HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Magnetic Reversal Dating was Re: Permo/Triassic quandary
Date: 7 Jan 1993 05:06:55 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan6.214612.15143@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>	Another thought -- the correlation of these events through
>various dating methods (radioisotope, correlations with magnetic
>reversals, etc.) impinges strongly on scientific reconstrution of
>prehistoric chronologies, which is a topic Bob Bales brings up,
>even though he's an ignoramus about it.

	This is mainly for the non-geologists out there.

	What Bales didn't know or care about was that there was
stratigraphic dating along with the magnetic reversal dating and
with the application of it to the sea floor magnetic ananomalies.

	A former Dean of the School of Earth Science at Stanford,
from which I post as a guest, did the important task of dating
magnetic reversal epochs with absolute dates and stratigraphy on
land here in the Western U.S., this is Alan Cox. A chronology
of reversed and normal periods of magnetic polarity was worked out
for the past 40 Million years or so. This chronology was confirmed
in many places on land.

	When magnetomiters were towed behind ships traversing the
ocean, stripes of normal and reversed magnetism, actually, magnetic
anomaley patterns were seen. With ocean floor basalt samples some
absolute dates were obtained, and with this the suggestion that the
reversal pattern seen on land was recorded in the ocean, and the
cause was sea floor spreading. The confirmation of the link between
absolute dates and magnetic reversals comes from sound stratigraphy
on land and is used to confirm dates in sea floor. The inferences
from spreading, its impact on polar wandering interpetation, and
the rate and geometry of continental movement, are found to fall
into a consistant history of plate tectonics through the entire
Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras, and with as much confidence back into
the Late Precambrian.

	There is an article on dating of zircons, dating of metamorphic
events in Precambrain terrains, which extends the plate tectonic
picture back to the oldest rocks in the earth's crust. See the
current (Jan 1993) issue of Scientific American. This aricle also
relates to the isotope dating debate that flares up in this group
from time to time.

Bruce Salem



Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Extinction update
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:09:50 GMT



	A posted article at the library indicated that new dating
of the Siberian Traps (huge layered volcanic deposits similar to the
Deccan or Columbian traps) puts them at the same time as the
Permian extinction event, discouraging the asteroid impact hypothesis
for this particular extinction.

	Did anyone else see this?

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

I think the Permian extinction event was ca.  220 m.y.a. but I can't
remember now.
From: philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Book: The Creationists
Date: 8 Jan 1993 15:05:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

The final paragraphs of George Marsden's review of Ronald
Numbers' book "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific
Creationism" are particularly interesting:


   "One lesson implicit in this history is that some scientists
too have been guilty of posing stark alternatives.  Evolution has
often been used to ridicule any traditional faith.  Some
secularists have been all too ready to accept flood geologists'
claims to speak for all 'creationists,' and then to dismiss even
more nuanced arguments that belief in a creator might be a useful
hypothesis for understanding the Universe.  Those who insist that
nothing could ever be clarified by positing the existence of a
higher intelligence are in a formal sense something like creation
scientists.  They are so committed to a community that finds this
secular faith immensely useful that they are convinced that they
*must* be able to find an exclusively naturalistic explanation
for everything.
   "Unless we suppose that natural science of the past century
has somehow settled all such issues, we might expect that in the
future there would be wider acceptance of a variety of hypotheses
about the possible relationships of natural phenomena to higher
creative intelligence.  Those who insist on the extremes,
however, may delay any such evolution of scientific thought."


George Marsden was an expert witness for the *evolution* side in
the Arkansas case that led to Judge Overton's famous opinion.  He
testified that creation-science is religion, not science.  He is
currently Professor of History at Notre Dame.  The review appears
-- 
Phillip E. Johnson
  School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jfb@draco.macsch.com (John Baskette)
Subject: Need help mailing FAQ request to Jim Merrit
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 00:02:41 GMT


Hello, 

Sorry about this waste of bandwidth.

I have been trying to send an email request to Jim Merrit to
request copies of his Velikovsky FAQs as follows: 

FAQ: Worlds in Collision, Collusion, Confusion.
FAQ: The Saturn Myth

I have tried the address jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu as mentioned in 
Matt Brinkman's FAQ: List of Available Talk.Origins FAQ's, but
this host is unreachable from my site.  Attempts on my part to 
reach him at other addresses also fail. 

Hello Jim Merrit.  May I have copies of these FAQs? 

Thank you very much. 

John Baskette  jfb@macsch.com
From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:07:31 GMT
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.

