I would like some example of scientifically tested evolutionary theory. There are a lot of inferences but no one I know has been able to evolve species on a macro level. Some work with viruses and micro evolution but everything on a macro scale is indemonstrable to date. Evolution is really a historical theory based on the fossil record and current species now in existence. It is a long line of inferences. You may not be aware but Darwin's work with finches was called into question during the 1980's when it was found all the finches can still interbred and the "mongrel" finches were much healthy than the isolated "species". Similar to dog breeds. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Scott Catron Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 1:04 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion Please cite a journal article where one tenant of the theory of creationism has been scientifically tested and published. --- "Lambert, Aaron" <Aaron.Lambert@Williams.com> wrote:

Allow me to show the flip-side of the coin.

I strongly resent some evolutionists as characterizing rank and file creationists as being "non-scientists". HOW DARE THEY?!! This reeks of intellectual elitism.

How can "scientists" admit that, "the fossil record is not complete..." yet also argue so vehemently that any alternative ideas are preposterous? The THEORY of evolution is just a THEORY. It is an idea that someone came up with to try to describe observations. According to the tenets of science, anyone can come up with a theory that they feel supports a specific group of data. Much of what is proposed by the theory of evolution is just as unprovable and unobservable as are those things claimed by the "theory" of ID. Many will probably argue that in time we will have the ability to prove the theory of evolution or test its claims. That is likely true, but if we are making up technology to prove our points, I could also claim that we may also develop the technology to test things of a spiritual nature. We will then be able to prove or disprove whether IDs claims are accurate.

It's too bad that some people feel a need to marginalize spiritual beliefs in order to validate their "science".

Aaron

...

-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 11:59 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion

And while I'm at it, I have to say that I strongly resent some creationists and ID proponents characterizing rank & file evolutionists as "Godless". How dare they? HOW DARE THEY?!! What a terrible, gross misjudgment. This reeks of the dark side of fundamentalism.

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

Aaron Although you demonstrated that certain logical statements work both ways, I don’t believe Chuch was trying to marginalize anything. I believe he has consistently tried to separate science and philosophy/religion in the classroom so that if you choose to learn science you don’t get philosophy passed off as science and visa versa. And Scott, your statement “Please cite a journal article where one tenant of the theory of creationism has been scientifically tested and published.” Says to me that you believe science will be the judge over religious based beliefs. No matter what the outcome, it won’t solve the dilemma. The theory idea in science is a great idea. Some smart person(s) comes up with a giant virtual jigsaw puzzle and then people can go out and try to find the real pieces. When unexpected pieces are found, then the smart people figure out how to make the new pieces fit until the theory more closely approximates reality or a better theory is conjured up. In the process, we have learned a lot. Religion/philosophy doesn’t lend itself to theory. Religion/philosophy starts from the other end. Religion/philosophy start with – some source says this is what is. But like Clinton so clearly explained, it depends on what is is and therein lies the rub. Different groups have different ideas as to what is is in religion. They all pretty much believe there is a (are some) God/god(s) So for science to try and prove religion/philosophy – we “ain’t” even close in my view. The issue as discussed in this forum as I see it is should we support or appose Intelligent Design to be taught in the classroom and star parties; presumably first through the twelfth grade and Harmons. It just seems to me that this is something that can too easily be abused. It just won’t have the outcome we might hope for. Jim Gibson Scott Catron <zaui@yahoo.com> wrote:Please cite a journal article where one tenant of the theory of creationism has been scientifically tested and published. --- "Lambert, Aaron" wrote:

Allow me to show the flip-side of the coin.

I strongly resent some evolutionists as characterizing rank and file creationists as being "non-scientists". HOW DARE THEY?!! This reeks of intellectual elitism.

