Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
Its like a Dikfur.. - Original Message - From: Stefan Creaser To: Louise Power ; donarb...@mac.com ; Texascavers@texascavers.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:32 PM Subject: RE: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] But I don't know what a speleotherm is. Have I missed something? Maybe that there is a world out there that spells it differently. Like colour, aluminium, herb, etc. etc. :-) Before I came over here i'd never heard of a speleothem, but i accept that they exist. Stefan From: Louise Power [mailto:power_lou...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:21 PM To: donarb...@mac.com; Texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: RE: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] Hi Don, I know what a speleothem is A speleothem (from the Greek for cave deposit) is a secondary mineral deposit formed in caves. It is the formal term for what is also known as a cave formation, or amongst cavers sometimes known as decorations or pretties. But I don't know what a speleotherm is. Have I missed something? Louise -- From: Don Arburn donarb...@mac.com To: Texas Cavers Texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:08:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Received: from raistlin.wokka.org ([69.56.185.90]) by bay0-mc9-f7.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:08:44 -0700 Received: (qmail 5858 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2007 05:08:48 - Received: (qmail 5849 invoked by uid 31338); 17 Jul 2007 05:08:48 - http://www.bible.ca/tracks/speleotherms-stalagmites-stalactites.htm - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] - warning Ediger-length diatribe
OK, I'll play along. Calcium carbonate formations can grow at very rapid rates. Did I miss something? I thought that this was old news to cavers. Haven't we all seen examples of calcite deposition over man made objects in caves? I am amused at the website, http://www.bible.ca/tracks/speleotherms-stalagmites-stalactites.htm, use of commercial cave guides as the source of their scientific information. There are quite a few discrepancies between commercial cave guide talks and reality. The age of formations is often one of the lesser ones, in my experience. Some commercial caves are more focused on entertainment than on education, and understandably so. Caves are the generally the best preserving environments for paleontological material. Calcite one of the mechanisms as is burial by clastic sediment. I fail to see the mystery here or how this is linked (other than wishful thinking) to the age of the earth. Geologically, caves are very young features and are not much of an indication of the age of the earth. It kind of reminds me of a geography professor who, in addition to telling us that valleys don't form in granite, had written his own text (printed by that prestigious producer of high-end text books, Kinko's) in which he pointed out that carbon 14 to carbon 12 ratios have not been constant through earth's history. He then leapt to the conclusion that radiocarbon dating doesn't work and then made the very impressive leap to the conclusion that the earth is not as old as those profane geologists say it is. The minor leap is not supported because more complex equations can take into account the varying ratios among carbon isotopes. The major leap is truly impressive because carbon dating has nothing to do with the age of the earth. I may not current, but the last best estimate of the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years which is almost inconceivably older than anything that can be radiocarbon dated at less than 50,000 years. The age of the earth has not been estimated based on caves, their contents, or radiocarbon dating. If it were, it would be laughed at by everyone. Five orders of magnitude of time is way too much to extrapolate. A little refresher for those who have forgotten or were unfortunate enough to not be exposed. Darwin's theory of evolution disturbed quite of few people at the time of its publication. List of what reasons you will. Lord Kelvin (see Kelvin is Lord! - http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/ - Only Kelvin can preserve you from entropy), who studied thermodynamics and is one of the great historical figures of science, recognized that evolution was a viable mechanism. However, he believed that the earth was too young for evolution to have taken place. This is despite James Hutton's (the discoverer of the angular unconformity - now there is something that indicates a significant minimum age of the earth) statement that the earth has no semblance of a beginning and no prospect of an end. And the work of Charles Lyell. Too bad these folks are not common topics around caver camps. He brought his scientific discipline to bear on the issue. His approach was to measure the amount of heat absorbed by the earth from the sun. He assumed that the earth had begun in a molten state and that it is still cooling. He also made measurements of heat flow. He made such measurements for 15 years and published his results in 1860, if memory serves me correctly. I don't know if that influenced Pete Lindsley's entry into caving after the Civil War or not. However, we all have had plenty of time to familiarize ourselves with his work. In any case, Kelvin had set out to prove that the earth was young. He assumed that the only two sources of heat on earth were residual heat from a molten state and heat from the sun. He also assumed that life could not exist on earth if the earth were molten. He took his 15 years of data, plugged it into thermodynamic equations with which he