In article <1993Jan11.220331.1654@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
<Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
<: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
<: >Does it say anything about Mary?  Do creationists accept immaculate
<: >conception? 
<: Of course.
<	Is this really true?  I can see creationists "accepting"
<immaculate conception, but that doesn't mean that creationism _requires_
<an immaculate conception of Mary, does it?

I suspect that Lionel Tun has confused, as so many people do, the immaculate
conception and the virgin birth.  As Jim Acker has pointed out, creation
science is strongly associated with Protestants, who by and large don't
believe in the immaculate conception.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hamilton@hitler.chem.uab.edu ()
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Chemistry Department, Univ. of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:23:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.220331.1654@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
>: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>: >In article <1993Jan7.152453.22580@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
>: 
>: >>In front of me is a "technical" article on the "sin mutation"
>: >>which changed Adam and Eve's genotypes during the Fall, how this
>: >>is inherited by everyone, and how Christ was created without it.
>: >
>: >>See:  Anderson, Albert S., 1992.  "Magnificent Miracle: The Virgin
>: >>Conception of Jesus" in _Creation Research Society Quarterly_
>: >>Volume 29 Issue 2, pp. 89-97.
>
>: >Does it say anything about Mary?  Do creationists accept immaculate
>: >conception? 
>
>Lionel answers:
>
>: Of course.
>: 
>: --
>
>	Lionel,
>
>	Is this really true?  I can see creationists "accepting"
>immaculate conception, but that doesn't mean that creationism _requires_
>an immaculate conception of Mary, does it?
>	I have a distinct feeling that the Bible-quoting inerrant
>Fundamentalists of southern Baptist heritage would actually bristle at
>the suggestion that creationism and a strongly Catholic doctrine like
>the immaculate conception go hand-in-hand.
>
>	But I'm speculating.

Speculation right on target, at least for the equally strict
Church of Christ, which I consider to be essentially Southern
Baptist with minor doctrinal differences.

>
>	Jim Acker
>	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
>

Tracy P. Hamilton   hamilton@titan1.chem.uab.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: God and evolution FAQ
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:39:39 GMT

  As promised I finished off the God and evolution FAQ over break.  I currently
have the alpha version ready and would like an expert in evolution to give it a
once over (I am a mathematician, and I don't want to find out my biology was
mixed up the hard way) before I do a beta release.

  For the beta release I just need some people willing to look over it and make
any comments (ie questions I missed, where I wasn't clear, where I sound
patronizing, etc.)  If you are interested send me email.  I am interested in
biologists, creationists, and interested non-creationists for comment.

  When replies from beeta testers drops to a slow trickle I will post the FAQ.

  For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, here is the intro:

  This is a collection of frequently asked questions and answers about
the compatibility of belief in evolution and God from talk origins.
This text presupposes the reader's belief in the Judeo-Christian God,
but many answers a general enough to include most religions.  There is
no attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, or the validity of
any religion, as that is not the intent.  Please contact me at
kv07@iastate.edu with any questions or suggestions.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: City University, London
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 12:17:22 GMT

tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.220331.1654@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
><Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
><: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
><: >Does it say anything about Mary?  Do creationists accept immaculate
><: >conception? 
><: Of course.
><	Is this really true?  I can see creationists "accepting"
><immaculate conception, but that doesn't mean that creationism _requires_
><an immaculate conception of Mary, does it?
>
>I suspect that Lionel Tun has confused, as so many people do, the immaculate
>conception and the virgin birth.  As Jim Acker has pointed out, creation
>science is strongly associated with Protestants, who by and large don't
>believe in the immaculate conception.

Ooops! I've done that very thing. Virgin birth, yes. What is the
immaculate conception?

--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Mark's Laws of Biology
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:04:47 CST

Robert Fargher (fargher@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: In <1ichi8INNojs@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
: 
: >(1) In all species, over the long term, the average birth rate is equal to the
: >    average death rate.
:  
:   Considering other organisms, a few seconds thought will convince you
: that (1) cannot be true.  If the birth rate equalled the death rate, no
: species would ever go extinct.
: -- 

The key phrase there is "over the long term", and at that, as axioms
go, it's pretty unassailable.

An (fictional) anthropological researcher gathering data up in Maine once
had the following conversation:

	Hey faa-mer.  What's the death rate up heah?

	Ohhh, I s'pose that would be about... oh, one per person.

Over the lifetime of a species, from stinction to ex-stinction, the
birth rate would have to exactly equal the death rate.  If the birth
rate were higher, well, they wouldn't be extinct then, would they.
If the death rate were higher, well, then, there would be big trouble,
and I wouldn't want to have to explain it.

