Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : ECHARTERS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stephen Mooney who wrote (3199)	8/23/1999 2:54:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

Why geologists are not more certain and only theoretical.. etc... Because we were not there at the time the orebodies were formed. All science, whether propounding comtemporary phenomena or past must adhere to theory to explain how events have occurred, or their model of action or genesis. The why of course cannot be answered except by philosophy or religion. The only seemingly irrefutable proof in science is of the second law of thermodynamics according to Eddington. That is the law of entropic decay. It is based not on a law of behaviour but a statistical rationality and the lack of any observed backward effect in nature. Ultimately all law is based on observation of nature and perfect theory as Socrates would have it cannot exist in vacuo if only for the fact that the observer or thinker is in itself natural and gets it ideas from analog. All the ore we observe today in formation is sedimentary. either by volcanigenesis or cold accretion, that is all we see right now. To say all ore is such and that magmatic deposits cannot form is perhaps too much a gap to jump, but we have seen no contemporary evidence of their formation. All vein and magma deposits must be taken on faith and poor faith at that. The Sudbury deposits are ones of controversy. After the war the thinking was that they could be perhaps partly related to volcanism. Later sedimentary theories started to form but the dominant school is magma today. I disagree for many good reasons. The age dating, temperature and structural information are all inconclusive in my opinion. Magmatic depositists like to ignore the marvellous coincidence of strata location that fits sedimentary or volcanigenic theory beautifully but requires the great leap of faith that sedimentary rocks, laid down, perhaps previously, all had the same plane of weakness for magmatic intrusion and practically no other for 100's of miles! And that plane of weakness was the meeting of two geological strata! Quite a leap I must say. Another great co-incidence is that the temperature of the formation of the nickel is 350 degrees centigrade, exactly the temperature it would have if it hit seawater from a superheated solution. EC<:-}