was quite familiar and that had been demonstrated to represent heat flux well, and back calculated to a molten state. He got an answer that was dissatisfying to everyone. It was too short for geologic models (James Hutton, Charles Lyell) or for biologists (Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace) and it was too long for creationists. His equation produced an age of the earth of 100 million years. Kelvin did not make any significant mathematical errors and his measurements have not been questioned. Yet his approach only yielded a little less than 1% of the age of the earth. He used a scientific approach to come at the problem from a different direction than geologists and biologists had and produced an interesting result. In the late 1800's, the first person to receive two Nobel prizes in science (who is worth looking up as this person is atypical is another important way, not just because of the receipt of two Nobels), made a discovery that was later found to account for the missing heat in Kelvin's
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] - warning Ediger-length diatribe
On Jul 17, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Philip L Moss wrote: In the late 1800's, the first person to receive two Nobel prizes in science (who is worth looking up as this person is atypical is another important way, not just because of the receipt of two Nobels), made a discovery that was later found to account for the missing heat in Kelvin's assumptions. Now all of you have had the benefit of a modern education that has built on the cumulative knowledge starting at least with the Renaissance and will immediate realize what the source of over 99% of the heat on earth is that Kelvin was unable to include since it hadn't yet been discovered. Why that would be my personal scientific hero while I was growing up as a young girl--Marie Curie, the co-discoverer of the naturally radioactive elements radium and polonium (named after her birth country, Poland). Her first Nobel prize (in physics) was shared with her husband Pierre and Henri Becquerel, for the investigation of naturally occurring radioactivity (she even coined that last term). Her second Nobel prize (in chemistry) she did not share with anyone (Pierre had died by this time of a tragic accident with a horse- powered carriage). It was awarded to her in recognition of the discovery of radium and polonium, and the supreme technological feat in isolating these elements in their pure forms (see the biography Madame Curie by her daughter Eve, or the highly entertaining 1940's- era movie starring Greer Garson). Basic education should be learned in schools, from text books, scientific literature, and interacting with people who do research (including helping them). It should not be expected from a list server or the Internet in general. Unfortunately, there are many school districts across the country that are struggling to teach science without the interference of school boards that want to ban the teaching of evolution, and/or replace it with intelligent design (what a misnomer!). Diana * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Diana R. Tomchick Associate Professor University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Department of Biochemistry 5323 Harry Hines Blvd. Rm. ND10.214B Dallas, TX 75390-8816, U.S.A. Email: diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu 214-645-6383 (phone) 214-645-6353 (fax) - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] - warning Ediger-length diatribe
Thanks, Philip. I think. Most interesting. I would still like to know if these new formations pictured are basically of the same composition as those in most Texas caves. If so, gee, we may have been misled about the period of time that it took for the really large stalagmites to attain their size. Fritz _ From: Philip L Moss [mailto:philipm...@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:56 AM To: Texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] - warning Ediger-length diatribe OK, I'll play along. Calcium carbonate formations can grow at very rapid rates. Did I miss something? I thought that this was old news to cavers. Haven't we all seen examples of calcite deposition over man made objects in caves? I am amused at the website, http://www.bible.ca/tracks/speleotherms-stalagmites-stalactites.htm, use of commercial cave guides as the source of their scientific information. There are quite a few discrepancies between commercial cave guide talks and reality. The age of formations is often one of the lesser ones, in my experience. Some commercial caves are more focused on entertainment than on education, and understandably so. Caves are the generally the best preserving environments for paleontological material. Calcite one of the mechanisms as is burial by clastic sediment. I fail to see the mystery here or how this is linked (other than wishful thinking) to the age of the earth. Geologically, caves are very young features and are not much of an indication of the age of the earth. It kind of reminds me of a geography professor who, in addition to telling us that valleys don't form in granite, had written his own text (printed by that prestigious producer of high-end text books, Kinko's) in which he pointed out that carbon 14 to carbon 12 ratios have not been constant through earth's history. He then leapt to the conclusion that radiocarbon dating doesn't work and then made the very impressive leap to the conclusion that the earth is not as old as those profane geologists say it is. The minor leap is not supported because more complex equations can take into account the varying ratios among carbon isotopes. The major leap is truly impressive