people-from-vermont

298 quotes
0 likes
0Verified
27Authors

Timeline

First Quote Added

April 10, 2026

Latest Quote Added

April 10, 2026

All Quotes

"Mainstream geology is founded upon enunciated by James Hutton (1726–1797) and Charles Lyell (1797–1875), who argued that, during unlimited expanses of time, the Earth has undergone slow, ceaseless change by processes we can observe in operation. In their view, we cannot call on any powers that are not natural to the globe, admit of any action of which we do not know the principle, nor allege extraordinary events to explain a common appearance. A , originating from outside the Earth, and wreaking change instantaneously. Such a process violates every tenet of uniformitarianism. Largely for this reason, hypotheses of impact origin for craters on the Earth and the moon were vigorously opposed for the better part of the past century. Space-age research now has established beyond doubt the authenticity of impact as a geologic process, but an abundance of evidence exists that a wide chasm still persists between the views of impact specialists and those of terrestrial geologists. A full realization of the ramifications of impact processes may have been delayed by the advent of , which engulfed the geological community in the late 1960s. Revolutionary as it appeared at that time, plate tectonics, which is envisioned as involving gradual changes generated by forces internal to the globe, fully conforms with uniformitarian principles. In contrast, impact processes, which have recently been cited to account for cataclysmic events such as massive tsunami deposits, incinerating wildfires, and global extinctions, carry genuinely revolutionary implications that are fatal to the uniformitarian principle itself."

- Ursula Marvin

• 0 likes• harvard-university-alumni• people-from-vermont• geologists-from-the-united-states• women-born-in-the-1920s• astronomers-from-the-united-states•
"Since the opening of the , images from have enabled us to map the surfaces of all the rocky planets and in the Solar System, thus transforming them from astronomical to geological objects. This progression of geology from being a strictly to one that is planetary-wide has provided us with a wealth of information on the evolutionary histories of other bodies and has supplied valuable new insights on the Earth itself. We have learned, for example, that the , and that the Moon subsequently accreted largely from debris of . The airless, waterless Moon still preserves a record of the impact events that have scarred its surface from the time its crust first formed. The much larger, volcanic Earth underwent a similar bombardment but most of the evidence was lost during the earliest 550 million years or so that elapsed before its first surviving systems of crustal rocks formed. Therefore, we decipher Earth's earliest history by investigating the record on the Moon. Lunar samples collected by the of the USA and the of the former USSR linked the Earth and Moon by their oxygen isotopic compositions and enabled us to construct a timescale of lunar events keyed to dated samples. They also permitted us to identify certain meteorites as fragments of the lunar crust that were projected to the Earth by impacts on the Moon. Similarly, analyses of the Martian surface soils and atmosphere by the and s led to the identification of meteorite fragments ejected by hypervelocity impacts on Mars. Images of Mars displayed land-forms wrought in the past by voluminous floodwaters, similar to those of the long-controversial of Washington State, USA. The record on Mars confirmed catastrophic flooding as a significant geomorphic process on at least one other planet. The first views of the Earth photographed by the crew of gave us the concept of and heightened international concern for protection of the global environment."

- Ursula Marvin

• 0 likes• harvard-university-alumni• people-from-vermont• geologists-from-the-united-states• women-born-in-the-1920s• astronomers-from-the-united-states•
"Ideological liberals (and conservatives such as Professor Yoo and Judge Ho) have in recent years invented a novel and fabulous interpretation of this passage, maintaining that when Howard mentions that “foreigners, aliens” are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States he means to include only “families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” If so, this would be an extraordinarily loose way of speaking: ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens, and thus their designation as such would be superfluous. .. If we give full weight to the commas after “foreigners” and after “aliens,” this would indicate a series which might be read in this way: “foreigners, aliens, families of ambassadors, foreign ministers,” are all separate classes of persons excluded from jurisdiction. Or it could be read in this way: “foreigners, aliens, [that is, those who belong to the] families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” I suggest that the natural reading of the passage is the former, i.e., that the commas suggest a discrete listing of separate classes of persons excluded from jurisdiction. Of course, the debate was taken by shorthand reporters and not always checked by the speakers, so the issue cannot be settled simply on the basis of the placement of commas. .. In addition, Howard seemed to make a glaring omission—he failed to mention Indians as being excluded from the jurisdiction of the United States. He was forced to clarify his omission when challenged by Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin, who queried whether the “Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include the Indians;” Doolittle thereupon proposed to add the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 “excluding Indians not taxed.” Howard vigorously opposed the amendment, remarking that “Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.” .. In other words, the omission of Indians from the exceptions to the jurisdiction clause was intentional. Howard clearly regarded Indians as “foreigners, aliens” and thus not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This conclusion was supported by Senator Lyman Trumbull who, as we will discuss below, also opposed Doolittle’s amendment. This is clear evidence against the claims of ideological liberals and others that Howard meant that foreigners and aliens included only the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers."

- Jacob M. Howard

• 0 likes• lawyers-from-the-united-states• members-of-the-united-states-senate• whig-party-united-states-politicians• people-from-vermont• republican-party-united-states-politicians•