HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Felt Effect of Gravity
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:56:41 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <22846@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, root@lyra.scg.hac.com (Dave Fisher) writes:
> In article <o373oB4w164w@cellar.org> kml@cellar.org (Lazlo Hoover Toth) writes:
>>
>>I'm still confused by something, maybe somebody out there can clear it
>>up for me:
>>
>>Astronauts who undergo long periods of space travel experience quite
>>significant muscle deterioration.  They are travelling along at near-zero
>>gravity for some time.  In other words, the LACK of gravity causes them
>>to become weaker, because their supportive muscles are not needed as
>>much.  
>>
>>So wouldn't a half-gravity earth have SMALLER animals?  Large animals
>>wouldn't be hopping around like kangaroos; they'd be lying on their
>>sides getting slowly picked apart by small mammals and insects, etc.
> 
> Muscles don't just grow because of use; they grow according to a "plan"
> dictated by the DNA of the creature involved.  So there is no reason
> to assume that lesser gravity would adversely affect any creature which 
> evolved in the smaller gravitational field.  (Consider whales for a moment.)
> 

Yes, and no.  Muscles can and do atrophy due to non-use.  They also can get
bigger (within the limits of the DNA) by exercise.

Sue (who has been pumping iron lately)

> Large animals evolving in a half-gravity earth (assuming the atmosphere
> was earth-like, which is probably a very bad assumption) would face a
> reduced heat dissipation problem, and a reduced structural support
> problem.  But there still could be many factors influencing how big is
> too big.
> 
> Dave Fisher

I have some interesting stuff to post eventually about size and climate.
Animals who live in northern climates tend to be larger than others of the
same type who live in southern climates.  The Alaskan brown bear is the
largest bear in the world, much larger than the Grizzlies (same species) 
found in the U.S.  The Polar Bear is next after the brown in size.  A large
size means more body density to protect core heat.

This makes me wonder if the really large dinosaurs lived in fairly cold
climates.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:24:16 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <julian.714005174@sfu.ca> julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>But do evolutionists believe that everything will ne day be
>explicable by the current (or slightly modified) theory of evolution?

Depends on what you mean by "everything". I think evolution explains
most of the big things about life that need explaining very well, a 
few subjects are currently not well explained (origin and maintainance
of sex for example) and some things have interesting hypothese but
are (IMHO) a _long_ way from a compelling answer (i.e. abiogenesis).

>I say this because I wonder whether some
>arguments against a divine intervention in nature spring more from
>scientist's world-views than a sound deduction from science.

Do you have any arguments _for_ divine intervention in nature? I
would be loathe to put in arguments for intervention via Santa
Claus into any of my work, but it's not because I'm biased against
St. Nick.

>julian

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: dawkins/_the selfish
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:31:29 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Aug19.929.16431@dosgate> "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com> writes:

>Here's one problem (among many, but I'm already days late with this reply
>and I'm rushing):  Only that one chance among 10^whatever will in this
>model produce Life As We Know It.  The others produce nothing, nada.

They produce nothing? Nada? Do you have any evidence for this rather
sweeping statement? For evidence against see Hong, et. al., 1992,
Competition, Cooperation and Mutation: Improving a synthetic
replicator by light irradiation, Science 255:848 and you should
also examine the RNA world hypothesis. There are other molecules
that can replicate themselves and could have (potentially) formed
life on this (or other) planets. Do have evidence that DNA based
life (i.e. Life as we know it) is the only kind possible?

By the way, I noticed you haven't read the Dawkins book yet. You
know, the one you criticized with an argument that the book
directly addresses. This was in the same sci.skeptic post where
you claimed evolutionary biologists were ignorant. Do you know
what ignorance means, Herb? How about hypocrisy?

Why don't you try this Herb, whenever you make a sweeping
statement that is far removed from standard scientific models,
provide some evidence _for_ your statement. Of course this
will mean you should take the time to _understand_ the
scientific models first. The Dawkins book should help (and it
wouldn't kill you to read the FAQ I sent you either -- did that
arrive?)

We continually see creationists making a fuss about evolution
here in the U.S. and they say "Where there's smoke, there must
be fire!". Well, I for one have seen the "smoke" for quite a
while, but creationists seem to be "fire" well hidden. I've
come to the conclusion that the "smoke" is really just steam
from all their hot air. Care to prove me wrong?