How can "scientists" admit that, "the fossil record is not complete..." yet also argue so vehemently that any alternative ideas are preposterous? The THEORY of evolution is just a THEORY. It is an idea that someone came up with to try to describe observations. According to the tenets of science, anyone can come up with a theory that they feel supports a specific group of data. Much of what is proposed by the theory of evolution is just as unprovable and unobservable as are those things claimed by the "theory" of ID. Many will probably argue that in time we will have the ability to prove the theory of evolution or test its claims. That is likely true, but if we are making up technology to prove our points, I could also claim that we may also develop the technology to test things of a spiritual nature. We will then be able to prove or disprove whether IDs claims are accurate.

It's too bad that some people feel a need to marginalize spiritual beliefs in order to validate their "science".

Aaron

...

-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 11:59 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion

And while I'm at it, I have to say that I strongly resent some creationists and ID proponents characterizing rank & file evolutionists as "Godless". How dare they? HOW DARE THEY?!! What a terrible, gross misjudgment. This reeks of the dark side of fundamentalism.

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

Scott Catron wrote:

I believe science will be the judge over what should be taught in science class.

Well, that or politics... :-( Patrick

Rich, I wish I had your clarity of thought. Very well outlined. I'm sure Guy has a comment on fossil chimps... --- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:

A big amen Chuck.

It should also be pointed out that the fossil record, by definition, will always be grossly incomplete -- the process of fossilization only occurs for a tiny fraction of life forms. For example, we've never found a fossil chimp (as far as I know). And human fossils are quite rare -- it seems the greater the intellect, the less likely they are to get mired in quicksand or tar or whatever.

But weigh in DNA, observable mutations in the lab (and in fossils where mitochondrial DNA from fossils can be easily studied), obvious (under our very noses) evidence of the lines of speciation blurring (ligers and mules for example), thousands of examples in the plant kingdom where it's impossible at times to tell where one species stops and the other starts -- these are observable facts (observable because in the microbial realm you can breed thousands of generations in mere days). There are countless clear indicators in our physiology that argue for common ancestry among a wide variety of life forms, structural, chemical, reproductive, neurological, functional, etc. All mammals for example (whales, mice, horses, pigs, humans) have analogous bones structures (five digits per limb, a pair of femurs, etc.).

One of the things that I find fascinating is that the whole history of the evolutionary process appears to be mirrored in our own developmental cycle. We start life as a single cell. That divides and divides (in a [salt] watery environment) from formless blastocyst to embryo (replete with tail and gill-like structures, at times indistinguishable from other life forms), to finally a human shape at emerges from the watery womb into the dry air. I find such clues a big wink from the Creator. ;o)

BTW, a great read on the study of mitochondrial DNA can be found in the book "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes.

-Rich

--- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

Aaron, respectfully, if one does not follow scientific principals, one cannot be a scientist, and to invoke deity as part of a technical solution is to clearly set science aside.

____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Someone plan an ativity for the singles that we can go hunt for fossils and look at the stars.HOw many singles doyou have Do you get the singles letters? diveboss@xmission.com wrote: Quoting Chuck Hards :

I'm sure Guy has a comment on fossil chimps...

Don't touch that dial! I'm still working on the human fossil angle... ;) There is plenty of evidence of human fossils, just look around, but I doubt any of these fossils, living or dead, are what the science community would accept as legitimate examples. ;) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

--- "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:

Rich

How would an advanced race create another species? They would use existing species and genetic manipulation to create a new species.