because carbon dating has nothing to do with the age of the earth. I may not current, but the last best estimate of the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years which is almost inconceivably older than anything that can be radiocarbon dated at less than 50,000 years. The age of the earth has not been estimated based on caves, their contents, or radiocarbon dating. If it were, it would be laughed at by everyone. Five orders of magnitude of time is way too much to extrapolate. A little refresher for those who have forgotten or were unfortunate enough to not be exposed. Darwin's theory of evolution disturbed quite of few people at the time of its publication. List of what reasons you will. Lord Kelvin (see Kelvin is Lord! - http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/ - Only Kelvin can preserve you from entropy), who studied thermodynamics and is one of the great historical figures of science, recognized that evolution was a viable mechanism. However, he believed that the earth was too young for evolution to have taken place. This is despite James Hutton's (the discoverer of the angular unconformity - now there is something that indicates a significant minimum age of the earth) statement that the earth has no semblance of a beginning and no prospect of an end. And the work of Charles Lyell. Too bad these folks are not common topics around caver camps. He brought his scientific discipline to bear on the issue. His approach was to measure the amount of heat absorbed by the earth from the sun. He assumed that the earth had begun in a molten state and that it is still cooling. He also made measurements of heat flow. He made such measurements for 15 years and published his results in 1860, if memory serves me correctly. I don't know if that influenced Pete Lindsley's entry into caving after the Civil War or not. However, we all have had plenty of time to familiarize ourselves with his work. In any case, Kelvin had set out to prove that the earth was young. He assumed that the only two sources of heat on earth were residual heat from a molten state and heat from the sun. He also assumed that life could not exist on earth if the earth were molten. He took his 15 years of data, plugged it into thermodynamic equations with which he was quite familiar and that had been demonstrated to represent heat flux well, and back calculated to a molten state. He got an answer that was dissatisfying to everyone. It was too short for geologic models (James Hutton, Charles Lyell) or for biologists (Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace) and it was too long for creationists. His equation produced an age of the earth of 100 million years. Kelvin did not make any significant mathematical errors and his
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] - warning Ediger-length diatribe
Now for those who are still scratching your heads about the source of approximately 99% of the heat on earth - if you can't recognize a simple thing like a heat source that provides 99% of the heat on your planet, perhaps you might have a little trouble recognizing evolution, which plays just as large a role in your lives. OK. I'm still scratching. How are you coming up with the 99% figure? George
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] - warning Ediger-length diatribe
Quick distinction and then I'll get back to being productive at work: There is a difference between evolution as a viable mechanism for life that already exists, and evolution as the origin of life. While this statement is probably controversial, I don't think evolution in a living organism violates the laws of thermodynamics or entropy, but as the origin of life I definitely think it does. On 7/17/07, George Nincehelser geo...@nincehelser.com wrote: Now for those who are still scratching your heads about the source of approximately 99% of the heat on earth - if you can't recognize a simple thing like a heat source that provides 99% of the heat on your planet, perhaps you might have a little trouble recognizing evolution, which plays just as large a role in your lives. OK. I'm still scratching. How are you coming up with the 99% figure? George
RE: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
I am waiting for a knowledgeable geologist or someone to tell us that these formations are not formed by the same minerals or in the same manner in which cave formations are formed. I'm sure that there must be an explanation why these formations grew at such a rapid rate. Fritz with questions. _ From: Don Cooper [mailto:wavyca...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:42 AM To: Don Arburn Cc: Texas Cavers Subject: Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] WOW! I guess everything in the bible is correct then! So the oldest caves are only 4000 years old, God Created Adam and Eve with magic, evolution is bunk and Noah's Ark WAS NOT a increadably far fetched fable.. Who Knew? -WaV On 7/17/07, Don Arburn donarb...@mac.com wrote: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/speleotherms-stalagmites-stalactites.htm - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
Or phrased another way, why do we always seem to assume formations must grow slowly? Under favorable conditions, is fast growth possible? Has anyone tried to grow artificial formations under controlled conditions? George On 7/17/07, Fritz Holt fh...@townandcountryins.com wrote: I am waiting for a knowledgeable geologist or someone to tell us that these formations are not formed by the same minerals or in the same manner in which cave formations are formed. I'm sure that there must be an explanation why these formations grew at such a rapid rate. Fritz with questions.
