Re: [meteorite-list] OT Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
On Fri, 13 May 2005 05:52:41 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the contrary, I think the insistence of superiority driven by human ego is way out of control. So now it is superiority and ego to think that there is an objective reality, the universe obeys physical laws, and there is the possibility for those physical rules by which the objectively real universe operates are discoverable and comprehensable? If that is ego and superiority then I stand up and proudly say that I feel superior to those who choose willful ignorance. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Ok, I bite, which came first, the chicken or the egg? DF drtanuki wrote: Mr. Gwilliam and List, It is the dreamers, the ones that ask foolish questions, the searchers/seekers that find the answers. The ones that have all of the answers NEVER will make progress for mankind or themselves. Many times the question is more important than the answer because the question may also have the answer within it. I always encourage my students to ask, question and think. It is the un-asked question that is truly foolishness. Best Always, Dirk Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Hunters Released from Oman
Hi Adam and List, I just heard from a reliable source some good news, the ten individuals that were caught meteorite hunting in Oman have been released. Just a week ago I heard from the same source they were being charged with three different felonies so it did not look good at that time making their release an unexpected surprise. I guess they had been living on credit cards for some time while waiting for their passports to be returned. From what I am lead to believe they had to forfeit all of their equipment; trucks, supplies and the meteorites in order to leave. I guess the poor guys were only allowed to leave with the shirts on their backs. I was told last week that the Omani government fined them $35.00 a gram for the meteorites they took which was over 40 kilos amounting to about US $1,400,000.00. This amount seem ludicrous to me but shows what kind of value the people of Oman place on their meteorites. I also heard that an Omani guide connected to the Swiss was responsible for turning them in. If there's any truth to the entire Omani incident, and the alleged parties involved have truly been released, then assuming the outcome of any pending litigation would not be adversely affected by discussions here on the list, I would like to know more about what really happened. What are the laws? What laws were broken? Who are the parties involved? Many people on this list have a vested interest in knowing the answers to these questions. --Rob __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Birthday Meteorites
Anyone have any of these? Sept 19,1775 Rodach Sept 19,1869 Tjabe Sept 19,1910 Khohar Sept 19,1949 Karewar If so, please contact me off list. Thanks, Michael -- You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are. -Herb Cohen -- If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
WHERE HUNTING was [meteorite-list] Meteorite Hunters Released from Oman
Dea _ Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage pour vos mails, photos et vidéos ! Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] ROCKS FROM SPACE PICTURE OF THE DAY - FRIDAY, MAY 13, 2005
http://www.spacerocksinc.com/May13.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: WHERE HUNTING was [meteorite-list] Meteorite Hunters Released fromOman
Hi Pierre and List, If we lose deserts for meteorite hunting, it's the beginning of the end for your hobby so we have to find new areas. I don't think it will mean the beginning of the end of the hobby, - it may even go back to being like the good old days, when material was highly treasured and usually properly labeled recorded. - And let's face it, it was only ever going to be a 'finite resource'. When I started collecting around 20 years ago, meteorite collecting was fun, almost magical, of course that was before the internet really opened up trade, but who knows maybe some of the pathetic bickering and market manipulation will disappear once all the NWA fields dry up? ... A cynical view, I know - but hey ... ;) Best Mark __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] New toy
Somebody already did one for craters, but I haven't looked at it: http://www.twobeds.com/upload/userfiles/nova/worldwind.htm At 03:35 AM 5/13/2005, tracy latimer wrote: This is so much fun! Can your next iteration include impact craters as well? or is that a function that I just haven't spotted yet? I'd like to be able to look at some of the real and purported impact structures from altitude. Tracy Latimer From: Jeff Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] New toy Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:12:19 -0400 Okay all you testers out there. I developed a meteorites of the world add-on for World Wind. If anybody wants to try it out, it's posted on the MetBull database site, http://tin.er.usgs.gov/meteor/metbull.php Make sure you read the note that appears next to the link to the add-on. It's important. Needless to say, you need World Wind installed on your system for this to work. Feedback is welcome, positive or negative. jeff Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Hello list, intelligence Design is an attempt...although it is happening, so i am not sure if attempt is a right word to bring the bible back into the classroom. Something they not being very secret about. This started a few years ago and they tried to pass it in Kansas court, they couldnt get it through, so they spend several millions, getting those that blocked it, removed out of the Kansas legislation, this was for the legal right of adding intelligence design to the textbooks. So they get the legislation set up with the people they want, pass it, and bring it to the school board. The school board was like screw that nonsense, you do not have a complete theory. So now they are going to force their will on the school board, so we are having a debate. They have also redefined to the meaning of science in Kansas, literally. Not word for word, but it was something like facts about the world and enviroment around us to attempts to explain the world and enviroment around us. Again, not word for word, but it is easy to see where this going. So we have our debates going. Which are funny in general. I have never seen such a Kangaroo court. They were careful in choosing their witnesses, had pre-written questions that are carefully worded, and those that talk are not allowed to answer anything but the questions asked. Debates are usually not so one-siding. Or at least not public debates. But Kansas is just the beginning. Liberal region views.unconstitutionally coming to a school near you. In 10 years, half of the school in American will be teaching creation. Clear Skies, Mark Bostick Embarressed to say I live in Kansas. www.meteoritearticles.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Kansas: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Well since the famous 'god thread' is back... (Where's Marcia when you need her??) Here's my take on the universe, I call it 'realistic fundamentalism' The 'creationists et al' basically appear to say that life is too amazing to have happened by pure chance, so in their view it must have been created by a god since clearly only he is 'clever enough' , and they usually use the classic argument ' ... ok so what was there before the big bang? Here's why that is, IMHO, such a crock of shat: What ever they say - they have a fundamental problem: 1. Either there was a god being who appeared from nowhere (chicken and egg!) then created the universe. 3. Or the universe appeared from nowhere. (Of course time is really just a 'man thing' there was no 'before the big bang' time is an effect we perceive nothing more. So words like 'before time began' are simply irrelevant. The question for me is - what does god have to do with the price of fish?,i.e why does he even need to enter into the equation?, there is simply no evidence whatsoever, If a god can arise by chance in the first place then so can a universe without a god, you'd just get back to the problem who created god!? The answer is religion is simply a mechanism invented by man, to: a) Control Society b) A holding theory to explain away the world we see, before the invention of proper analytical tools. At the end of the day people will always want to believe in something, and they certainly won't let the truth get in the way, religion is basically man kind slowly going stir crazy on this damp chunk of rock floating in space and in IMHO it certainly has no place on the school desk, and does the US really want a produce a generation of 'burger eating prayer monkeys? :)' We should just teach them proven fact (or as close as we get) and let them decide the rest for themselves, (an alien concept it seems for some religions). Just my 2g worth... Best Mark Ford -Original Message- From: MARK BOSTICK [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 12:17 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas: Creation,Evolution and Intelligent Design Hello list, intelligence Design is an attempt...although it is happening, so i am not sure if attempt is a right word to bring the bible back into the classroom. Something they not being very secret about. This started a few years ago and they tried to pass it in Kansas court, they couldnt get it through, so they spend several millions, getting those that blocked it, removed out of the Kansas legislation, this was for the legal right of adding intelligence design to the textbooks. So they get the legislation set up with the people they want, pass it, and bring it to the school board. The school board was like screw that nonsense, you do not have a complete theory. So now they are going to force their will on the school board, so we are having a debate. They have also redefined to the meaning of science in Kansas, literally. Not word for word, but it was something like facts about the world and enviroment around us to attempts to explain the world and enviroment around us. Again, not word for word, but it is easy to see where this going. So we have our debates going. Which are funny in general. I have never seen such a Kangaroo court. They were careful in choosing their witnesses, had pre-written questions that are carefully worded, and those that talk are not allowed to answer anything but the questions asked. Debates are usually not so one-siding. Or at least not public debates. But Kansas is just the beginning. Liberal region views.unconstitutionally coming to a school near you. In 10 years, half of the school in American will be teaching creation. Clear Skies, Mark Bostick Embarressed to say I live in Kansas. www.meteoritearticles.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] DOrbigny TS Follow-up
Hello all, I thought I would recap DOrbigny for the benefit of the group. Re:. http://www.meteoritearticles.com/coldorbigneyts.html I wrote., One the best thin sections I have. OK, move over NWA 998, it is the best. This is due to its prismatic augite crystals, often found twisted with olivine, randomly placed anorthite shards, and the many large vugs/vug inclusions, in the stone. Augite is easy to see DOrbigny. Well its very easy to identify in all achondrites, athough at times looks a lot like pigeonite at least to me. In DOrbigny, the augite grains have bunched together, creating as I noted, prismatic augrite crystals. I will look over my achondrite thin sections later, but it seems to me that augrite usually does not bunch together such and the bright colors, usually more random. Augrite never has appeared prismatic to my memory. Anorthite shards are commonly found in achondrites as the mineral constitutes a lot of these meteorites. They make me think of gray glass blades. In polarized light, one half, going lengthwise, is usually a little darker then the other half. Much like a how a blade of grass is lighter on the back side. They also tend to have a strip leaf like appearance. Olivine, like augrite in a thin section shows up in bright colors. Augrite usually have more of a grain appearance, but in DOrbigny, it is mostly in the prismatic crystals, and the two are easy to tell apart, in most cases. DOrbigny augrite is usually found with olivine clumps. All of the above is pretty basic and the easy to identify parts of DOrbigny. So onto the little red crystal, see in photo 7. I wrote, perhaps it is olivine. My theory here was based on the note that much of the glass that filled some vugs, came from olivine and augrite. And it appeared to be olivine over augrite. Someone with much more knowledge then me noted it was, Possibly apatite. And that the brown stuff seen in a couple of vug photos, likely to be carbonate... On the subject of D'Orbigny TS's for sale, I only know of two sources. Marvin Killgore, who has some beautiful TS's, for around $1000 and Steve Arnold, Arkansas, who a person should e-mail if interested for details. This meteorite retailed for around $5000/g. when it came out. The price on this meteorite has seemed to have gone done some. Oscar Turone, of Meteorite.com, who has a museum on top of a mountain...and a meteorite mobile, is the person that first brought the meteorite to the market. A small D'Orbigny part slice can be viewed on my web site: http://www.meteoritearticles.com/coldorbigny.html There are now nine augrites. The new Maps will have an abstract or article, on the latest, NWA 1296. Clear Skies, Mark Bostick Wichita.,Kansas www.meteoritearticles.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution andIntelligent Design