>Herb

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Evolution is false
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:53:20 GMT

In article <emc.713897842@keiko> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>In <1992Aug13.133936@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU 
>  (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>Step A> Evolution is false
>>Step B>
>>  .
>>  .
>>  .
>>Step Z> Therefore creationism is true.
>
>>  All you have to do is fill in Steps B through Y, you can even add more steps
>>if you feel they are needed.  You are allowed to use the hypothesis that
>>evolution is false to prove your case, but all other hypothesis are open to
>>debate.
>
>>  Any takers?
>
>How about:
>Step B> The Bible is the true Word of God
>Step C> Therefore creationism is true.

Cute, but C doesn't follow directly from B (I know a number of people
who believe the first, not all of them believe the second).

>Eli Chiprout

C "We are too smart for you naughty people" Frog
From: ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: JW's claim of a "Water Canopy"
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:34:32 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <6604@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes...
> 
>I've recently been reading a book called _The Waters Above_, by Joseph C.
>Dillow, Moody Press, 1981.  It purports to give a "scientific view" of
>the "earth's pre-flood vapor canopy."  
> 
>The basic thesis is that the above mentioned Water Canopy was actually
>a "vapor canopy" containing the equivalent of about 40 feet of water,
>held up by some sort of a massive temperature inversion.  The whole idea,
>of course, goes against all the physics I ever learned.
> 
>Does anyone know of any scholarly reviews of this book, or of any other
>books or publications like it?
> 
>Alan Feuerbacher
>Tektronic, Inc.


(I'm a few dozen replies behind, so someone else might have pointed this out)


40 feet of water should be enough to block out a significant portion of visible
sunlight.


So how did the plants grow before the flood? 



E.
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Creationists: EXPLAIN THIS -- the Brazil Nut Effect
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:00:00 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

A challenge to creationists:

Please explain how the entropy of a bag of mixed nuts decreases, when
you shake the bag with "undirected" energy.

Where is the Divine control mechanism in this case?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationism and its debunking in Australia
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 17 Aug 1992 20:46 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Aug18.012753.29273@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes...
>Ian Plimer has been doing some great work in publicising the idiocy of
>creationism, with the help of Phillip Adams and the 'Age's' science
>writer Graeme O'Neill (no relation!). The media has really been on the
>scientists' side ever since Plimer made Allen S. Roberts (arkaeologist
>extraordinaire) look like an idiot on a 'Current Affair' report (in
>which I appeared briefly in a cameo performance as an outraged member
>of the public).
> 
>Plimer is currently being taken to court by Roberts for defamation, and
>the anti-creationists are gearing up for a shit-fight. While Plimer's style 
>is confrontationist and flamboyant, he certainly knows how to use the media
>and the creationists are running scared. Someone mentioned an article
>criticising Plimer's tactics in 'Creation/Evolution' in a posting a 
>few months ago. Could anyone elaborate? I don't agree with everything he
>does, but when things get to the stage where eminent academics are bundled
>out of creationist lectures by police for trying to ask questions from the
>floor, where paleontologists get their shoulders wrenched by creationist
>bully-boys trying to pull them out of their seats and where creationist
>talks have guards armed with rubber truncheons patrolling the ailes, then
>I say it's time to fight fire with fire. All these things are happening here.
>Tim O'Neill 

I can elaborate.  The article in _Creation/Evolution_ criticizing Plimer's
tactics was "How Not to Argue with Creationists," which I authored.  I will
be happy to send copies through email to anyone interested.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: julian@tantalus.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:54:43 GMT

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>>I say this because I wonder whether some
>>arguments against a divine intervention in nature spring more from
>>scientist's world-views than a sound deduction from science.

>Do you have any arguments _for_ divine intervention in nature? I
>would be loathe to put in arguments for intervention via Santa
>Claus into any of my work, but it's not because I'm biased against
>St. Nick.

None that can be reproduced of course, but certainly one subject
to historical verification (the resurrection). I am not looking for 
scientific evidence of divine intervention (it would, by definition,
not exist unless God were to intervene agian and again in the same way
so that we could test it). But we accept a lot of events not scientificlly
demonstrable in our live: My girlfriend loves me, if I did not accet
this  without reproducible evidence I would be a poor human being, but
we do not regard it as a lack of support for love that it fails the
criteria of science.
My point is that perhaps science gives us an average broad view of
the history of the world with some thihngs like unique developments
washed out. For example: suppose life evolved on earth during some period:
it leaves some remains and we discover them and conclude that life evolved
during that period. How can we distinguish this scenario from one where
a comet flies by ahd deposits some "gunk" through the atmosphere
which contains the "seeds" of life. Both would appear the same as far
as I can see. (There would be no crator for instance).      
Any model built up by science is subject to verification, and the simplest
is chosen for aesthetic reasons, but in the realm of the distant past
there are probable many models which will fit the known facts equally
well but have differing theoretical structures.
(I am getting confused, I think I'll stick to physics)
julian
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:35:18 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>What annoys me about "scientific creationism" is that it is akin to
>saying:

>	"Any fool can see that this tree looks like it was created
>	 last week.  Why, those parasite marks aren't _exactly_ what
>	 we'd expect to see, and therefore the tree couldn't have
>	 formed naturally.  QED."