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
Once again I'm going to have to question the wisdom in mocking religion on this listserve... So yes, caves, in the right conditions, can form far more quickly than sometimes stated as uniform. Just as a private company can build a road 10 times quicker than the state- it varies with conditions... significantly. In the same way, it can take thousands of years to develope a foot of soil- or, it can take 6 hours for a volcano or flood to deposit 15 feet of strata- once again, not a good indicator of age. Carbon dating, or carbon-14 isotope is also a funny method. It assumes that millions of years ago (assuming that the earth existed then) there was exactly the same amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, otherwise it would completely throw off the calibration of the instruments used to carbon date things... In evolutionary theory, however, the earth had a DRASTICALLY different atmosphere millions of years ago. Convenient assumption once again. Evolution also deviates from scientific theory because it ignores principals we see every day, like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The only deviation from the 2nd law ever seen is only in paper- as the theory of evolution. Yes, things change. But the real question comes down to can these changes describe the origin of life? Logic says no. Thermodynamics says no. Probability says no. Not only in the way that it is a phenomenally irresponsible statement to say Just ignore everything we've seen and measured, and accept that *With Enough Time* it'll just happen, and probably the most unscientific thing you could say. In this way evolution is less a science than saying that someone created it. Funny how an all but amorphous piece of obsidian can be said to have been made by man, because the coincidences of some chips in it all in the same direction is too much of a coincidence, while the creature analyzing it is accepted as being a product of chance. Oxymoron. Science (what an abused word THAT is) is used too much when talking about things we describe. A significant majority of our equations are empirically based. It's just a method used to mathematically describe what we see. It doesn't mean we know how or why it happens. I could watch a magician performing the same trick over and over and write an equation describing it and call it science. But it's only pattern recognition and every time that trick is performed, regardless of a new equation and theory describing it, could be just that: magic. Not that it is, but science can't disprove it. I was once probbing my religious beliefs- following different leads and weighing the validity of different points of view, and I ended up talking to my friend Rhinehardt about it. I, frustrated, said, If the israelites really saw a plague of frogs, then locusts, then water turning to blood, then night in the middle of the day, then first born children dying in egypt, then the Red Sea parting, then a pillar of cloud guiding them by day, and a pillar of fire by night, how could they make an idol after waiting for Moses? Either it's a lie or God wasted a lot of energy on some dumbasses. Rhinehardt (who I've forgotten to mention, is blind from birth) paused, Look up in the sky. What do you see? Clouds... the sky What color are they, describe them I described the colors and shapes. He followed up with, Ok, so what do you do for fun? I draw, I ride my motorcycle, I go to the movies He paused again I've never seen a movie, I'll never drive any vehicle, I have no idea at all what colors are, I can't tell if a piece of paper is covered with writing or blank and it boggles my mind that you can sense something so far away. You see miracles every day, but you're always looking for something more. I'd say people today are just as much the 'dumbasses' they were back then. Extinct rivers, people, cities and documents have been found with new technology, systematically scratching items of the list of things people complain the Bible is wrong about. That's probably why it's used for archaeology today. Just watching the trend, I'd personally be leery about being sarcastic to hyperbolic proportions about discovering an item on the same list of other things that HAVE been discovered. I think scientists or people claiming (ignorantly)* science* are just as self-righteous as some christians as if they have it all figured out. For the same reasons self-righteous, accusing *Christians* are wrong to believe in a god because they can't handle getting through life without an imaginary friend to hold their hand, self-righteous s*cientists *or those believing *science* are wrong to feng shui facts and ignore others to appear to have all the answers when they have precious few. While religiously based, I hope this came across more of a rebutal showing a scientific viewpoint of creationist theory than an argument if there is a god or not. If you read this far- congrats, you're interested in your origins and quite possibly your
RE: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