Hi, all -- Here's my two cents on Intellegent Design. It adopts the worst aspects of science and religion, and ends up being bad science, bad theology, and bad engineering. Intellegent Design is bad science, because it makes no testable predictions about how the universe does or did operate. Intellegent Design is bad theology, because it assumes that humans are clever enough to understand God's design of the universe and his intentions. Don't our preachers always tell us that the ways of God are myterious and not within mortal understanding? Intellegent Design is bad engineering, because so many parts of the design work poorly. What is the design purpose of acne? Fallen arches? Acid reflux? Cancer? Failing eyesight? Etc, etc. These are not intellegent designs, they are sloppy, foolish, stupid designs. FWIW. Allan Allan H. Treiman Senior Staff Scientist Lunar and Planetary Institute 3600 Bay Area Boulevard Houston, TX 77058-1113 281-486-2117 281-486-2162 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Southern Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 8:02 AM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation,Evolution andIntelligent Design interesting point of view Phil... Bill - Original Message - From: Phil Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; drtanuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation,Evolution and Intelligent Design Hey Darren, That was kind of mean-spirited. Let's see, if I believe in a God, I'm an inbred nitwit, but if I believe that I was rather created by a bacteria that came from somewhere (?) and hitched a ride on a meteorite (just to make this a meteorite-related topic) I'm quite intelligent? Or was the former only if I believe in a young earth? Until we find a world that was created by bacteria+chance and those bacteria learned to write and recorded the whole process for us it's all faith - either way. Interesting topic and if anyone has any proof either way lets discuss that rather than making generalities. Regards to all Phil Morgan - Original Message - From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: drtanuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation,Evolution and Intelligent Design On Thu, 12 May 2005 15:54:26 -0700 (PDT), drtanuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear List, There is now a debate in the Kansas Courts (USA) about what should be taught in schools, Creationism, Evolution or Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a new paradigm that states that there was an Intelligence behind the design of the Universe and Creation of Life. What are the views of members on this List? Intelligent Design is just creationism in an attempted scientific disguise so that they can get their foot back in the door of the science classrooms. Don't be fooled by their pretending to be rational-- I'll be willing to be you that AT LEAST 95% of the Intelligent Design proponents pushing for Intelligent Design to be taught are Young Earth Creationists, who insist on an age for the Earth and Universe at below 10,000 years and a Noachian Deluge. In other words, inbred nitwits. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/stealth.pdf http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] DOrbigny TS Follow-up
On the subject of D'Orbigny TS's for sale, I only know of two sources. Marvin Killgore, who has some beautiful TS's, for around $1000 and Steve Arnold, Arkansas, who a person should e-mail if interested for details. I got mine (indirectly, via another European collector) from David New and his slidemaker, for much less than $1000, but my source is sold out on this special one. Whoever may be interested - I would suggest you ask David directly (mail-address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) or some of the other old-time suppliers who use to offer these high quality slides from time to time, e.g. Al Mitterling, Steve Arnold, Cap´n Blood... Alex Berlin/Germany __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] DOrbigny TS Follow-up
Steve Arnold from ARKANSAS, meteoritebroker, of course...!! :-) Alex ---I wrote:--- I got mine (indirectly, via another European collector) from David New and his slidemaker, for much less than $1000, but my source is sold out on this special one. Whoever may be interested - I would suggest you ask David directly (mail-address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) or some of the other old-time suppliers who use to offer these high quality slides from time to time, e.g. Al Mitterling, Steve Arnold, Cap´n Blood... ---End of message--- __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Re: Strange Meteorite article
Hi A buddy sent me this story and asked me if I knew which meteorite it refers to. Anyone know if this is for real. Very intersting if it is true. http://stardate.org/radio/program.php?f=detailid=2005-05-09 Strange Meteorites I Scientists have long studied meteorites for clues to how our solar system formed. But at least one meteorite may hold clues as to why it formed. Meteorites are chunks of rock or metal that have fallen to Earth. Most of them are chips off of larger bodies, like asteroids or comets, that formed at the same time as the Sun and planets. That makes them some of the oldest surviving bodies in the solar system. By studying their composition, astronomers can learn more about conditions in the cloud of gas and dust that gave birth to the solar system. A meteorite from China hints at why the cloud collapsed to form the Sun and planets: It was squeezed by the shockwave from an exploding star, called a supernova. Astronomers have seen this process at work in other star systems. They've also discovered evidence that a supernova exploded at the right place and time to trigger the solar system's birth. A team of astronomers from China and the United States found that the Chinese meteorite contains an element called sulfur-36. It's the byproduct of the radioactive decay of another element, chlorine-36. This element is created in exploding stars, then blasted into space. But it only lasts about 300,000 years. Chlorine-36 in a rock that formed at the birth of the solar system suggests that the meteorite incorporated material from a supernova. And that supports the idea that a supernova helped give birth to the solar system. Script by Damond Benningfield, Copyright 2005 Mike -- Mike Jensen IMCA 4264 Jensen Meteorites 16730 E Ada PL Aurora, CO 80017-3137 303-337-4361 website: www.jensenmeteorites.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] DOrbigny TS Follow-up, AD: Ebay auctions
Hello Alex and list, Alex noted: Steve Arnold from ARKANSAS, meteoritebroker, of course...!! :-) Steve Arnold was my source and I paid much less then $1000.00. I mentioned Killgore's price as it was a quote he gave me in Tucson. Some of you might remember that big light display in his room. It was made from a D'Orbigny TS. Arnold's price very's as the size of thin section will very, but you can likely get one around $400.00. I was kind of avoiding going too heavy into prices, as it is not my desire to compare dealer prices on the list. On a meteorite such as D'Orbigny, where wholesale cost has varied so much, prices or so much profits are not as clear. But since I have now. For those wanting more affordable thin sections, me and Jerry have listed a Wichita, Wild Horse and Lost Creek TS's on ebay. Three meteorites we have the main masses of. These thin sections, and others we will present later, were made by the same people NWU gets theres made through and have large surface areas. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6531551407 You can view the Wichita TS above, and click on sellers other auctions to see the others. Most of the thin sections we will offering will not be available anywhere else. Clear Skies, Mark Bostick www.meteoritearticles.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Just my personal belief here, but I believe it was the egg that came first. Life begins in it's simplest form. JKG At 11:45 PM 5/12/2005, d freeman wrote: Ok, I bite, which came first, the chicken or the egg? DF drtanuki wrote: Mr. Gwilliam and List, It is the dreamers, the ones that ask foolish questions, the searchers/seekers that find the answers. The ones that have all of the answers NEVER will make progress for mankind or themselves. Many times the question is more important than the answer because the question may also have the answer within it. I always encourage my students to ask, question and think. It is the un-asked question that is truly foolishness. Best Always, Dirk Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Fresh Allende Crust white mineralization
From my Mexico trip last month, I got a 285g Allende that was alledgedly recovered a few days after the fall. A horrible fuzzy picture was in the website http://www.westernwelltool.com/trip-22APR05/morito.htm I have better pictures below of the 285g Allende. From the purple tint on the crust, I do believe it was fairly fresh, but I'm interested in the white mineralization (not CAI) that is on the outside. What is it, and what caused it? http://www.westernwelltool.com/Allende_285/large2.jpg http://www.westernwelltool.com/Allende_285/large.jpg http://www.westernwelltool.com/Allende_285/large3.jpg http://www.westernwelltool.com/Allende_285/large4.jpg Oh, and it is for sale. $5.5/g. If no one buys it by next friday, I'm cutting it up to make beer coasters. -- McCartneyTaylor, IMCA 2760 __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Good advice for students
No, Einstein said: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Original Message - From: christopher sharp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 3:52 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Good advice for students Hi list, I think it was Einstein that said God would have to have been a mathematician. When you run across some of the simple but fundamental equations in science its possible to get an inkling of why he said it. Interestingly the simple equations often seem to be the most powerful and sweeping in their application. CAS [meteorite-list] Good advice for students Rob Matson mojave_meteorites at cox.net Fri May 13 02:46:52 EDT 2005 Hi Dirk and List, It is the dreamers, the ones that ask foolish questions, the searchers/seekers that find the answers. The ones that have all of the answers NEVER will make progress for mankind or themselves. ... I always encourage my students to ask, question and think. This is excellent advice for your students, and everyone in general. Question authority, question the experts, and definitely question consensus. This is how science advances. Next time you read the words scientific consensus, remember to treat it as an oxymoron. Science isn't about popularity. Scientific theories are testable. Each test that a theory passes strengthens it, but theories can never be proven. All it takes is one failure to disprove a theory (or at least a facet of it). That said, whenever someone tells me that evolution is only a theory, I reply, Yes, you're right. Just as relativity is only a theory. --Rob __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Hello all again, Darren noted: Actually, when I read the redefinition of science, I really don't have a problem with it. The change is from: seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us, to continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Which, if taught and followed will give students a toolkit to see what a load of tripe the creationist agenda really is. I think most rational people like or at least don't mind the new definition. However, do not be disillusioned that they are trying to teaching students to be open minded. More so, one could not teach creationism under the old definition. That was the last obstacle to keep the bible out of the classroom. They need now only to force it on the education board, since