earth, including oil & gas, as in a "minerals
lease". The other is mineralogical and refers only to inorganic,
solid, usually crystalline products of the earth, like gemstones.
Take your pick.

In article <32EDAE00.68A7@netrix.net>, Rick Hull <"(Rick Hull) rickhull("@netrix.net> writes:
>I am a newspaper reporter, and when we have a local tremor, I often
>need to try to compare it to previous quakes.
>  The question is how to compare, say a 3.0 to a 3.5. Is there as formula
>for dealing with these logarithmic values. 
>  The first issue would be computing a less-than-whole-number change
>on a 10-base logarithmic scale. The second issue would be converting
>the 30-to-35-fold difference in energy release between whole numbers 
>on quakes, when a partial number is involved.
>  Any help would be appreciated.
Let's say earthquake 1 has magnitude x1 and earthquake 2 has magnitude
x2. Then very roughly, the energy release of x2 relative to x1 is
(10^(x2)/10^(x1))*3. You can simplify this to (10^(x2-x1))*3.
So you want to compare an earthquake of magnitude 3.5 to a magnitude
3?  
(10^(3.5-3.0))*3 = 3.16*3 = 9.5, 
so a 3.5 is about ten times larger than a 3.0 (or to generalize, a 0.5
magnitude step is about a factor of ten increase in energy release).
-- 
Gerard Fryer      
gerard@hawaii.edu        http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~gerard/
Personal views only.

------------6C1D540E1E152
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I believe the oldest rocks are found in the Godtharb  (sp?) area of
western Greenland.  They are dated around 4.6 B.Y., but I haven't kept
up with this recently.
------------6C1D540E1E152
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

I believe the oldest rocks are found in the Godtharb  (sp?) area
of western Greenland.  They are dated around 4.6 B.Y., but I haven't
kept up with this recently. 


------------6C1D540E1E152--

On page URL: http://www.ctv.es/USERS/positivo/ a gravitational
explanation of the glacial periods is given.

David Weinstein  wrote:
>In article <5cbe3q$k8d@uc.msc.edu>, Leslie J Bertsch 
>writes
>>Eleanor, the Megaflow Junkie (megaflowjunkie@enterprise.net) wrote:
>>
>>: Surely if God wishes to change his creation once it has come into
>>: existance he can, and that would by necessity give all of the
>>: appearance of being evolution; one form would become another...
>But if God was omnipotent and omniscient, there would be no need: he
>could create the perfect beings from the start. No need for half-assed
>creations. And evolution, with all of its deformed unsucessful mutations
>along the way seems a bit of a callous, cruel method of improvement for
>a supposedly omnipotent, caring God. 
Not to mention that there are hundreds of raving xians who will debate
you to the death if you even SUGGEST that God didn't craft us all up
(as is) in exactly 6 rotations of this one little insignificant
planet...
Not to mention that the phrase "...if God wishes to change his
creation..." PRESUPPOSES the existence of God, which I am not willing
to take as given...
Oh, yeah, I *did* mention those things.
Thankyoudrivethru,
JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
For email replies, remove the "dipstick." from my eddress.
It should be self-evident that I am not a dipstick.  ;-)

does anyone know of a citable source for the aqueous solubility of the
tetra-sodium salt of EDTA? as a function of temperature would be nice and
in the presence of other electrolytes would also be welcome (e.g. alkali
nitrates or hydroxides).
so far the only 'data' I've found are in Pribil's book (Analyt. Apps. of
EDTA ...) and those of the chemical supply catalog variety. I'd prefer
something more precise and detailed.
If I'm missing something and there's a reason why the chemical literature
is so apparently devoid of this information, I'd also be happy to entertain
those kind of answers.
thanks much,
Charlie Oakes (CS_Oakes@ccmail.PNL.gov)

Hi.  Does anyone know who has data on 7Q10 streamflows for rivers in the 
USA?
Thanks in advance.
B.S. Levy
mailto:sporck@us.net

The name of it is "Regional Stratigraphy of North America" by Frazier &
Schwimmer.  I'm told it is now out of print, but I really would like a
copy.  Anyone know of a place (other then the publisher) where it may be
available, or does someone have a copy that they would like to sell?   
Thanks in advance
                                                            DSG

As a student studying geophysics I always feel some what superior to my
fellow geologist. There was a recent debade titled " What is better for
searching for oil, Geology or geophysics? " Well all you geologist and
geophysicist out there, join in the battel.
My money is on the latter. hahahahaha!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fahad Al-Kindy                http://www.dur.ac.uk/~d57514/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

alessandro moretti wrote:
> 
> I need help.   I am in a geology class and I have to write a 2 page essy
> on "the nature of environmental information on the internet."  Can
> anybody help me?  Someone please respond.Hi Alessandro,
You've managed to find a starting place for your search on information on 
the environment, by posting to this group. Could I also suggest that you 
use a search engine such as Alta Vista, which would allow you to link 
your topics. Anyway good luck with the project.
Best wishes,
Jo