I'm staying out of the religious controversy though I agree with the concept of not dissing another persons beliefs. I guess some of the ultra religious could consider what I'm about to say as bearing witness! I have observed some very fast formation growth in an area where the soil appears to be acidic and by actual test has a fairly high concentration of CO2. The growth occurred during a period of heavy rain and soil saturation, pretty much like we're having now. Back in the early days of the CBSP project, we were doing a lot of CO2 testing, TPWD furnished the equipment, an Oxygen meter and Draeger device with lots of CO2 tubes. Ed Young got this wild idea to dig a little core hole about a foot deep, cover it and come back in a couple of hours with the Draeger and test the CO2. There were usually concentrations of 2-3%. 1990 was a year of extremely heavy rain and the soil was well saturated. We got flooded several times and couldn't get off the park until flood water receded. In Gorman Cave, from one month to the next some small formations had grown 1/8-1/4 in length. Some of the old discolored flowstone had new white growth on top. We didn't do actual measurements of the formations or the thickness of the flowstone growth but it was easy to observe. I'm not scientist enough to analyze all the variables but certain conditions apparently can make for pretty fast formation growth. If you've ever been sewerlunking, you'll see some nice little flowstone formations and even a few soda straws that have grown in the last 30 years since that was about how old the drain was. Butch -Original Message- From: Brian Riordan [mailto:riordan.br...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:39 AM To: Don Cooper Cc: Texas Cavers Subject: Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] Once again I'm going to have to question the wisdom in mocking religion on this listserve... So yes, caves, in the right conditions, can form far more quickly than sometimes stated as uniform. Just as a private company can build a road 10 times quicker than the state- it varies with conditions... significantly. In the same way, it can take thousands of years to develope a foot of soil- or, it can take 6 hours for a volcano or flood to deposit 15 feet of strata- once again, not a good indicator of age. Carbon dating, or carbon-14 isotope is also a funny method. It assumes that millions of years ago (assuming that the earth existed then) there was exactly the same amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, otherwise it would completely throw off the calibration of the instruments used to carbon date things... In evolutionary theory, however, the earth had a DRASTICALLY different atmosphere millions of years ago. Convenient assumption once again. Evolution also deviates from scientific theory because it ignores principals we see every day, like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The only deviation from the 2nd law ever seen is only in paper- as the theory of evolution. Yes, things change. But the real question comes down to can these changes describe the origin of life? Logic says no. Thermodynamics says no. Probability says no. Not only in the way that it is a phenomenally irresponsible statement to say Just ignore everything we've seen and measured, and accept that With Enough Time it'll just happen, and probably the most unscientific thing you could say. In this way evolution is less a science than saying that someone created it. Funny how an all but amorphous piece of obsidian can be said to have been made by man, because the coincidences of some chips in it all in the same direction is too much of a coincidence, while the creature analyzing it is accepted as being a product of chance. Oxymoron. Science (what an abused word THAT is) is used too much when talking about things we describe. A significant majority of our equations are empirically based. It's just a method used to mathematically describe what we see. It doesn't mean we know how or why it happens. I could watch a magician performing the same trick over and over and write an equation describing it and call it science. But it's only pattern recognition and every time that trick is performed, regardless of a new equation and theory describing it, could be just that: magic. Not that it is, but science can't disprove it. I was once probbing my religious beliefs- following different leads and weighing the validity of different points of view, and I ended up talking to my friend Rhinehardt about it. I, frustrated, said, If the israelites really saw a plague of frogs, then locusts, then water turning to blood, then night in the middle of the day, then first born children dying in egypt, then the Red Sea parting, then a pillar of cloud guiding them by day, and a pillar of fire by night, how could they make an idol after waiting for Moses? Either it's a lie or God wasted a lot of energy on some dumbasses. Rhinehardt (who I've
RE: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
Butch, The "Caves of Houston," otherwise known as the storm sewers, have stalactites, bacon rind, etc. We used to "cave" there in the 70s when we had nothing else to do. Somewhere in my prehistoric slide files I have some pictures. Louise From: "Butch Fralia" cave...@charter.netTo: "'Brian Riordan'" riordan.br...@gmail.com,"'Don Cooper'" wavyca...@gmail.comCC: "'Texas Cavers'" Texascavers@texascavers.comSubject: RE: [Texascavers] [Bat "Caught" by Stalactite]Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:57:40 -0500MIME-Version: 1.0Received: from raistlin.wokka.org ([69.56.185.90]) by bay0-mc8-f16.