the board rejected it on their own will. This current debate will accomplish that. I did hear an interesting comment the other day. In the United States, the constitution gives us freedom OF religion. However, I guess that doesn't mean we have freedom FROM religion. A public school should not indorse a religion, as being proper and good, which also notes other kids (of different or no religion) as being different and wrong. There are 1000's of private schools for that. Clear Skies, Mark Bostick __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:27:10 -0500, MARK BOSTICK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think most rational people like or at least don't mind the new definition. However, do not be disillusioned that they are trying to teaching students to be open minded. More so, one could not teach creationism under the old definition. That was the last obstacle to keep the bible out of the classroom. They need now only to force it on the education board, since the board rejected it on their own will. This current debate will accomplish that. Here's the article I was looking for earlier-- words to live by. http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html Baloney Detection How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience By MICHAEL SHERMER When lecturing on science and pseudoscience at colleges and universities, I am inevitably asked, after challenging common beliefs held by many students,``Why should we believe you'' My answer:``You shouldn't'' I then explain that we need to check things out for ourselves and, short of that, at least to ask basic questions that get to the heart of the validity of any claim. This is what I call baloney detection, in deference to Carl Sagan, who coined the phrase Baloney Detection Kit. To detect baloney--that is, to help discriminate between science and pseudoscience--I suggest10 questions to ask when encountering any claim. 1. How reliable is the source of the claim? Pseudoscientists often appear quite reliable, but when examined closely, the facts and figures they cite are distorted, taken out of context or occasionally even fabricated. Of course, everyone makes some mistakes. And as historian of science Daniel Kevles showed so effectively in his book The Baltimore Affair, it can be hard to detect a fraudulent signal within the background noise of sloppiness that is a normal part of the scientific process. The question is, Do the data and interpretations show signs of intentional distortion? When an independent committee established to investigate potential fraud scrutinized a set of research notes in Nobel laureate David Baltimore's laboratory, it revealed a surprising number of mistakes. Baltimore was exonerated because his lab's mistakes were random and nondirectional. 2. Does this source often make similar claims? Pseudoscientists have a habit of going well beyond the facts. Flood geologists (creationists who believe that Noah's flood can account for many of the earth's geologic formations) consistently make outrageous claims that bear no relation to geological science. Of course, some great thinkers do frequently go beyond the data in their creative speculations. Thomas Gold of Cornell University is notorious for his radical ideas, but he has been right often enough that other scientists listen to what he has to say. Gold proposes, for example, that oil is not a fossil fuel at all but the by-product of a deep, hot biosphere (microorganisms living at unexpected depths within the crust). Hardly any earth scientists with whom I have spoken think Gold is right, yet they do not consider him a crank. Watch out for a pattern of fringe thinking that consistently ignores or distorts data. 3. Have the claims been verified by another source? Typically pseudoscientists make statements that are unverified or verified only by a source within their own belief circle. We must ask, Who is checking the claims, and even who is checking the checkers? The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for instance, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong. It was that they announced their spectacular discovery at a press conference before other laboratories verified it. Worse, when cold fusion was not replicated, they continued to cling to their claim. Outside verification is crucial to good science. 4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works? An extraordinary claim must be placed into a larger context to see how it fits. When people claim that the Egyptian pyramids and the Sphinx were built more than 10,000 years ago by an unknown, advanced race, they are not presenting any context for that earlier civilization. Where are the rest of the artifacts of those people? Where are their works of art, their weapons, their clothing, their tools, their trash? Archaeology simply does not operate this way. 5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought? This is the confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and to reject or ignore disconfirmatory evidence. The confirmation bias is powerful, pervasive and almost impossible for any of us to avoid. It is why the methods of science that emphasize checking and rechecking, verification and replication,
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent...
Regarding the new theory of intelligent design that has suddenly become prominent in Kansas (or was it Ohio), JKG's statement, of the egg-first school of thought whether unintentionally or not, can be quite consistent with it, and isn't much different from the Intelligent Design's principle argument: How can such a complex thingy with a function spontaneously form without external help. Saint Augustine, the middle 5th century philosopher on creation first recorded in his ideas the new theory of intelligent design. (Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 1200's added some additional caveats) It has been around for a long time and holds that a great intelligence planted the seeds and reappeared as necessary to develop all life forms. Eggs, seeds, simpliest forms, with the help of Earth, that were developed into the zoo we have today. Such a blanket statement of first is inconsistent with evolution, however, as evolution holds the question as irrelevant since mutations can happen during the reproductive stage creating the fertilized egg first, or mutations can happen during development, especially during earlier stages of cellular differientiation, or later stages after the chick breaks out of the egg shell, in which case the chicken can be considered first (such as altered DNA from incident solar radiation caused by a major meteorite impact disrupting the atmosphere). Luckily, when a theory is proven irrelevant or unnecessary, it is usually license to drop it. So the generalized chicken and egg subject presents no problems to evolutionists. Additionally, Intelligent design is simply not a testable theory and therefore is not part of the scientific method. An untestable theory which makes no predictions other than those that are already addressed without adopting it, as any experienced PhD student can tell you is not a good theory to take stock in. Which hopefully leads us back to plain creationism and plain evolutionism as two schools of philosophy to satisfy humankind's souls but not to create dissent and wars...myself, I would be satisfied to understand the process by which an ordinary chondrite forms, hardens and then agregates, forms a concretion, and once again hardens, over how time (in modern terms) days depending on where it travels in the primitive Solar system and how energy is absorbed and transferred within it... Saludos En un mensaje con fecha 05/13/2005 10:12:03 AM Mexico Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribe: Just my personal belief here, but I believe it was the egg that came first. Life begins in it's simplest form. JKG At 11:45 PM 5/12/2005, d freeman wrote: Ok, I bite, which came first, the chicken or the egg? DF drtanuki wrote: Mr. Gwilliam and List, It is the dreamers, the ones that ask foolish questions, the searchers/seekers that find the answers. The ones that have all of the answers NEVER will make progress for mankind or themselves. Many times the question is more important than the answer because the question may also have the answer within it. I always encourage my students to ask, question and think. It is the un-asked question that is truly foolishness. Best Always, Dirk Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Re: Looking for Buried Iron-Shale with a Metal Detector
Dear Paul, Dave and List: I agree with my friend Dave Freeman's comments from yesterday but I'd like to add to them. If by some chance I had a hunch where I might find some buried iron-shale, is it possible to find highly weathered meteorite (iron-shale) with a metal detector? As long as there is some iron remaining, and conditions are favorable, I would say very likely. When old iron meteorites decay into shale, small pieces may flake off over time, creating a three-dimensional halo around the original iron. This halo will often be larger than the volume of the original meteorite. In some cases this actually makes the signal easier to hear, as detector-sensitive flakes or fragments have been distributed over a larger area. I have some *extremely* weathered shale fragments that will still stick to a magnet and still set off a decent detector signal. If so, what is the approximate relationship between size of a piece of iron-shale and the maximum depth at which it can be detected? I'm not sure that there's a hard and fast rule or equation for this. The maximum depth at which you can find something depends not only on the size of the target, but also the type of ground in which you are hunting (is it wet/is it dense/is it mineralized?), and the make and sensitivity settings of your detector. Without even trying I can think of six or seven people on the List who have much more expertise than I do with detectors. Perhaps one of them would have a better idea on this (good question). Also, are there any special tricks to using a metal detector to look for buried iron-shale? Shale can produce a curious signal. It may not be as loud or strong as the signal from a solid iron, but it may appear to emanate from a large area. You may also hear a very rapid zip-zip-zip sound as the detector coil reads multiple fragments of shale in close proximity to one another. If you are talking about a really large piece of shale in the ground, and your detector is properly balanced, I think it would be hard not to get a reading. If you are hunting deep targets, or targets with a weak audio signature, using headphones can help a great deal, but watch out for rattlesnakes -- you won't be able to hear them : ) I would recommend practicing. Have some fun with it! Bury a piece shale in your garden at different depths and try different calibrations of your detector to see what works. I do this whenever I get a new detector, and jokingly call it Metal Detector School (yes, the wild part of my garden is full of holes, but it's the desert so who cares?). You will also need a detector that responds well to iron. Certain detectors are intentionally made by the manufacturers to ignore iron (these might be used, say, for nugget or coin hunting). Some detectors that have proven popular with hunters on the List would include the White's Goldmaster III; White's Goldmaster V/sat; Fisher Gold Bug and Gold Bug II. I'd be happy to send you a piece of meteoritic shale to experiment with if you don't have one handy. Good luck, and keep us posted! Regards, Geoff N. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Howdy There is drastic, deep and fundamental conflict between evolution and intelligent design. To be brief, intelligent design requires the magical intervention of a deity. That's exactly what it is - magic. It has no place in a science class. Evolution will probably never be proven. In order to be proven and become a Law, it must be shown that it is the fundamental mechanism at work in all instances of the origin of life. That is a titanic task that will probably never be satisfactorily performed. That's okay, actually - gravitation is still the theory of gravity, not the Law of Gravity. ...and yet none of us go floating off into the sky. Here's a concept that never seems to make it into discussion - arrogance. Evolution contains many portions that we do not fully understand, such as whether proteins or DNA-like informational polymers were the first to arrive. This is a chicken-or-egg argument that we simply don't know enough about right now to answer. This simple comment - that we don't know - is a statement of humility. Intelligent design promoters claim to KNOW how life arose - this is a statement of monumental arrogance. Now, from a religious point of view, are we not supposed to be humble in the face of god's creation? No matter what faith one chooses to follow, I find this to be an interesting argument because in this light evolution is actually the more spiritually enlightened choice. Something to think about. Cheers, MDF p.s. And the Scopes Monkey Trial occurred in Tennessee, not Kansas. Dear Dave and List, I was, just now, watching Lou Dobbs on CNN and this was news to me. Dave, I don`t understand what D-baiting is. Historically Kansas was the center of the Scopes-Monkey Trial (Creationism vs. Evolution). An earlier thread on this list was about Transpermia (Panspermia). I am looking for intelligent debate on what should be taught in public schools. I was taught as a Christian; but as a scientist I accept Evolution, and I guess Intelligent Design (I personally see some weaknesses in Darwinian Evolution). Evolution lacks total evidence (proof) and explanation in its argument and yet is taught as scientific fact. I am looking for debate Not baiting as you suggest. Personally I do not see any conflict between the three paradigms. Sincerely, Dirk Ross...Tokyo __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- Marc Fries Postdoctoral Research Associate Carnegie Institution of Washington Geophysical Laboratory 5251 Broad Branch Rd. NW Washington, DC 20015 PH: 202 478 7970 FAX: 202 478 8901 - I urge you to show your support to American servicemen and servicewomen currently serving in harm's way by donating items they personally request at: http://www.anysoldier.com (This is not an endorsement by the Geophysical Laboratory or the Carnegie Institution.) __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Hunters Released from Oman