>It may not be God's "intent to deceive" in making such a creation, but
>surely He would know that any honest student of His creation would be
>misled when reading it "at face value."

And this is where we differ, the interpretation of the physical 
evidence. I haven't inferred anything negative by your "honest student" 
remark, but I too consider myself to be an honest student of God's
creation that has come to a different conclusion. 

Marvin Lubenow of the ICR is putting the finishing touches on a
book regarding human evolution and the fossil (or lack of) evidence
for such. This should be an interesting book.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: JW's claim of a "Water Canopy"
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:51:19 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug19.193958.12821@engage.pko.dec.com>, ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com writes:
|> 
|> In article <6604@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes...
|> > 
|> >I've recently been reading a book called _The Waters Above_, by Joseph C.
|> >Dillow, Moody Press, 1981.  It purports to give a "scientific view" of
|> >the "earth's pre-flood vapor canopy."  
|> > 
|> >The basic thesis is that the above mentioned Water Canopy was actually
|> >a "vapor canopy" containing the equivalent of about 40 feet of water,
  ...
|> 40 feet of water should be enough to block out a significant portion of visible
|> sunlight.
|> 
|> 
|> So how did the plants grow before the flood? 
  ...
    I've seen the vapor canopy discussed a few times, and wondered 
about this myself, but your posting was the first time that I've seen this
mentioned.  A thundercloud will make it very dark, and produce a couple 
of inches of rain.  Wouldn't the equivalent of 40 feet of water make it 
as dark as night before the Flood?  When people speak of something like
a radiation shield -- if it were effective enough to keep out "bad"
radiation, wouldn't it be terribly effective at keeping out the "good"
radiation, like visible light?

    Second point, a curiosity about the creationist side of this.  Am 
I so dumb that I don't see how the equivalent of 40 inches of water in 
a vapor canopy could produce even a small fraction of the water needed 
to produce a flood capable of covering the mountains?  We here in
northern Indiana are not used to real mountains -- there is a hill 
around here a couple of hundred feet high which is called "Mount 
Baldy".  But I can't imagine even a Hoosier calling a 40 foot high
mound a mountain -- maybe we can hear from some real flatlanders as to 
their opinions about mountains (:-))

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 360 day year
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:22:57 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Aug12.130603.19438@engage.pko.dec.com>, ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com writes:
 
 
> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes...

As I've noted previously, anything from this source needs to be taken with
several truckloads of salt...

 
> Now, the 360 day historical year:
 
>Fagan says that when the Maya established the "Long Count" of years that they
>used to date historical events, THEY USED A 360 DAY YEAR. I say that given 
>the Maya's extreme disquiet about these 5 days, it is understandable that
>theywould arrange to have them vanish from history. BTW, the 360 day historical
>year was called a "Tun;" is there a conspiracy here? : )
 
As Velikovsky noted, these five ceremonial days were added after the change,
not just in central America, but all over the world.  The same situation
can be found everywhere.  The 360 degree compasses we use also date from
the time of 360 day years;  a degree on the compass was basically just one
day's worth of angle.  This could not be changed without creating havoc with
all systems of math and engineering.

Given the standard view of earth origins, however, all compasses should have
been 365 degrees from day one.

> The Mayans used a number of calendars. The calendar used to date historical
> events was a 360 day calendar, as Holden and Dr. V. claimed.
 
> Comments?
> Ed Eck


Just one.  We have one more case of Meritt putting out false information over
the net here.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Philosophical problems of Creationism (Was: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:28:47 GMT

In article <19AUG199211353721@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>,
lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

|>In article <1992Aug19.080612.8434@dscomsf.desy.de>, Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>writes...
|>>You seem to think that there is some "absolute" definition of truth? 
|>> 
|>>The fact is that we can derive an infinity of models which are consistent
|>with
|>>instantaneous observation. They range from science to the Ultra paranoid
|>"movie
|>>set" scenario where the entire world is engaged in a massive conspiracy
|>against
|>>the individual who is in "truth" strapped int a virtual reality machine.
|>Chosing
|>>between them is merely a matter of aesthetics.
|>
|>I don't think so.  Just because we can imagine a possible scenario in
|>which "everything we know is wrong" doesn't necessarily undercut knowledge.
|>Taking your examples in particular, those scenarios are *less likely* than
|>the common sense version of reality because they presuppose it.