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:58:15 -0700Received: (qmail 18325 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2007 16:58:11 -Received: (qmail 18316 invoked by uid 31338); 17 Jul 2007 16:58:10 - I'm staying out of the religious controversy though I agree with the concept of not dissing another persons beliefs. I guess some of the ultra religious could consider what I'm about to say as "bearing witness!" I have observed some very fast formation growth in an area where the soil appears to be acidic and by actual test has a fairly high concentration of CO2. The growth occurred during a period of heavy rain and soil saturation, pretty much like we're having now. Back in the "early days" of the CBSP project, we were doing a lot of CO2 testing, TPWD furnished the equipment, an Oxygen meter and Draeger device with lots of CO2 tubes. Ed Young got this wild idea to dig a little core hole about a foot deep, cover it and come back in a couple of hours with the Draeger and test the CO2. There were usually concentrations of 2-3%. 1990 was a year of extremely heavy rain and the soil was well saturated. We got flooded several times and couldn't get off the park until flood water receded. In Gorman Cave, from one month to the next some small formations had grown 1/8-1/4" in length. Some of the old discolored flowstone had new white growth on top. We didn't do actual measurements of the formations or the thickness of the flowstone growth but it was easy to observe. I'm not scientist enough to analyze all the variables but certain conditions apparently can make for pretty fast formation growth. If you've ever been sewerlunking, you'll see some nice little flowstone formations and even a few soda straws that have grown in the last 30 years since that was about how old the drain was. Butch -Original Message-From: Brian Riordan [mailto:riordan.br...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:39 AMTo: Don CooperCc: Texas CaversSubject: Re: [Texascavers] [Bat "Caught" by Stalactite] Once again I'm going to have to question the wisdom in mocking religion on this listserve... So yes, caves, in the right conditions, can form far more quickly than sometimes stated as uniform. Just as a private company can build a road 10 times quicker than the state- it varies with conditions... significantly. In the same way, it can take thousands of years to develope a foot of soil- or, it can take 6 hours for a volcano or flood to deposit 15 feet of strata- once again, not a good indicator of age. Carbon dating, or carbon-14 isotope is also a funny method. It assumes that millions of years ago (assuming that the earth existed then) there was exactly the same amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, otherwise it would completely throw off the calibration of the instruments used to carbon date things... In evolutionary theory, however, the earth had a DRASTICALLY different atmosphere millions of years ago. Convenient assumption once again. Evolution also deviates from scientific theory because it ignores principals we see every day, like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The only deviation from the 2nd law ever seen is only in paper- as the theory of evolution. Yes, things change. But the real question comes down to can these changes describe the origin of life? Logic says no. Thermodynamics says no. Probability says no. Not only in the way that it is a phenomenally irresponsible statement to say "Just ignore everything we've seen and measured, and accept that With Enough Time it'll just happen", and probably the most unscientific thing you could say. In this way evolution is less a science than saying that someone created it. Funny how an all but amorphous piece of obsidian can be said to have been made by man, because the coincidences of some chips in it all in the same direction is too much of a coincidence, while the creature analyzing it is accepted as being a product of chance. Oxymoron. "Science" (what an abused wordTHAT is)is used too much when talking about things we describe.A significant majorityof our equations are empirically based. It's just a method used to mathematically describe what we see. It doesn't mean we know how or whyit happens. I could watch a magician performing the
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
... I'm not sure what a rebuttle is, maybe you meant my rebuttal. In that case: Thank you for your constructive criticism, if you want to talk more about carbon dating we can do that, keeping in mind that the whole point I made before is that calibration is based on very large assumptions. In addition, I probably should have said radio isotope dating including, but not limited to C-14. Depending on the approximate age of the specimen, different isotopes would be used. Calibration curves that have been developed to take into account KNOWN radiation fluxuations are based on radiation fluxuations observed during the past century. If you've done any extrapolation, you'd know that 60,000 years is fr outside the reliable extrapolation range. I don't know what type of extrapolation you'd use for this information (linear, conic etc.) but at any rate it's far beyond the limits of safe extrapolation. (fyi, this is like making a graph of your income every month for the last 5 years, using a 'curve fit' in Excell and stating with confidence what you'll make October 3008). Calibration curves have changed even in the last 50 years due to noticeable changes in the suns solar activity. So, lower radiation levels in the upper atmosphere (due to reduced solar flares, the hydrosphere theory of a much higher water content in the upper atmosphere) for instance, will lower the amount of solar interaction with Nitrogen and thus less C-14 production. Making every biological organism absorbing C-14 at that time appear much older than they actually are. I must admit I