Dear Rob, Régis, Michel and List, I agree that if there are legal issues involved with meteorite hunting in certain areas, it should be brought up publicly instead of the cloak-and-dagger secrecy. My only problem is with accurate information. I have heard so many rumors in regards to the Oman thing that it is hard to sort out fact from fiction. I will list what I believe to be facts first: Permits are required to hunt for meteorites in Oman. Only one permit was ever issued to the Swiss. Here is an article that states the Swiss got the permit: http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/wa/MainStoryDetails?ArticleID=9476 Although a permit was issued, it does not guarantee any type of ownership. Just like in the United States, You may get a permit to work an archeological dig but what is brought out doesn't belong to you. The government of Oman's view is that all meteorites found in Oman regardless of whether found under a permit or not are the property of the Sultanate of Oman. The only exceptions are type specimens for study. It appears Dr. Larry Taylor of the University of Tennessee has an agreement with Oman. Here are a few references that can be found online: http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/issues/v97/n46/10.21-1.pdf#search='Larry%20Taylor%20meteorite' http://pr.tennessee.edu/alumnus/alumarticle.asp?id=553 http://pr.tennessee.edu/torch/article.asp?id=710 The charges I heard were the following: 1.) Falsifying a visa in order to gain access to Oman. The stated purpose for entry into the country was listed on their visas as tourism instead of meteorite hunting. 2.) Possession of illegal electronics equipment like two way communications, metal detectors and GPS. 3.) The theft of state property. Maybe other List members in the know can comment on what is fact or fiction in regards to meteorite hunting in Oman. Kind Regards, Adam __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: WHERE HUNTING was [meteorite-list] Meteorite Hunters Released from Oman
Hi list! I know one of these unlucky guys, caught in the OMANIAN NIGHTMARE and now have been released. I will meet him next week (on saturday). Maybe I`ve new informations about it than Ingo/Germany --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --- Von: michel FRANCO [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: 'Adam Hupe' [EMAIL PROTECTED], meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Betreff: WHERE HUNTING was [meteorite-list] Meteorite Hunters Released from Oman Datum: Fri, 13 May 2005 09:55:03 +0200 Dear Adam and list TKS for the good news. This past event makes me think more about meteorite hunting in deserts ( Sahara, Arabic peninsula, etc...) I think it will be great to have the exact knowledge of the different laws ruling our known hunting places, and other potentially rich in meteorites countries. I am think of Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Tunesia, Western Sahara. I only know that Algeria forbids prospecting for meteorites inside its borders. I have heard that it is the same in Tunesia. Best regards Michel FRANCO www.caillou-noir.com -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Adam Hupe Envoyé : vendredi 13 mai 2005 04:18 À : meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Objet : [meteorite-list] Meteorite Hunters Released from Oman Dear List, I just heard from a reliable source some good news, the ten individuals that were caught meteorite hunting in Oman have been released. Just a week ago I heard from the same source they were being charged with three different felonies so it did not look good at that time making their release an unexpected surprise. I guess they had been living on credit cards for some time while waiting for their passports to be returned. From what I am lead to believe they had to forfeit all of their equipment; trucks, supplies and the meteorites in order to leave. I guess the poor guys were only allowed to leave with the shirts on their backs. I was told last week that the Omani government fined them $35.00 a gram for the meteorites they took which was over 40 kilos amounting to about US $1,400,000.00. This amount seem ludicrous to me but shows what kind of value the people of Oman place on their meteorites. I also heard that an Omani guide connected to the Swiss was responsible for turning them in. I hope the most recent update is accurate, I feel it is. Kind Regards, Adam __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ -- 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Kansas: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
This is well worth the read to get an idea what science is up against. FYI: Why do scientists get so angry when dealing with ID proponents? http://www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00482.html Charles O'Dale Meeting Chair Ottawa RASC http://www.ottawa.rasc.ca/astronomy/earth_craters/index.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorite Hunting in Oman
Sorry if this is a double post, my first did not seem to go through. Dear Rob, Régis, Michel and List, I agree that if there are legal issues involved with meteorite hunting in certain areas, it should be brought up publicly instead of the cloak-and-dagger secrecy. My only problem is with accurate information. I have heard so many rumors in regards to the Oman thing that it is hard to sort out fact from fiction. I will list what I believe to be facts first: Permits are required to hunt for meteorites in Oman. Only one permit was ever issued to the Swiss. Here is an article that states the Swiss got the permit: http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/wa/MainStoryDetails?ArticleID=9476 Although a permit was issued, it does not guarantee any type of ownership. Just like in the United States, You may get a permit to work an archeological dig but what is brought out doesn't belong to you. The government of Oman's view is that all meteorites found in Oman regardless of whether found under a permit or not are the property of the Sultanate of Oman. The only exceptions are type specimens for study. It appears Dr. Larry Taylor of the University of Tennessee has an agreement with Oman. Here are a few references that can be found online: http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/issues/v97/n46/10.21-1.pdf#search='Larry%20Taylor%20meteorite' http://pr.tennessee.edu/alumnus/alumarticle.asp?id=553 http://pr.tennessee.edu/torch/article.asp?id=710 The charges I heard were the following: 1.) Falsifying a visa in order to gain access to Oman. The stated purpose for entry into the country was listed on their visas as tourism instead of meteorite hunting. 2.) Possession of illegal electronics equipment like two way communications, metal detectors and GPS. 3.) The theft of state property. Maybe other List members in the know can comment on what is fact or fiction in regards to meteorite hunting in Oman. Kind Regards, Adam __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Re: Looking for Buried Iron-Shale with a Metal Detector
Exactly what is meteoritic shale?. I have never heard this term before. Dear Steve: Meteoritic shale (sometimes meteoric shale) is a term used to describe a highly weathered iron meteorite. Weathering could be caused by a meteorite having been on the earth for a very long period of time (i.e. Wolf Creek) or partially decomposing in an area where there is moisture (i.e. Nantan). This shale is sometimes referred to as oxide, in the sense that the iron has decomposed or terrestrialized to the point where most or all of the original metal has turned to iron oxide. It is less dense and less magnetic than a solid iron meteorite (hence Paul's question about what might be involved in hunting for shale). The Santa Catharina and Monturaqui meteorites are two irons which, I believe, have only ever been found as shale. The Canyon Diablo, and Odessa craters have both produced large amounts of shale and I expect there are many others. I have seen grapefruit-sized shale balls of Canyon Diablo and Nantan which have been cut in half to reveal a very thick weathered rind of shale, with a metallic core. I find it to be very interesting material. Regards, Geoff N. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] DíOrbigny
Hi List, I'm interested in acquiring a larger slice of DiOrbigny (not a thin section) for my collection at a reasonable price (of course!). Any ideas or offers, please contact me off list. My collection interest is focused on trying to get representatives of as many unique parent bodies as possible, and angrites are so far unrepresented. In general, I would prefer to wait and get one larger specimen (full slice when possible) that I can be unusually proud of, rather than spend an equal amount of money on many small specimens. Thanks, Mike Fowler Chicago __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] An Anthropologist's look at Kansas: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Hi Mark and all, I had originally planned to ignore this one - but for some reason, as an educator and, specifically, as an Anthropologist, I am inspired to make an observation. First, let me proclaim my bias, as I feel every instructor should: I believe in a higher power - just not a cartoon big, male humanoid with a beard. I also believe Jesus of Nazareth was completely in tune with the truth, and if you read only what was attributed to have come out of his mouth, you will know he spoke primarily in analogies and you will also be very hard pressed to see how so called Christian religions affiliate themselves and their dogma with him and his teachings. That being said There is good reason for Separation Of Church And State - not the least of which is the question no one could possibly answer: WHICH religion. Not only are there the major religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc, there are, in fact at least 3,000 religions - ie, each Native American tribe has its own religion - and this does not count the various sects of the nearly countless religions. So, if Intelligent Design (AKA Creation Science - ruled against by the US Supreme Court in 1987 as not at all science and teaching of same in tax supported schools being counter to the constitution) were to be taught, we must also teach Rastafarian - complete with the sacrament of marijuana, and all branches of the Native American religions (including the sacrament of peyote), and, oh, don't forget the world rests on the back of a turtle! Evolution can be observed easily in the flue, the AIDS virus, insects, etc. It happens right now, today. Some cultures have a 20 minute reproductive cycle and one can easily manipulate evolution of same and observe the results in the lab. Exactly how the entire overall pattern works, all the laws and ins and outs, no, they have not been fully delineated. But neither has the entire workings of the human genome - but we certainly know the basics. So, if some - or even millions - of parents are offended that we (the US schools) and taxpayer monies are not being used to teach their children the truth as they believe it to be - that the world