Monday, October 17, 2011
Saturday, February 02, 2008
The article left just a few questions in my mind as explained in the following excerpt from my Lawrence Journal World Blog:
"...there are just some things about it that really bother me as a scientist and as a religious person. For instance, Mr. Detrich thinks that non believers have nothing to live for. Personally I don't believe it is in my ken to say whether or not someone else has anything to live for based on their beliefs. Granted I don't know what is going on in the depths of atheist Richard Dawkins' psyche, but he certainly seems to think his life has a point.
Second of all I am bothered by this statement about nonbelievers:
"They might just accidentally come to the conclusion that life would be better if they believed in a super being, in a creator, rather than life would be better if your actions didn’t matter."
This is a kinder gentler version of Pascal's wager which basically says you should believe because the reward is eternal bliss and the penalty eternal damnation. I have never been impressed by this wager in it's original form and I am even less impressed with Mr. Detrich's kinder gentler version. Also, does Mr. Detrich's kinder gentler version extend to devotees of, say, Krishna or for that matter any sort of belief in a supreme being?
Next, I wonder why is the notion of God "creating" incompatible with scientific explanations of how life came to be and evolved? Mr. Detrich seems to at least accept the geological time scale. Well, if that scale is valid then why could not God's actions to bring change be seen from our end as being-well - evolution?
Finally what am I to make of the concluding statement in the article where he says it is "better to be on the side of good than on the side of bad." Well what about that? Is some one automatically good because they believe in a higher power and some one automatically bad because they don't? Or is some one automatically bad because they believe that evolution happens? Does Mr. Detrich still think we are "evilutionists" as he writes in his "musings"?"
Check out his musings for yourself at:
Remember Darwin's Day is February 12.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
The trip was led by Julie Retrum, geology graduate student and Jonathan Hendricks, a post doctoral researcher from Cornell. The trip's goal was to visit a couple of important sites to collect material for the paleontology collections. We began our trip at 7:15 am in the parking lot behind Lindley Hall at the University of Kansas with Julie and Jonathan providing a briefing about where we were going, and the ground rules for collecting specimens.
We then headed north on 75, not stopping at the world's largest cinnamon roll in Holton and seeing none of the world famous black squirrels in Marysville KS, but going on into Nebraska to our first stop, an old cropping of sandstone-no fossils but as one hunter remarked it was like walking on a beach. There were also interesting nodules littering the site along with crystals of gypsum, but alas no fossils.
The 'beach at the first site(above)
Our next stop was quarry full of tropical soils. Finding tropical soils in Nebraska may seem odd but this spot during the Cretaceous was a tropical rain forest and we stopped specifically to see these weathered soils. Today these soils are quarried for clay used to make bricks. This didn't seem too exciting until we began to notice what looked like pieces of charcoal in the clay.
In a sense that is what they were-the carbonized remains of trees from almost 100 million years ago and yet so fresh the grain of the wood was still visible. Some of the pieces had pyrite (fool's gold) in association with them and were quite large and we joked about use them as Yule logs. The quarry manager said the clay is nice and fires very nicely, except that the pyrite explodes taking little chips of the brick with it and then forming little rust spots on exposure to air.
A piece of carbonized 'Yule log' (above)
Remains of a swamp(below) with some of our
crew digging for plant fossils (below)
From there we went to another site, quite famous for its fossils of early flowering plants and the pictures we saw were quite recognizable to my eye as being related to magnolias. This area during the Cretaceous was apparently a brackish swamp. Along with flower parts the leaf fossils from this site are very complete showing the leaf veins and in some cases the cells through which plants take in carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.
Alas, we mainly found small bits of plant material, no flowers. Also the clay containing the plant material was very damp and fragile, often disintegrating when handled. Let the clay dry and the plant material would blow away in the wind unless sprayed right away with a fixative. Quite a dilemma! Several people did find some nice pieces of fossilized wood in a dry creek bed at the bottom of the site.
Bits of compressed plant material from the brackish swamp site(above)
Wood from this site(below)
In addition to the KU contingent, two local volunteers Lois (Bottom right in the green hat) and John directed us to our last 'dig' , a road cut back in Kansas about 9 miles west of Washington Kansas-that during the Cretaceous was open ocean- guaranteed to have fossil clams.
They were right and we didn't even have to dig. The clams turned out to be all one species of a group of clams called Inoceramids, which are extinct today and we all collected our fill. Some Inoceramids got to be 8 foot long and sometimes fossil fish are found inside the clam, apparently having used the clam for a refuge.
A beach, a jungle, a swamp and a clam bed all within an hour's drive and almost 100 million years away-what a treat-and I found myself imaging Leonardo da Vinci shaking his head at the people driving by these sites daily and yet snug in their view that Genesis explains geology and ignorant of the science he helped found.
The History of the Earth and the History of Life.
Charles Sternberg: fossil hunter.