Chuck here. That's a HUGE assumption, Don, not a given at all. Based on what? Our own short history of bio-chemistry as a species? I don't feel we can project the probable actions of an "advanced race" when we really don't even know what an "advanced race" is. Another huge assumption. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Jim I am having a hard time making the point that ID is just as testable as blind evolution. If the formation of the cell or a new species is exceedingly improbable the most likely possibility is intelligent design. This does not have to be religion or God. Some people like Zecharia Sitchin, the Sumerian scholar, believe man is a genetically designed primate made, several thousand years ago, by an advanced race that is not very friendly. If an event is exceedingly improbable - it probably never happened. As a side note, I have been involved in oil exploration for over 25 years and I have seen numerous geological theories fall by the wayside in that time. Geologists (at BYU and Utah) in the 1960's were adamantly opposed to continental drift and would essentially heckle anyone who gave it credence as I witnessed at a presentation made at BYU. Continental drift is now the accepted theory. So much for objective science. In the late 1930's numerous geologists had written off the Saudi Arabian peninsula as containing oil. How wrong can you get? More recently, geologists, who had studied the mountain west extensively, were adamant that there was no oil in central Utah. A small oil company, Wolverine Gas & Oil, drilled a well (contrary to all conventional wisdom) near Richfield, Utah and made the biggest onshore oil discovery in 30 years. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jim Gibson Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 3:44 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion Don I can empathize with what you say. Anyone who has written more than one computer program (and therefore is advanced) knows that you always go back and steel code and mutate. The problem as I see it in relation to the current discussion is the evolutionary process MAY be testable, seeable, understandable, or duplicatable while the ID version doesn't currently have the same attributes from what I can tell. My current beliefs allow for ID, but if it doesn't have any of the above attributes, how can it be taught except in Sunday School? Jim G. "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com> wrote: Rich How would an advanced race create another species? They would use existing species and genetic manipulation to create a new species. So in Intelligent Design versus blind evolution the question is, which is more probable, that through the history of life genetic manipulation has occurred through intelligent design or have random events caused the creation of various life forms. This can be addressed by probability and statistics. That's where David Berlinski and other mathematicians come into the argument. Their claim is that blind evolution is wildly improbable and that some other mechanism or intelligent design is far more probable. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Richard Tenney Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:05 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion A big amen Chuck. It should also be pointed out that the fossil record, by definition, will always be grossly incomplete -- the process of fossilization only occurs for a tiny fraction of life forms. For example, we've never found a fossil chimp (as far as I know). And human fossils are quite rare -- it seems the greater the intellect, the less likely they are to get mired in quicksand or tar or whatever. But weigh in DNA, observable mutations in the lab (and in fossils where mitochondrial DNA from fossils can be easily studied), obvious (under our very noses) evidence of the lines of speciation blurring (ligers and mules for example), thousands of examples in the plant kingdom where it's impossible at times to tell where one species stops and the other starts -- these are observable facts (observable because in the microbial realm you can breed thousands of generations in mere days). There are countless clear indicators in our physiology that argue for common ancestry among a wide variety of life forms, structural, chemical, reproductive, neurological, functional, etc. All mammals for example (whales, mice, horses, pigs, humans) have analogous bones structures (five digits per limb, a pair of femurs, etc.). One of the things that I find fascinating is that the whole history of the evolutionary process appears to be mirrored in our own developmental cycle. We start life as a single cell. That divides and divides (in a [salt] watery environment) from formless blastocyst to embryo (replete with tail and gill-like structures, at times indistinguishable from other life forms), to finally a human shape at emerges from the watery womb into the dry air. I find such clues a big wink from the Creator. ;o) BTW, a great read on the study of mitochondrial DNA can be found in the book "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes. -Rich --- Chuck Hards wrote:

Aaron, respectfully, if one does not follow scientific principals, one cannot be a scientist, and to invoke deity as part of a technical solution is to clearly set science aside.