rests on the back of a turtle - or that God is a big man that literally made mud pie Adam and the world on October 23, 4004 bc at 9 AM, or that we are actually a dream that termites are having TOO STINKING BAD! That's my opinion, not that it belongs on the meteorite list. Michael on 5/13/05 4:17 AM, MARK BOSTICK at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello list, intelligence Design is an attempt...although it is happening, so i am not sure if attempt is a right word to bring the bible back into the classroom. Something they not being very secret about. This started a few years ago and they tried to pass it in Kansas court, they couldnt get it through, so they spend several millions, getting those that blocked it, removed out of the Kansas legislation, this was for the legal right of adding intelligence design to the textbooks. So they get the legislation set up with the people they want, pass it, and bring it to the school board. The school board was like screw that nonsense, you do not have a complete theory. So now they are going to force their will on the school board, so we are having a debate. They have also redefined to the meaning of science in Kansas, literally. Not word for word, but it was something like facts about the world and enviroment around us to attempts to explain the world and enviroment around us. Again, not word for word, but it is easy to see where this going. So we have our debates going. Which are funny in general. I have never seen such a Kangaroo court. They were careful in choosing their witnesses, had pre-written questions that are carefully worded, and those that talk are not allowed to answer anything but the questions asked. Debates are usually not so one-siding. Or at least not public debates. But Kansas is just the beginning. Liberal region views.unconstitutionally coming to a school near you. In 10 years, half of the school in American will be teaching creation. Clear Skies, Mark Bostick Embarressed to say I live in Kansas. www.meteoritearticles.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -- You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are. -Herb Cohen -- If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
I'm having a difficult time understanding how the idea of God and evolution can not co-exist. It is almost like if you believe in God, you must also believe creationism, or if you believe evolution as fact, you can not believe in God. Perhaps there are other definitions of intelligent design, but I have never seen it as being even remotely similar to creationism. Now I don't advocate bringing up religion or intelligent design in school. That is not its place. I think this is a subject one has to draw their own conclusions from. It shouldn't be force fed to anyone. Jamie __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] An Anthropologist's look at Kansas:Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Michael L Blood wrote: oh, don't forget the world rests on the back of a turtle! Thomas Huxley was once confronted during one of his lectures by an elderly woman who was an ardent supporter of the Theosophist version of the Hindu cosmology of the world resting on the back of a turtle. He thought he could short-circuit this rather long-winded questioner by asking her, And pray tell us, madam, what is the turtle standing on? The woman pointed her umbrella at him accusingly, It's no use, young man; you can't wiggle out of it so easily -- it's Turtles all the way down!! Sterling K. Webb __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Meteorite Hunting Laws
Dear List, Some are asking why I would bring up such a topic on the List. Frankly, I am tired of the rumors spreading in the background and collectors quoting the blog site. A lot of these rumors are false and more damaging than the truth. The problem with secrecy is that nobody knows what is real and what isn't and in this case lives have been affected. If Oman would have made its laws public I am sure nobody would have been arrested there but they didn't. There may have been permits issued but who knows what they actually say? I think it is better to get this kind of stuff out in the open so that collectors and hunters know what the laws really are rather then finding themselves in trouble. We have the same problem here in the United States. I talked to a BLM official who said it was alright to collect meteorites on federal land just as long as you did not exceed a certain weight. I asked what this weight was he and could not answer me. Meteorite hunters have been beating-around-the-bush for years about the legality of Mojave finds. Some hunters still believe the Smithsonian is going to swoop in and take their finds so they don't report tem. I am sure there are certain areas in the Mojave that are illegal to search. How are we supposed to know unless somebody gets into trouble first? I can't find any of these laws online. This is dangerous because if laws are not posted a meteorite hunter might assume he is within the law taking meteorites when in fact he is committing a felony. I hope somebody here on the List can provide us interested in searching United States deserts accurate descriptions of the laws governing meteorite finds. I am tired of all the gray area talk. What are the laws? Best Wishes, Adam Hupe The Hupe Collection Team LunarRock IMCA 2185 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] An Anthropologist's look at Kansas:Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
make for an unlimited supply of turtle soup, eh? - Original Message - From: Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael L Blood [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meteorite List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] An Anthropologist's look at Kansas:Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design Michael L Blood wrote: oh, don't forget the world rests on the back of a turtle! Thomas Huxley was once confronted during one of his lectures by an elderly woman who was an ardent supporter of the Theosophist version of the Hindu cosmology of the world resting on the back of a turtle. He thought he could short-circuit this rather long-winded questioner by asking her, And pray tell us, madam, what is the turtle standing on? The woman pointed her umbrella at him accusingly, It's no use, young man; you can't wiggle out of it so easily -- it's Turtles all the way down!! Sterling K. Webb __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] DOrbigny TS Follow-up, AD: Ebay auctions
Hello Mark, Alex List, I am the finder with my father of the angrite Sahara 99555 and have a special offer on hight quality thin sections (some with microprobe polish) for sale a reasonnable price, only $238, for those interested have a look to http://www.meteorites.tv/contents/en-us/d70.html Luc From: MARK BOSTICK [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] DOrbigny TS Follow-up, AD: Ebay auctions Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 09:58:18 -0500 Hello Alex and list, Alex noted: Steve Arnold from ARKANSAS, meteoritebroker, of course...!! :-) Steve Arnold was my source and I paid much less then $1000.00. I mentioned Killgore's price as it was a quote he gave me in Tucson. Some of you might remember that big light display in his room. It was made from a D'Orbigny TS. Arnold's price very's as the size of thin section will very, but you can likely get one around $400.00. I was kind of avoiding going too heavy into prices, as it is not my desire to compare dealer prices on the list. On a meteorite such as D'Orbigny, where wholesale cost has varied so much, prices or so much profits are not as clear. But since I have now. For those wanting more affordable thin sections, me and Jerry have listed a Wichita, Wild Horse and Lost Creek TS's on ebay. Three meteorites we have the main masses of. These thin sections, and others we will present later, were made by the same people NWU gets theres made through and have large surface areas. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6531551407 You can view the Wichita TS above, and click on sellers other auctions to see the others. Most of the thin sections we will offering will not be available anywhere else. Clear Skies, Mark Bostick www.meteoritearticles.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Labenne Meteorites Meteorites for Science, Education Collectors http://www.meteorites.tv __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] pallasite ring
Hello List, About two months ago I asked this List were to acquire a pallasite men's ring. I received two answers to my question, both pointing to John Biagiotti of Metamorphosisdesign in Ben Lomond CA ( www.metamorphosisdesign.com ). I contacted John, and - if you are interested - look what this resulted in! : http://home.planet.nl/~rlenssen/Pallasitering.jpg . After the first contact, we desided to go for a custom made ring, containing a little piece of Esquel from my collection . The ring in the picture is the result of a modeling clay study, followed by the making of a 1 to 1 scale wax model, before casting the actual ring. I was involved in the design by Email containing lots of pictures. Without this list I would never have found this goldsmith at the (for me) other side of the globe. Thanks for that. Best regards, Rob Lenssen The Netherlands - Original Message - From: Rob Lenssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:15 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] pallasite ring Hello List, Does anybody know where I can acquire a men's ring, containing a piece of Esquel, Imilac or other stable (and non-Huckitta) pallasite? Thanks and best regards, Rob Lenssen __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] ebay auctions and trade
Hi list.I have decided to pull a mike cottingham on 5 of my auctions.The 5 pieces of sau 002 all have buy it nows on them.So this weekend I'll put a 50% off all 5 pieces.Just deduct half off and that is what you pay.Also if my post on the springwater pallasite did not get thru it is 122.6 grams for trade.It is a beaut. steve Steve R.Arnold, Chicago, IL, 60120 Illinois Meteorites,Ltd! website url http://stormbringer60120.tripod.com __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Hunting Laws
Dear Adam, List; I have a proven test case with my Rock Springs meteorite. State of Wyoming and the Rock Springs District (and other districts in Wyoming) have communicated with Arizona, and California and Nevada (and other western states BLM offices) and have blessed me to keep my meteorite minus the part that went to UCLA/Dr.Ruben for a type specimen to be on deposit to make the Smithsonian and the scientific community happy. For those of you that are sneaky low-down desperado's, if you approach the BLM at the district and at the state levels BEFORE you hunt/find, and do the proper field recordation, the BLM, I have found, is delighted that you are creating interest in wise MULTIUSE practices of public lands. Of course, I am an amazing individual and have had great success because I attend BLM workshop and public input meetings. The four years of contacting the BLM district managers and rangers proactively..even loaning my signed copy of Rocks From Space to the ranger and district office for their benifit/education was kindness repaid doubly. This is not rumor but from me, the finder of the first public lands meteorite in Wyoming in 56 years. When I started my odessey, it was a file a claim verdict that came from the state BLM offices in Cheyenne. So, you may need to do some work, and education to get everyone on board in your local district offices but thanks of a grand nature must go to Bob Verish who helped me posture the recreational meteorite hunting on public lands in the state of Wyoming. What a very successful venture. I agree with Adam, the prediction of more US meteorites in the next few years is very interesting and very well may be prophetic of things to come (wink-wink, nod-nod). Sincerely, Dave Freeman IMCA #3864 eBay user ID mjwy Adam Hupe wrote: Dear List, Some are asking why I would bring up such a topic on the List. Frankly, I am tired of the rumors spreading in the background and collectors quoting the blog site. A lot of these rumors are false and more damaging than the truth. The problem with secrecy is that nobody knows what is real and what isn't and in this case lives have been affected. If Oman would have made its laws public I am sure nobody would have been arrested there but they didn't. There may have been permits issued but who knows what they actually say? I think it is better to get this kind of stuff out in the open so that collectors and hunters know what the laws really are rather then finding themselves in trouble. We have the same problem here in the United States. I talked to a BLM official who said it was alright to collect meteorites on federal land just as long as you did not exceed a certain weight. I asked what this weight was he and could not answer me. Meteorite hunters have been beating-around-the-bush for years about the legality of Mojave finds. Some hunters still believe the Smithsonian is going to swoop in and take their finds so they don't report tem. I am sure there are certain areas in the Mojave that are illegal to search. How are we supposed to know unless somebody gets into trouble first? I can't find any of these laws online. This is dangerous because if laws are not posted a meteorite hunter might assume he is within the law taking meteorites when in fact he is committing a felony. I hope somebody here on the List can provide us interested in searching United States deserts accurate descriptions of the laws governing meteorite finds. I am tired of all the gray area talk. What are the laws? Best Wishes, Adam Hupe The Hupe Collection Team LunarRock IMCA 2185 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Hello list, Here is a link to some more logical information on why it should be evolution that is taught in schools. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/ Jake - Original Message - From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MARK BOSTICK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas: Creation,Evolution and Intelligent Design On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:27:10 -0500, MARK BOSTICK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think most rational people like or at least don't mind the new definition. However, do not be disillusioned that they are trying to teaching students to be open minded. More so, one could not teach creationism under the old definition. That was the last obstacle to keep the bible out of the classroom. They need now only to force it on the education board, since the board rejected it on their own will. This current debate will accomplish that. Here's the article I was looking for earlier-- words to live by. http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html Baloney Detection How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience By MICHAEL SHERMER When lecturing on science and pseudoscience at colleges and universities, I am inevitably asked, after challenging common beliefs held by many students,``Why should we believe you'' My answer:``You shouldn't'' I then explain that we need to check things out for ourselves and, short of that, at least to ask basic questions that get to the heart of the validity of any claim. This is what I call baloney detection, in deference to Carl Sagan, who coined the phrase Baloney Detection Kit. To detect baloney--that is, to help discriminate between science and pseudoscience--I suggest10 questions to ask when encountering any claim. 1. How reliable is the source of the claim? Pseudoscientists often appear quite reliable, but when examined closely, the facts and figures they cite are distorted, taken out of context or occasionally even fabricated. Of course, everyone makes some mistakes. And as historian of science Daniel Kevles showed so effectively in his book The Baltimore Affair, it can be hard to detect a fraudulent signal within the background noise of sloppiness that is a normal part of the scientific process. The question is, Do the data and interpretations show signs of intentional distortion? When an independent committee established to investigate potential fraud scrutinized a set of research notes in Nobel laureate David Baltimore's laboratory, it revealed a surprising number of mistakes. Baltimore was exonerated because his lab's mistakes were random and nondirectional. 2. Does this source often make similar claims? Pseudoscientists have a habit of going well beyond the facts. Flood geologists (creationists who believe that Noah's flood can account for many of the earth's geologic formations) consistently make outrageous claims that bear no relation to geological science. Of course, some great thinkers do frequently go beyond the data in their creative speculations. Thomas Gold of Cornell University is notorious for his radical ideas, but he has been right often enough that other scientists listen to what he has to say. Gold proposes, for example, that oil is not a fossil fuel at all but the by-product of a deep, hot biosphere (microorganisms living at unexpected depths within the crust). Hardly any earth scientists with whom I have spoken think Gold is right, yet they do not consider him a crank. Watch out for a pattern of fringe thinking that consistently ignores or distorts data. 3. Have the claims been verified by another source? Typically pseudoscientists make statements that are unverified or verified only by a source within their own belief circle. We must ask, Who is checking the claims, and even who is checking the checkers? The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for instance, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong. It was that they announced their spectacular discovery at a press conference before other laboratories verified it. Worse, when cold fusion was not replicated, they continued to cling to their claim. Outside verification is crucial to good science. 4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works? An extraordinary claim must be placed into a larger context to see how it fits. When people claim that the Egyptian pyramids and the Sphinx were built more than 10,000 years ago by an unknown, advanced race, they are not presenting any context for that earlier civilization. Where are the rest of the artifacts of those people? Where are their works of art, their weapons, their clothing, their tools, their trash? Archaeology simply does not operate this way. 5. Has anyone gone out of the way
[meteorite-list] meteorite hunting laws
List -
Did anyone notice in the provisional Met Bull 89 that someone found a 13.5 KILO
lunar in the Kalahari back in '99? Is that old news?
National Parks are off limits, but if I ran across a meteorite in the Nat'l
Parks of the desert I'd feel obligated to at least point it out to a University
or the Smithsonian, why should those parkland meteorites not get their chance
at doing some scientific good?
Hey, guess what - the code of federal regulations ('laws' to you and me) is on
line and searchable here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html
Some poking around under the BLM section reveals you are fine unless you mean
to barter or sell to commercial dealers (now who would do that?), in which case
you need a permit - but I'm sure this is a general rule of thumb
manipulate-able by lawyers or superceded by other specific regulations. And if
you found that 13.5 kilo lunar in the Mojave, the gov't could declare it a
special exception, but you'd prob'ly be able to get them to cough up some
compensation if they did something like that.
Here is the unedited section of main interest:
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 43, Volume 2]
[Revised as of October 1, 2004]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 43CFR8365.1-5]
[Page 917]
TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS: INTERIOR
CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PART 8360_VISITOR SERVICES--Table of Contents
Subpart 8365_Rules of Conduct
Sec. 8365.1-5 Property and resources.
(a) On all public lands, unless otherwise authorized, no person
shall;
(1) Willfully deface, disturb, remove or destroy any personal
property, or structures, or any scientific, cultural, archaeological or
historic resource, natural object or area;
(2) Willfully deface, remove or destroy plants or their parts, soil, rocks
or minerals, or cave resources, except as permitted under
paragraph (b) or (c) of this paragraph; or
(3) Use on the public lands explosive, motorized or mechanical
devices, except metal detectors, to aid in the collection of specimens
permitted under paragraph (b) or (c) of this paragraph.
(b) Except on developed recreation sites and areas, or where
otherwise prohibited and posted, it is permissible to collect from the
public lands reasonable amounts of the following for noncommercial
purposes:
(1) Commonly available renewable resources such as flowers, berries, nuts,
seeds, cones and leaves;
(2) Nonrenewable resources such as rocks, mineral specimens, common
invertebrate fossils and semiprecious gemstones;
(3) Petrified wood as provided under subpart 3622 of this title;
(4) Mineral materials as provided under subpart 3604; and
(5) Forest products for use in campfires on the public lands. Other
collection of forest products shall be in accordance with the provisions of
Group 5500 of this title.
(c) The collection of renewable or nonrenewable resources from the
public lands for sale or barter to commercial dealers may be done only
after obtaining a contract or permit from an authorized officer in
accordance with part 3600 or 5400 of this chapter.
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if
this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege.
Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] FW: meteorite hunting laws
I should mention that the word 'meteorite' only shows up in the federal
register in regards to Antartic collecting, where they are all consigned to
science - I am making a presumption that they fall under 'mineral specimen' or
'non-renewable resource' for the public lands.
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Pringle
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:14 PM
To: 'meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com'
Subject: meteorite hunting laws
List -
Did anyone notice in the provisional Met Bull 89 that someone found a 13.5 KILO
lunar in the Kalahari back in '99? Is that old news?
National Parks are off limits, but if I ran across a meteorite in the Nat'l
Parks of the desert I'd feel obligated to at least point it out to a University
or the Smithsonian, why should those parkland meteorites not get their chance
at doing some scientific good?
Hey, guess what - the code of federal regulations ('laws' to you and me) is on
line and searchable here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html
Some poking around under the BLM section reveals you are fine unless you mean
to barter or sell to commercial dealers (now who would do that?), in which case
you need a permit - but I'm sure this is a general rule of thumb
manipulate-able by lawyers or superceded by other specific regulations. And if
you found that 13.5 kilo lunar in the Mojave, the gov't could declare it a
special exception, but you'd prob'ly be able to get them to cough up some
compensation if they did something like that.
Here is the unedited section of main interest:
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 43, Volume 2]
[Revised as of October 1, 2004]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 43CFR8365.1-5]
[Page 917]
TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS: INTERIOR
CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PART 8360_VISITOR SERVICES--Table of Contents
Subpart 8365_Rules of Conduct
Sec. 8365.1-5 Property and resources.
(a) On all public lands, unless otherwise authorized, no person
shall;
(1) Willfully deface, disturb, remove or destroy any personal
property, or structures, or any scientific, cultural, archaeological or
historic resource, natural object or area;
(2) Willfully deface, remove or destroy plants or their parts, soil, rocks
or minerals, or cave resources, except as permitted under
paragraph (b) or (c) of this paragraph; or
(3) Use on the public lands explosive, motorized or mechanical
devices, except metal detectors, to aid in the collection of specimens
permitted under paragraph (b) or (c) of this paragraph.
(b) Except on developed recreation sites and areas, or where
otherwise prohibited and posted, it is permissible to collect from the
public lands reasonable amounts of the following for noncommercial
purposes:
(1) Commonly available renewable resources such as flowers, berries, nuts,
seeds, cones and leaves;
(2) Nonrenewable resources such as rocks, mineral specimens, common
invertebrate fossils and semiprecious gemstones;
(3) Petrified wood as provided under subpart 3622 of this title;
(4) Mineral materials as provided under subpart 3604; and
(5) Forest products for use in campfires on the public lands. Other
collection of forest products shall be in accordance with the provisions of
Group 5500 of this title.
(c) The collection of renewable or nonrenewable resources from the
public lands for sale or barter to commercial dealers may be done only
after obtaining a contract or permit from an authorized officer in
accordance with part 3600 or 5400 of this chapter.
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if
this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege.
Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation,Evolution andIntelligent Design
Hi, Now that things have cooled down a little... Early on in this long thread, several people seemed to believe that Kansas was where the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial had taken place. Not so. That honor goes to Dayton, Tennessee (The Buckle on the Bible Belt, as it's called in the movie). The movie about the trial that many referred to is from 1960, Inherit The Wind, directed by Stanley Kramer (although based on an earlier play written in 1950). The movie definitely worth watching, an intelligent movie about an intellectual issue. That hardly ever happens. However, neither the drama of the movie nor the drama that history imparts, reflects the reality of the trial and how it came about. The Trial of the Century was actually a contrived affair dreamed up by a group of local merchants who felt that the town of Dayton would benefit from a little publicity. Scopes, the defendant, was not a biology teacher, only filling in for the biology teacher who was sick. He did not teach evolution in class, but by assigning readings from the textbook (Hunter's Civic Biology, 1914 edition), he had unknowingly violated Tennessee's newly passed so-called Anti-Evolution law which went into effect on its passage on March 13, 1925, thus invalidating the State-approved textbook for the rest of the school year. Scopes was not defying the law; he was completely unaware that he had broken it. While the law (H.B. 185 of 1925) is always referred to as the anti-evolution law, it actually read as follows: that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals. Not unlike today, the ACLU in New York was looking for a test case to void the Tennessee law and even advertised to find one. The local merchants in Dayton wanted to be that test case. They talked to Scopes first and asked if he wanted to participate. He did. Even the Superintendent of Schools agreed to the notion. It should be pointed out that virtually everybody in Dayton who supported the idea of legal charges and a trial was opposed to the law. However, no one originally associated with the trial had any notion how much publicity would result! The trial would snowball into a circus with the change from the original lawyers to Clarence Darrow for the defense and William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate, for the prosecution. and then into a national media frenzy. In this case, the one of the most important media was the brand-new technology of the radio. The Monkey Trial became (one of) the Trials of the Century when all the instigators wanted in the way of publicity was a few newspaper articles about the town of Dayton! The hope in 1925 was that appeals would carry the case high enough to get a federal ruling that laws banning the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional, but the Scopes guilty verdict was overturned on a technicality (the jury should have levied the $100 fine instead of the judge), and the appeals court said that the case was not worth trying again and it was dismissed. Not until 1968 did the U. S. Supreme Court rule that laws banning the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional, which is why the Kansas board has to settle for adding other explanations to the curriculum. Sterling K. Webb __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution andIntelligent Design
On Fri, 13 May 2005 20:18:41 -0500, Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Early on in this long thread, several people seemed to believe that Kansas was where the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial had taken place. Not so. That honor goes to Dayton, Tennessee (The Buckle on the Bible Belt, as it's called in the movie). Actually, I was refering to Scopes II starting in Kansas. But on double-checking, I forgot a couple of letters-- Scopes II started in _AR_kansas. http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/foi/FEXAM/creationCON.htm#scopes2 'Scopes II' .Perhaps the best known legal battle involving the Creationists' attempt to infiltrate the classroom in recent history began in Arkansas at the end of 1981. Penned as 'Scopes II,' this court case was a result of the state of Arkansas' passing of a bill requiring state schools to give balanced treatment to both evolution and scientific creationism. The law was to take effect in the 1982-83 school year, and covered all educational materials and programs that dealt in any way with the subject of the origin of man, life, energy, the earth, or the universe. Governor Frank White, who -- by his own admission -- did not even read the bill, signed it. Thus was Act 590 born. The Act drew immediate opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union on the grounds that it violated the first amendment. Interestingly, most of the twenty-three plaintiffs were actually clergymen who viewed Act 590 as a threat to religious freedom. The case came to court in Little Rock, Arkansas with federal Judge William R. Overton presiding. The ACLU fought its case on the grounds that Creationism is religious, not scientific, and that its teaching would therefore violate Constitutional separation of church and state as well as the academic freedom of both teachers and students. Local science teachers testified that they had no idea how a sensible course combining Creationism with evolution could be designed, and if forced to teach both, would be at a loss as to how to proceed [13, pp. 71-74]. On January 5, 1982 Judge Overton ruled that Arkansas Law 590 violated the principle of separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution. He declared that it represented nothing more than a transparent attempt to introduce the Biblical version of Creation into the public schools. He also ruled that Creationism is not science, and that evolution is not religion (as the defense had insisted). Furthermore, even if evolution was a religion, then the proper course of action would be to cease teaching evolution in public schools, not to begin teaching another religion in opposition to it [14, p. 59]. Even if the Creationists never win any major battles in court, they could significantly affect the quality of science education at the local level. The pressure takes the form of subtle intimidation of teachers with the result that many tread very lightly around evolution to avoid controversy. This is a part of the rationale for the Creationist 'road shows': to foster a bottom-up, grassroots movement. Plus, I found a good site to keep track of what may be come to be known as Scopes III: http://www.pandasthumb.org/ __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Jamie, The I.D. God, the God who created man in his image kind of God, would never have considered building man through the prototyping process. Humm, lets try some monocellular mud first. No..., lets try some multicellular organisms. Humm, getting better, and on and on to the apes then Neanderthals, yes.. and thenman, now we are getting somewhere. These people can not accept this. They can not accept that we evolved. I don't have any problem accepting this prototyping process. In fact, I kind of like having some idea of how we came into being. How we evolved. I also hope that we aren't finished evolving yet because I see too many problems caused by man and too many idiots out there. We need to evolve into better sentient beings. I, like you, can accept that we have evolved through a magical process. (Please forgive me if I am putting the wrong words into your mouth.) And, I can accept a higher power out there. I also see no conflict here with the theory of evolution. On the other hand, the proponents of I.D. need to have a scientific means to explain man as appearing one day in a single, miraculous event, and that man is in a final and unchangeable state. This goes directly against the theory of evolution. I find this Kansas debate very disturbing, especially when smart people like Mark Bostic chime in and say In 10 years, half of the school in American will be teaching creation. I hope, to God ;), he is wrong, or at least that this will not include Canada. Cheers, tett Owen Sound, Ontario From: Jamie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite list meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation,Evolution and Intelligent Design I'm having a difficult time understanding how the idea of God and evolution can not co-exist. It is almost like if you believe in God, you must also believe creationism, or if you believe evolution as fact, you can not believe in God. Perhaps there are other definitions of intelligent design, but I have never seen it as being even remotely similar to creationism. Now I don't advocate bringing up religion or intelligent design in school. That is not its place. I think this is a subject one has to draw their own conclusions from. It shouldn't be force fed to anyone. Jamie __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Chondrule Formation vs Chondrule Conglomerate
G'day List, I was just reading through a section of 'Planetary Materials - Reviews in Mineralogy, Volume 36' regarding Chondrules when one particular sentence stuck out. It says: A transient heating event melted the dustballs, and they were subsequently cooled, initially at rates around hundreds of degrees per hour or faster, before accreting into their chondritic parent bodies (e.g. Wasson 1993, Hewins 1996). So, taking this at face value then how does one account for the Chondrule Conglomerates which have started popping up? E.g. http://www.meteorites.com.au/features/nwa2892.html I find it intriguing that if the chondrules were cooling at such a rapid rate, then these meteorites would need to have accreted faster or at least as fast. My 'very basic' understanding also would lead me to believe that if these are Type-3 chondrites, then it rules out later metamorphism? (E.g. Remelting of chondritic parent body.) Could these chondritic parent bodies have accreted this fast? Thoughts? Cheers, Jeff __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Re: 13.5 kg lunar
On Fri, 13 May 2005 19:14:24 -0400, Jeff Pringle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: List - Did anyone notice in the provisional Met Bull 89 that someone found a 13.5 KILO lunar in the Kalahari back in '99? Is that old news? I certainly didn't know that such a large lunar had ever been found. Even more interesting than the size (to me) is that the sample does not contain solar wind implanted rare gases. Does that not mean that it had to spend a very short time in transit and would have to be from a recent impact? And have to be from a bit of a distance below the lunar surface, because any surface rocks would be exposed to cosmic rays? How short a period would the meteorite need to be exposed to space to not build up solar wind gases? http://epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/meteorites/kalahari008_009.html from The Meteoritical Bulletin, No. 89 (preview) Kalahari 009 20.9818S; 22.9766 E Botswana Found 2004 Febuary 21 Lunar meteorite (basaltic fragmental breccia) A single stone of about 13.5 kg was found in September 1999 by an anonymous finder in front of a sand dune within the Kalahari desert, roughly 50 m apart from Kalahari 001. The rock is different to the Kalahari 001 anorthositic breccia. It has a heavily brecciated texture and is basaltic in composition. The sample does not contain solar wind implanted rare gases (L. Schultz, Mainz). Classification and mineralogy (Anna Sokol and Addi Bischoff, Mn): olivine, Fa50-99.9 (mostly Fa80-95); pyroxene is highly variable (Fs22-67 En10-64 Wo6-41); plagioclase An86-96 (very few plagioclase have more albitic composition, An70-80). The shock stage of the rock is S4; the weathering grade is W1; however, calcite veins are present. Oxygen isotopic composition: d18O = +6.87; d17O = +3.45 (R. N. Clayton, Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, U.S.A.); concentrations of selected elements (XRF or INAA; H. Palme, G. Weckwerth, Institut fr Mineralogie und Geochemie, Universitt zu Kln, Germany) in wt%: Al: 6.76; Mg: 5.14; Fe: 12.47; Ca: 7.66. Zr/Hf = 30.2 and Nd/Ta= 17.4 (Mnker, Institut fr Mineralogie, Universitt Mnster, Mnster, Germany). Specimen: Type specimen, 20 g and polished thin section, Mn; main mass, sic __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution andIntelligent Design
Wow, I just found a direct link between the Kansas ID debate and meteorite collecting. In reading a transcript of arguments from the public in support of ID, A man named Tony Kostusik, who mentions being a meteorite collector, gave a brief (and from what I can tell, utterly incoherent and apparenlty disproving evolution because there are no square clouds) speech at the hearings. http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/schlagle.htm MR. KOSTUSIK: Thank you for your time this evening. My name is Tony Kostusik, K-o-s-t-u-s-i-k, concerned Kansas citizen, grandfather of four. I have a lumber business, and I have been flying for 40-some years, and I have taken -- I have taken many thousands of pictures. And the pictures that I brought here tonight with questions on the back, I think, are unanswered by evolution's answer. If that's the case, I think there needs to be an overhaul of what they -- I am not an educator, so excuse my language. I think they need to have an overhaul of what they consider scientific evidence. If the questions on the back are unanswered by Evolution, there has to be a change in Evolution. It can be partly there, but I think there has to be other alternatequestions brought up, as it just happened. I've never seen a square cloud in the scientific. I also collect meteorites. In a current book that I have, it's 222 times, maybe, it's also possible, could have come from, there are probably, and probably, it goes on and on. I've highlighted 72 different times. I think it's about time we get some what science matches what we actually see. So please consider that. Thank you for your time. And here's an article about the guy and meteorites: http://www.sas.org/E-Bulletin/2004-04-02/features2/body.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list]OT Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution andIntelligent Design