was quite taken aback by your response. I'm paid to analyze things... scientifically, and your attack on my brief response doesn't really help facilitate anything more than a fight, but I hope my response lent some credence to a work idea of what's going on here. Don't even respond if it doesn't, I don't have the time, patience or desire to prove it other than what I just typed. in addition I'd like to add, a large majority of the United States checks the box Christian (Other) because they believe that there might or might not be a God. I don't think this qualifies everyone that, for lack of another title says they're Christian to be an ambassador for the faith. Even so, I fear you've attributed that ... unreasonable statement to all Christians. Or you just like ridiculous religious quotes. If so: When confronted with the question, What was God doing before he created the universe? Saint Augustine replied, He was preparing hell for people who asked such questions. :) -Brian
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
I apologize, that last e-mail wasn't meant for the whole listserve... *sheepish grin* On 7/17/07, Brian Riordan riordan.br...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'm not sure what a rebuttle is, maybe you meant my rebuttal. In that case: Thank you for your constructive criticism, if you want to talk more about carbon dating we can do that, keeping in mind that the whole point I made before is that calibration is based on very large assumptions. In addition, I probably should have said radio isotope dating including, but not limited to C-14. Depending on the approximate age of the specimen, different isotopes would be used. Calibration curves that have been developed to take into account KNOWN radiation fluxuations are based on radiation fluxuations observed during the past century. If you've done any extrapolation, you'd know that 60,000 years is fr outside the reliable extrapolation range. I don't know what type of extrapolation you'd use for this information (linear, conic etc.) but at any rate it's far beyond the limits of safe extrapolation. (fyi, this is like making a graph of your income every month for the last 5 years, using a 'curve fit' in Excell and stating with confidence what you'll make October 3008). Calibration curves have changed even in the last 50 years due to noticeable changes in the suns solar activity. So, lower radiation levels in the upper atmosphere (due to reduced solar flares, the hydrosphere theory of a much higher water content in the upper atmosphere) for instance, will lower the amount of solar interaction with Nitrogen and thus less C-14 production. Making every biological organism absorbing C-14 at that time appear much older than they actually are. I must admit I was quite taken aback by your response. I'm paid to analyze things... scientifically, and your attack on my brief response doesn't really help facilitate anything more than a fight, but I hope my response lent some credence to a work idea of what's going on here. Don't even respond if it doesn't, I don't have the time, patience or desire to prove it other than what I just typed. in addition I'd like to add, a large majority of the United States checks the box Christian (Other) because they believe that there might or might not be a God. I don't think this qualifies everyone that, for lack of another title says they're Christian to be an ambassador for the faith. Even so, I fear you've attributed that ... unreasonable statement to all Christians. Or you just like ridiculous religious quotes. If so: When confronted with the question, What was God doing before he created the universe? Saint Augustine replied, He was preparing hell for people who asked such questions. :) -Brian
RE: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
Hi Don, I know what a speleothem is A speleothem (from the Greek for "cave deposit") is a secondary mineral deposit formed in caves. It is the formal term for what is also known as a cave formation, or amongst cavers sometimes known as decorations or pretties. But I don't know what a speleotherm is. Have I missed something? Louise From:Don Arburn donarb...@mac.comTo:Texas Cavers Texascavers@texascavers.comSubject:[Texascavers] [Bat "Caught" by Stalactite]Date:Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:08:29 -0500MIME-Version:1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)Received:from raistlin.wokka.org ([69.56.185.90]) by bay0-mc9-f7.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:08:44 -0700Received:(qmail 5858 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2007 05:08:48 -Received:(qmail 5849 invoked by uid 31338); 17 Jul 2007 05:08:48 -http://www.bible.ca/tracks/speleotherms-stalagmites-stalactites.htm-Visit our website: http://texascavers.comTo unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.comFor additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