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

Thanks Jim. Yes, my question was sincere. I wasn't trying to get ammunition to poke fun. I was sincerely curious. Like I've always told my kids, you've got to always try to keep learning and keep yourself open to changing your opinions. Don't ever just take someone else's word for something (even your parents') and just leave it at that. Reason, study, observe yourself and come to your own conclusions, and then realize that once you gain more information and experience you may be changing your opinion and always be open to that. So what I hear Jim saying is that these experiences are subjective, rather than objective. And to me this is why they wouldn't be considered science. That doesn't mean that they are negated by any means. I have had detailed precognitions of things since I was a child, really used to freak my mom out when I was a kid. Probably freaks my husband out a bit sometimes. Most of the time they are way too detailed to be chance imaginings or thoughts in my opinion, especially when I suddenly know or dream something that will happen out of the blue in great detail that I never would have expected. Some people might consider those spiritual type experiences, though I don't. Definitely not anything I can control, too bad though, I could pick some winning lotto numbers maybe if I could. In my opinion it has something to do with those parts of the brain that most people aren't using. Every so often for someone they are born with some of that part of the brain turned on. My opinion is that these "psychic" abilities are there for everyone, but not everyone knows how to access it. As we continue to evolve I wonder if people will gain access to those areas more and more. When I used to be religious I used to wonder if the ability to be omniscient and to be able to see everything going on everywhere at all times and to see the future was already there in our heads and when we were exalted it would be turned on and we would have full access to it and be able to use it. But those are/were just my wacky opinions. I would never try to advance those as facts. I personally wouldn't consider those experiences as measurable, testable science according to my understanding of the definition of science. They are subjective and fit somewhere else. This is how I think about ID as well. To me, religion may lead some to a subjective truth but science on the other hand can lead to objective truth. I know I didn't say that as well as I'd like, but I hope it is somewhat understandable. Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: Don I have enjoyed this thread immensely. I really admire you and others for stating your/their views. I am not smart enough, clever enough, or articulate enough to really participate or contribute much with the likes on this forum who do have those attributes. The rest of my remarks are to the forum in general. I do think I see something that I will throw out at the risk of being chewed up or put in a position to defend a position that is still solidifying in my mind. Let me start with something that South Jordan Mom said,” Aaron: How is religion a tool to discover truth?” This to me is a religious question. Because of the nature of this forum, I will try to address this with out getting too religious, if possible. I take SJM’s question as sincere, but I recognize that some people would like to hear the answer not that they are really interested in the answer per se but they are looking for ammunition to use to tear down with. So I am not going to get in a shooting match over this with anybody. This question is precisely the question I asked myself over 45 years ago. I decided to pray and ask my God how I could recognize the truth or not be deceived. Now bear with me, I am not going to put up my experience as some kind of proof, but I believe it will help me make a point of discussion about science and religion. Being sincere in my quest, I decided to employ a well known religious practice of sacrifice. I went with out eating or drinking for over 24 hours. I do not mention this to feign piety, but many will be aware that it is somewhat common for a starving person to have hallucinations. Native Americans used the same technique as have other cultures. I had a personal religious experience that answered my question for me, and for over 45 years have been able to test my answer in different ways so that I am satisfied that, for me, it was a good experience. Here’s the problem. In religious experiences like this there always seems to be a dichotomy; two plausible explanations. Did I have a hallucination or did I have a true religious experience? Another part of the problem is the knowledge I feel I gained is not transferable. It is kind of like the plumaria tree that grew in my front yard in Waikiki. It had the most heavily fragrant flowers. Can you smell it? Oh! It is so wonderful. It doesn’t smell like a rose, but it is sweet. A carnation smells bitterer than a rose, but a plumeria is the most wonderful thing to smell. Can you smell it? The knowledge is not transferable, you have to experience it. It seems to me that there are at least two domains here as far as our sinces go, and I can not defend this with any eloquence. In my opinion there is a physical domain and there are other domains one of which we may label spiritual. Millions of people declare that they since things in the spiritual domain. I work at Dugway Proving Ground and we have all kinds of instruments to detect all manner of things in the physical domain. It seems like most everything is censing vibrations at some level. I have seen masspectrometers (sp?) heat up a substance to vapor and sniff it in then display some chemical signatures of what the substance was composed of but I know of no instrument that will detect in the spiritual domain; nor can I prove to anyone there is a spiritual domain