Hey! I know that man. He's my monkeys' uncle. Bill -- Original message -- From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wow, I just found a direct link between the Kansas ID debate and meteorite collecting. In reading a transcript of arguments from the public in support of ID, A man named Tony Kostusik, who mentions being a meteorite collector, gave a brief (and from what I can tell, utterly incoherent and apparenlty disproving evolution because there are no square clouds) speech at the hearings. http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/schlagle.htm MR. KOSTUSIK: Thank you for your time this evening. My name is Tony Kostusik, K-o-s-t-u-s-i-k, concerned Kansas citizen, grandfather of four. I have a lumber business, and I have been flying for 40-some years, and I have taken -- I have taken many thousands of pictures. And the pictures that I brought here tonight with questions on the back, I think, are unanswered by evolution's answer. If that's the case, I think there needs to be an overhaul of what they -- I am not an educator, so excuse my language. I think they need to have an overhaul of what they consider scientific evidence. If the questions on the back are unanswered by Evolution, there has to be a change in Evolution. It can be partly there, but I think there has to be other alternatequestions brought up, as it just happened. I've never seen a square cloud in the scientific. I also collect meteorites. In a current book that I have, it's 222 times, maybe, it's also possible, could have come from, there are probably, and probably, it goes on and on. I've highlighted 72 different times. I think it's about time we get some what science matches what we actually see. So please consider that. Thank you for your time. And here's an article about the guy and meteorites: http://www.sas.org/E-Bulletin/2004-04-02/features2/body.html __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
RE: [meteorite-list] D'Orbigny, Unusual Angrite, Thin Section Photographs
Hi, With all this talk of Angrites; I hope that some one can help me find a sample of Angra dos Reis for my collection. Thanks, Peter Scherff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MARK BOSTICK Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:33 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: [meteorite-list] D'Orbigny, Unusual Angrite,Thin Section Photographs Hello list, (Forgive me for if any of the following is scientifically wrong, this is my observations paired with my at times limited knowledge.) I recently received a D'Orbigny thin section. Which I have placed several photographs of on my web site at the following web page. http://www.meteoritearticles.com/coldorbigneyts.html One the best thin sections I have. OK, move over NWA 998, it is the best. This is due to its prismatic augite crystals, often found twisted with olivine, randomly placed anorthite shards, and the many large vugs/vug inclusions, in the stone. Some of these are filled with olivine or glass, some are empty and some are hollow, meaning the show traces of the former. In one vug on my thin section, is a well formed specter shaped crystal sticking out. In my microscope it appears bright red, so perhaps it is olivine. Another interesting note on the crystal that it formed in a hollow vug. Meaning in a vug that has traces of the former minerals that once filled the vug. This would mean of course that it formed after whatever was in the vug, which is most likely olivine. This is all my amateur observation and if anyone thinks the crystal, seen in photo 7, is not olivine, let me know your opinion please. Also photo 7 and photo 11, shows particle bugs with, under cross polars, appears brown as shown. This is what I think are hollow vugs, as described in a couple of papers. The former mineral thing again. Empty vug walls are shown in photos 7 and 8. Opinions and thoughts welcomed, Clear Skies, Mark Bostick Wichita, Kansas http://www.meteoritearticles.com http://www.kansasmeteoritesociety.com http://www.imca.cc http://stores.ebay.com/meteoritearticles __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution andIntelligent Design
I think that there is a bit of truth to all of it, Creation, Evolution and Intellegent intervention/design. Your examples of Fallen arches, acid reflux, cancer, failing eyesight are not part of the design. They are the result of using a given design beyond the operational envelope of the particular design. Cancer, I believe is a product of our 5000 years of cesspool environmental practices, add the industrial revolution and the millions of tons of toxins that are in the lifecycles of this biosphere and cancers are inevitable even in the best design. Most people I know with foot problems are either out of shape or overweight, acid reflux is simply another example of operation of the design outside its capabilities. Unless you are getting naturally grown food from OFF of this planet then I do not care if you are a herbivore, carnivore or and omnivore you are ingesting filth, toxins and decay of the past 3 centuries at least. Add to that the processed crap that most people gorge themselves on and it is no wonder that our stomachs work at all. No you will have to make a better arguement against intelligent design than that. I personally like to call it intelligent Intervention, perhaps God/the intellegence did not stick around to perfect the design. Instead this God/the intelligence , found something already in the process...maybe from evolution. Seeing that it could use some seasoning, like all good chefs added some spice to the life already beginning on this planet. Maybe that is where creation comes in. Who knows, maybe we will find out someday that our double helix DNA is responsible for all of itmore than half of all the material that makes up our DNA does nothing but insure the replication of itself, then we share almost 95% of the stuff with all other living things here. Sounds pretty suspicous to mesomething that devotes more than half of its structure and operation to its own self preservation and is intimately linked to everything on this planet...if that is not intellgence I do not know what is and that leaves out the fact that 4 simple chemicals is all this stuff is made of and all you need to is combine the stuff correctly and it can make anything out of itself(cue twilight zone music). Too many missing links in evolution, too much take it on faith in religion and way too many wonderful things that we can not explain, that I will not hold up to chance happening. I like to believe, no matter what faith, with or without religon, that all of us will know the wonders of us, our world and the universe someday and it will all be revealed when we leave this existance...until then we get to debate. And that leads me to communication, another part of the designthink for a moment how lousy life would be if we had not developed our communication to level beyond common mammals. You did make a good point though when you said that the ways of God are myterious and not within mortal understanding? What fun would it be and what would anyone have to look forward to if we had all the answers. Our suffering here, our experiences here, are all preparation for what is ahead. Till then we get to wonder and talk about it! Thanks for listening Mark M. Phoenix AZ - Original Message - From: Treiman, Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 6:25 AM Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation,Evolution andIntelligent Design Hi, all -- Here's my two cents on Intellegent Design. It adopts the worst aspects of science and religion, and ends up being bad science, bad theology, and bad engineering. Intellegent Design is bad science, because it makes no testable predictions about how the universe does or did operate. Intellegent Design is bad theology, because it assumes that humans are clever enough to understand God's design of the universe and his intentions. Don't our preachers always tell us that the ways of God are myterious and not within mortal understanding? Intellegent Design is bad engineering, because so many parts of the design work poorly. What is the design purpose of acne? Fallen arches? Acid reflux? Cancer? Failing eyesight? Etc, etc. These are not intellegent designs, they are sloppy, foolish, stupid designs. FWIW. Allan Allan H. Treiman Senior Staff Scientist Lunar and Planetary Institute 3600 Bay Area Boulevard Houston, TX 77058-1113 281-486-2117 281-486-2162 (FAX) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Southern Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 8:02 AM To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation,Evolution andIntelligent Design interesting point of view Phil... Bill - Original Message - From: Phil Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; drtanuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 6:46 PM Subject: Re:
RE: [meteorite-list] Good advice for students
Hello list, This is what our Hon'ble President, a former scientists has to say - - science was born and survives only by questions. Check this link for more details http://www.presidentofindia.nic.in/childrengal.html Wishes Manoj Pai Ahmedabad, India It is the dreamers, the ones that ask foolish questions, the searchers/seekers that find the answers. The ones that have all of the answers NEVER will make progress for mankind or themselves. ... I always encourage my students to ask, question and think. __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Deep Impact Update - May 13, 2005
MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 http://www.jpl.nasa.gov D.C. Agle (818) 393-9011 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. Dolores Beasley/Erica Hupp (202) 358-1753/1237 NASA Headquarters, Washington News Release: 2005-075May 13, 2005 Deep Impact Mission Status Report Fifty-nine days before going head-to-head with comet Tempel 1, NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft successfully executed the second trajectory correction maneuver of the mission. The burn further refined the spacecraft's trajectory, or flight path, and also moved forward the expected time of the Independence Day comet encounter so impact would be visible by ground- and space-based observatories. The 95-second burn - the longest remaining firing of the spacecraft's motors prior to comet encounter -- was executed on May 4. It changed Deep Impact's speed by 18.2 kilometers per hour (11.3 miles per hour). Spacecraft performance has been excellent, and this burn was no different, said Rick Grammier, Deep Impact project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. It was a textbook maneuver that placed us right on the money. Right on the money is where Deep Impact has to be to place a 1-meter-long (39-inch) impactor spacecraft in the path of a comet about as big as the island of Manhattan that is bearing down on it at 37,100 kilometers per hour (6.3 miles per second). At the same time, from a very comet-intimate distance of 500 kilometers (310 miles), a flyby spacecraft will be monitoring the event. This all occurs in the wee hours of July 4 - at 1:52 am Eastern time (July 3, 10:52 p.m. Pacific time) -- at a distance of 133.6-million kilometers (83-million miles) from Earth. With this maneuver our friends working the Hubble Space Telescope are assured a ringside seat, said Deep Impact Principal Investigator Dr. Michael A'Hearn of the University of Maryland, College Park. Their observations, along with space telescopes Chandra and Spitzer and numerous ground- based observatories, will provide us with the most scientific bang for our buck with Deep Impact. Deep Impact is comprised of two parts, a flyby spacecraft and a smaller impactor. The impactor will be released into the comet's path before a planned high-speed collision on July 4. The crater produced by the impact could range in size from the width of a large house up to the size of a football stadium, and from 2 to 14 stories deep. Ice and dust debris will be ejected from the crater, revealing the material beneath. The Deep Impact spacecraft has four data collectors to observe the effects of the collision. A camera and infrared spectrometer, which comprise the High Resolution Instrument, are carried on the flyby spacecraft, along with a Medium Resolution Instrument. A duplicate of the Medium Resolution Instrument on the impactor will record the vehicle's final moments before it is run over by comet Tempel 1 at a speed of about 37,100 kilometers per hour (23,000 miles per hour). The overall Deep Impact mission management for this Discovery class program is conducted by the University of Maryland in College Park, Md. Deep Impact project management is handled by JPL. The spacecraft was built for NASA by Ball Aerospace Technologies Corporation, Boulder, Colo. For more information about Deep Impact on the Internet, visit http://www.nasa.gov/deepimpact .For more information about NASA on the Internet, visit http://www.nasa.gov . __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