But I don't know what a speleotherm is. Have I missed something? Maybe that there is a world out there that spells it differently. Like colour, aluminium, herb, etc. etc. :-) Before I came over here i'd never heard of a speleothem, but i accept that they exist. Stefan From: Louise Power [mailto:power_lou...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:21 PM To: donarb...@mac.com; Texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: RE: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] Hi Don, I know what a speleothem is A speleothem (from the Greek http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Greek+language for cave deposit) is a secondary mineral deposit formed in caves http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/cave . It is the formal term for what is also known as a cave formation, or amongst cavers sometimes known as decorations or pretties. But I don't know what a speleotherm is. Have I missed something? Louise From: Don Arburn donarb...@mac.com To: Texas Cavers Texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:08:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Received: from raistlin.wokka.org ([69.56.185.90]) by bay0-mc9-f7.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:08:44 -0700 Received: (qmail 5858 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2007 05:08:48 - Received: (qmail 5849 invoked by uid 31338); 17 Jul 2007 05:08:48 - http://www.bible.ca/tracks/speleotherms-stalagmites-stalactites.htm - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
But I don't know what a speleotherm is. Have I missed something? A speleotherm is one of the HOT speleothems that Diana wants to date! *LOL*
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
Ah! Gotcha. Thnx From: "Allan Cobb" a...@oztotl.comTo: Texascavers@texascavers.comSubject: Re: [Texascavers] [Bat "Caught" by Stalactite]Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:36:24 -0500MIME-Version: 1.0Received: from raistlin.wokka.org ([69.56.185.90]) by bay0-mc2-f13.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:36:44 -0700Received: (qmail 30166 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2007 22:36:47 -Received: (qmail 30157 invoked by uid 31338); 17 Jul 2007 22:36:47 - "But I don't know what a speleotherm is. Have I missed something?" A speleotherm is one of the HOT speleothems that Diana wants to date! *LOL* - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
Howdy All, On the speleogenesis of the original subject, speleotherms (hot stag mights, or an editor who cannot use spell check) in the basement, let's not forget that these are Government buildings. Built by the lowest bidder. Using the cheapest concrete. Using the cheapest laborers. And most obviously the cheapest, leaky pipes. Add acidic water and low humidity, instant speleotherm. I'm not sure about the mine, not enough information presented for a suitable hypothesis. As for the God topic, If you are right, I'm just a future oil deposit. If I'm right... Louise Power wrote: Ah! Gotcha. Thnx From: /Allan Cobb a...@oztotl.com/ To: /Texascavers@texascavers.com/ Subject: /Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]/ Date: /Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:36:24 -0500/ MIME-Version: /1.0/ Received: /from raistlin.wokka.org ([69.56.185.90]) by bay0-mc2-f13.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:36:44 -0700/ Received: /(qmail 30166 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2007 22:36:47 -/ Received: /(qmail 30157 invoked by uid 31338); 17 Jul 2007 22:36:47 -/ But I don't know what a speleothe*r*m is. Have I missed something? A speleotherm is one of the HOT speleothems that Diana wants to date! *LOL* - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/904 - Release Date: 7/16/2007 5:42 PM - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
Having worked during the development at Natural Bridge Caverns in 1963 and 1964 and regularly visiting the cave since, I have been amazed at the growth of calcite in areas where there was none. As might be expected, growth is proportional to how active water seepage is at any particular area. In the last tunnel before entering Pluto's Anteroom, there is an area on the right wall that is now covered with an impressive layer of calcite sporting hundreds of mini travertine dams. Farther down the trail near the bottom of the Switchbacks, just above Sherwood Forest, there is a low constructed stone wall that holds back a small pool during wet weather. The wall is now unrecognizable as something we built some 43 years ago. All sides are covered with a thick layer of calcite, the top sporting numerous small travertine dams and the pool side is filling in with calcite. From nonscientific observations the figure often used by guides of one cubic inch per hundred years seems reasonable in areas with sufficient water. This formation growth is from cave water in cave conditions so it is reasonable to extrapolate formation growth from these observations. There are numerous other examples of significant formation growth in the cave. Orion Knox - Original Message - From: Fritz Holt To: Don Cooper ; Don Arburn Cc: Texas Cavers ; jhol...@hotmail.com ; geekazoidman...@hotmail.com ; bl...@vownet.net Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:17 AM Subject: RE: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite] I am waiting for a knowledgeable geologist or someone to tell us that these formations are not formed by the same minerals or in the same manner in which cave formations are formed. I'm sure that there must be an explanation why these formations grew at such a rapid rate. Fritz with questions.
Re: [Texascavers] [Bat Caught by Stalactite]
WOW! I guess everything in the bible is correct then! So the oldest caves are only 4000 years old, God Created Adam and Eve with magic, evolution is bunk and Noah's Ark WAS NOT a increadably far fetched fable.. Who Knew? -WaV On 7/17/07, Don Arburn donarb...@mac.com wrote: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/speleotherms-stalagmites-stalactites.htm - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