other than to say I since it. But other people do since it and in comparing notes we have very similar experiences. You want to talk about duplication? If a hundred or a thousand other people starved for a time and prayed about how to know the truth how many would get the same answer I did? Would South Jordan Mom get the same answer if she tried it? I would guess that none of them would get precisely the same result I did, and a goodly number may even say it was not a good experience. Science will never be interested in the spiritual domain until they get an instrument they can use to test in that domain. For now the only way to test in that domain is something within us. It is a personal thing, and it is not transferable and many claim they don’t have it. If there is a way to test in the Intelligent Design arena, I would be interested in hearing about it. Jim G "Don J. Colton" wrote:Jim I am having a hard time making the point that ID is just as testable as blind evolution. If the formation of the cell or a new species is exceedingly improbable the most likely possibility is intelligent design. This does not have to be religion or God. Some people like Zecharia Sitchin, the Sumerian scholar, believe man is a genetically designed primate made, several thousand years ago, by an advanced race that is not very friendly. If an event is exceedingly improbable - it probably never happened. As a side note, I have been involved in oil exploration for over 25 years and I have seen numerous geological theories fall by the wayside in that time. Geologists (at BYU and Utah) in the 1960's were adamantly opposed to continental drift and would essentially heckle anyone who gave it credence as I witnessed at a presentation made at BYU. Continental drift is now the accepted theory. So much for objective science. In the late 1930's numerous geologists had written off the Saudi Arabian peninsula as containing oil. How wrong can you get? More recently, geologists, who had studied the mountain west extensively, were adamant that there was no oil in central Utah. A small oil company, Wolverine Gas & Oil, drilled a well (contrary to all conventional wisdom) near Richfield, Utah and made the biggest onshore oil discovery in 30 years. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jim Gibson Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 3:44 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion Don I can empathize with what you say. Anyone who has written more than one computer program (and therefore is advanced) knows that you always go back and steel code and mutate. The problem as I see it in relation to the current discussion is the evolutionary process MAY be testable, seeable, understandable, or duplicatable while the ID version doesn't currently have the same attributes from what I can tell. My current beliefs allow for ID, but if it doesn't have any of the above attributes, how can it be taught except in Sunday School? Jim G. "Don J. Colton" wrote: Rich How would an advanced race create another species? They would use existing species and genetic manipulation to create a new species. So in Intelligent Design versus blind evolution the question is, which is more probable, that through the history of life genetic manipulation has occurred through intelligent design or have random events caused the creation of various life forms. This can be addressed by probability and statistics. That's where David Berlinski and other mathematicians come into the argument. Their claim is that blind evolution is wildly improbable and that some other mechanism or intelligent design is far more probable. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Richard Tenney Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:05 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion A big amen Chuck. It should also be pointed out that the fossil record, by definition, will always be grossly incomplete -- the process of fossilization only occurs for a tiny fraction of life forms. For example, we've never found a fossil chimp (as far as I know). And human fossils are quite rare -- it seems the greater the intellect, the less likely they are to get mired in quicksand or tar or whatever. But weigh in DNA, observable mutations in the lab (and in fossils where mitochondrial DNA from fossils can be easily studied), obvious (under our very noses) evidence of the lines of speciation blurring (ligers and mules for example), thousands of examples in the plant kingdom where it's impossible at times to tell where one species stops and the other starts -- these are observable facts (observable because in the microbial realm you can breed thousands of generations in mere days). There are countless clear indicators in our physiology that argue for common ancestry among a wide variety of life forms, structural, chemical, reproductive, neurological, functional, etc. All mammals for example (whales, mice, horses, pigs, humans) have analogous bones structures (five digits per limb, a pair of femurs, etc.). One of the things that I find fascinating is that the whole history of the evolutionary process appears to be mirrored in our own developmental cycle. We start life as a single cell. That divides and divides (in a [salt] watery environment) from formless blastocyst to embryo (replete with tail and gill-like structures, at times indistinguishable from other life forms), to finally a human shape at emerges from the watery womb into the dry air. I find such clues a big wink from the Creator. ;o) BTW, a great read on the study of mitochondrial DNA can be found in the book "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes. -Rich --- Chuck Hards wrote:

Aaron, respectfully, if one does not follow scientific principals, one cannot be a scientist, and to invoke deity as part of a technical solution is to clearly set science aside.

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.