I don't like the rejection on the grounds of being "less likely'. How can you
reason about probability in these matters. I consider the objection that if you
suppose such deamons then you have no possibility of any argument, you cut the
ground away completely.

You seem to be arguing that the utility of a theory is more likely to make it
"true". I don't like that argument. I much prefer an aesthetic arguent and
appeal to beauty. Since all argument in this area must ultimately be garbage
(which was my original point BTW) we might as well have one that is poeticaly
correct as any other.

All this starts to sound like second guessing the mind of God, his reasons for
building the Universe are probably not deductable within his creation. However
we could speculate as to the reason why we might create a Universe, for me the
foremost reason would be to find out why this one was put together... (God I
love circular arguments!)

This is the point I was trying to make, in order to accept creationism you have
to come up with a convincing explanation of why evolution as a model works so
well. Since the only version of creationism that has predicitve power would be
to postulate that the agreement with the evolution model is deliberate
predictive creationism falls into the deamon category.


BTW re explaining PI to aliens, yep I accept that in any sensible theory which
admits aliens then you are going to be able to find agreement on the value of
PI. BTW it's one of my favorite numbers, a sort of useful half way house for
cases that call for a bit more than a three without the extravagance of a four.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: root@lyra.scg.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Felt Effect of Gravity
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:46:53 GMT
Reply-To: root@lyra.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Aug13.215641.3446@desire.wright.edu) sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
)In article <22846@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM), root@lyra.scg.hac.com (Dave Fisher) writes:
)) In article <o373oB4w164w@cellar.org) kml@cellar.org (Lazlo Hoover Toth) writes:
)))
[stuff deleted]
)))So wouldn't a half-gravity earth have SMALLER animals?  Large animals
)))wouldn't be hopping around like kangaroos; they'd be lying on their
)))sides getting slowly picked apart by small mammals and insects, etc.
)) 
)) Muscles don't just grow because of use; they grow according to a "plan"
)) dictated by the DNA of the creature involved.  So there is no reason
)) to assume that lesser gravity would adversely affect any creature which 
)) evolved in the smaller gravitational field.  (Consider whales for a moment.)
)) 
)
)Yes, and no.  Muscles can and do atrophy due to non-use.  They also can get
)bigger (within the limits of the DNA) by exercise.

Sorry if I implied that using a muscle has no role in building its size.
I meant that genetics and use combine to determine the size of a muscle. 
Actually my argument was kind of off the point, anyway.  Try this for
a better explanation of why atrophy wouldn't be a problem:

Muscles atrophy due to non-use, no argument.  But if a creature *evolves*
in "half-earth-gravity", their muscles will be the right size for that
gravity right from the start.  And these muscles will be can be as large 
as they need to be, and shouldn't atrophy under "normal" (half-earth-gravity) 
conditions.  Right?


Dave
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:26:09 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <639l03ot62RF00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>   ...   From reading t.o, one would get the impression that
> creationists never "do" science. I must and do disagree with this
> statement most vehemently. The "Creation ex nihilo Technical Journal"
> published in Australia and available through the ICR contains
> articles of creation science, and the research performed. Now,
> anyone can claim they aren't "doing" science, but making such a
> claim in no way takes away from the fact that they are "doing"
> science.


Fine.

I hereby renounce forever the statement

    "Creationists never do science"

(which I don't believe I've ever made, since
I'm aware that 18th and early 19th century Creationist geologists
and natural historians did some fine work, including laying out
the geological column and establishing the bases of taxononomy.)


Compare the pages and citations of CenTJ with the entire
corpus of scientific literature about evolution, 20th-century geology,
natural history, zoology, biology, et.al., most of which
suppports and assumes the common descent of all life through
deep time.


I shall henceforth adopt the completely accurate statement:

   "Since 1925, creationists have made at most only
    tiny contributions to scientific research.
    These contributions have been largely obscure and
    of dubious accuracy, and none have led to any
    fruitful new theories.  No coherent theory of
    Scientific Creationism has ever been propounded."


---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: talk.origins