Is petrified wood a sedimentary rock?
What is the tallest volcano in the world?

alessandro moretti wrote:
> 
> I need help.   I am in a geology class and I have to write a 2 page essy
> on "the nature of environmental information on the internet."  Can
> anybody help me?  Someone please respond.
I get 535 hits on Yahoo with "environment" and "information"... and about a 
million on Alta Vista.  Seems the nature is rather extensive eh?

In article ,
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
> In article <32ECD9A0.7C35@gps.caltech.edu>, lucy_jones@caltech.edu wrote:
> 
> >Dennis Gentry wrote:
> >> 
> >> timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
> >> >They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
> >> 
> >> And they stopped laughing at Wegener.
> >
> >No, they didn't. Wegener was wrong. He thought that continents plowed
> >through the oceans like spoons through a bowl of pudding. His theory was 
> 
> Huh?  I thought that is what I said somewhere.
> 
> The point is, though, that he was right about it occurring.  He was
> only wrong in how it occurred.
> 
> Which tells me a great deal about how science works.  :-(
Timberwoof wrote:
The lesson here is that though Wegener was wrong about the underlying
mechanism of continental drift, his field work presented incontrovertible
evidence for the drift. 
What differs between Wegener's hypothesis and the Dew-Point speculation
is that speculation is all that it is. There's no cohesive evidence for it, and
there's even strong circumstantial and physical evidence against it (namely
that the weather conditions described do not correlate with observed earth-
quakes, and that the direction of earthquake shaking does not correlate with
what would be expected to happen from the speculated mechanism).
-- 
timberwoof@the*mall.net
(Take the * out to email me. It's for the benefit of spammers.)
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610

At the 1996 AAPG convention in San Diego, I won the grand
prize drawing which included a DigiRule rat portable digitizer
with 12 software applications making up a complete set of
tools for a consulting geoscientist.
The retail value is over $ 12,000 (US). I work for a major
oil company so I dont need this tool.  I will sell for a very
good price.
You can contact me at  mailto:lwosten@hnlmk8.ppco.com
or (713) 669-2146 (Houston, Tx).

In talk.origins ljb@msc.edu (Leslie J Bertsch) wrote:
>Eleanor, the Megaflow Junkie (megaflowjunkie@enterprise.net) wrote:
>
>: Surely if God wishes to change his creation once it has come into
>: existance he can, and that would by necessity give all of the
>: appearance of being evolution; one form would become another...
>
>This is a possibility, but where is the evidence?
>There are absolutely no transitional figures in
>the fossile record.  Even Darwin speculated that
>by our century many should be unearthed.  Where are
>they? 
>
>The odds that even the simplet cellular life could     
>have evolved are 1x10(40000) power.  Who would stake
>their life on such odds?  That's what you do when 
>you reject the Creator in favor of evolution.
>
>One more point before I sign off.  When's the last
>time you saw a wrist watch form by random chance?
>Isn't the universe infinitely more complex, and
>magnificent than a wrist watch?  The universe itself
>contains tons of evidence of design.  Where there
>is design there is a designer.  
>
>It makes more sense for me to believe in God than
>in a theory with no evidence.
>
Common curtesy, in talk.origins at least, says that when you troll you
hide the work "loki" somewhere in your post. If you did so I could not
find it.
[followups set to talk.origins where these discussions belong]
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.

Thomas C. Pleger wrote:
> 
> Looking for a Brunton Pocket Transit, M-2, Classic, etc. in good
> condition.  Must be a Brunton, there are a number of M-2 pocket
> transits issued to military, I am looking for Brunton products only.
> Thanks, Thomas C. PlegerI bought mine (waterproof, induction damped) from Forestry Suppliers. I'm 
sure they have a website and if they don't, call information for 
Riverton, Wyoming and ask for "The Brunton Company" or "Brunton". I'd 
avoid buying a used one and I'd recommend getting the waterproof model if 
you are really going to use it.  It should last you a lifetime.
-mclain

LITTLE BO-PEEP wrote:
> 
> As a student studying geophysics I always feel some what superior to my
> fellow geologist. There was a recent debade titled " What is better for
> searching for oil, Geology or geophysics? " Well all you geologist and
> geophysicist out there, join in the battel.
> My money is on the latter. hahahahaha!
> 
Geophysicists may be superior, but geologists know how to spell.