--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com

  (I think it's kinda quiet around here.  Too quiet!)
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:43:42 GMT

Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:

: Ooops! I've done that very thing. Virgin birth, yes. What is the
: immaculate conception?
: 

	Catholics correct me if I'm wrong, but the doctrine says that
Mary was also conceived by the Holy Spirit and whoever Mary's mother
was.  Now, I don't know if Mary's mother was a virgin (she could have
had children before Mary), but the main reason for the doctrine was to
remove any vestige of sex from the birth of Christ -- i.e., both the
Immaculate Virgin (Mary) and Christ were conceived sans sex.

	Jim Acker


============================================================
|  James G. Acker                       Occasional Genius  |
|  jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov        Regular Swimmer    |
|                                                          |
|  "Animal-based research in this field ignores the fact   |
|  that in humans much sexual behavior has little to do    |
|  with reproduction both psychologically and physio-      |
|  logically..."                                           |
============================================================



Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: I want a reference on "origins" myths.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 17:53:20 GMT

In article <1hvk6lINN4hd@crcnis1.unl.edu> e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:
>       Can someone direct me to a book which will discuss the many 
>       "origins" and cosmology myths.

_Primal Myths_ by Barbara Sproul.

That's from memory, so don't complain too much if it's not entirely accurate.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: _Eoraptor_, very early dinosaur, announced
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1993Jan8.204751.13272@anasazi.com>, scott@anasazi.com (Scott Gibson) writes:
|> 
|> There is an X-ray photograph of a composite fossil of the skull of
|> Eoraptor in January's issue of National Geographic.  The skull is
|> shown in comparison with a human hand, and is about the size of the
|> palm.

Wow!  If this is supposed to be an adult specimen, this is a new record for
smallest dinosaur!

|> Haven't had a chance to read the article.  Looks good, though.

Neither have I.  I plan to stop by UCLA on the way to my club meeting later today.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:03:31 GMT

Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
: >In article <1993Jan7.152453.22580@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
: 
: >>In front of me is a "technical" article on the "sin mutation"
: >>which changed Adam and Eve's genotypes during the Fall, how this
: >>is inherited by everyone, and how Christ was created without it.
: >
: >>See:  Anderson, Albert S., 1992.  "Magnificent Miracle: The Virgin
: >>Conception of Jesus" in _Creation Research Society Quarterly_
: >>Volume 29 Issue 2, pp. 89-97.

: >Does it say anything about Mary?  Do creationists accept immaculate
: >conception? 

Lionel answers:

: Of course.
: 
: --

	Lionel,

	Is this really true?  I can see creationists "accepting"
immaculate conception, but that doesn't mean that creationism _requires_
an immaculate conception of Mary, does it?
	I have a distinct feeling that the Bible-quoting inerrant
Fundamentalists of southern Baptist heritage would actually bristle at
the suggestion that creationism and a strongly Catholic doctrine like
the immaculate conception go hand-in-hand.

	But I'm speculating.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Keywords: future
Date: 9 Jan 93 10:02:31 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <8JAN199313510696@juliet.caltech.edu> waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:
>(This actually raises an interesting point: IS the general public in fact
>comfortable with Copernican astronomy?  I wonder if a large percentage of
>the population is as ignorant of that as they are of evolutionary theory.
>I have been appalled to hear people admit gross misunderstandings of the
>structure of the solar system or the nature of stars and planets).

Please don't consider this idea outrageous, by the way. I personnally know
someone who, among other things, didn't know that the Sun was a star.
Isolated case? Maybe, but alarming nonetheless - I can't imagine anybody
not learning what stars are, with the education level this individual
had, which leaves as the only option a process I call 'active
forgetting'.

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Biology majors pleez!
Date: 12 Jan 1993 22:42:34 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <11JAN93.15980526.0100@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU> C741SCB <C741SCB@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU> writes:
}|    "I would lay down my life for two brothers or four cousins."      |
}|    - J.B.S. Haldane                                                  |

Hmmm.  I've scribbled down some calculations on a beer mat, and I get two
brothers, four-half brothers, or eight first cousins.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:54:28 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Dec29.164826.5044@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.143703.7029@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>}>13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not have been
>}>able to
>}>obtain spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the 
>}>moon (with
>}^^^^^
>}>respect to its primary)
>}
>}
>}That is simply not true. The moon is rotating (ever heard of earth rise?)
>}although only slightly. 
>
>wobbles, not rotate.  If it rotated, 100% would (eventually) become visable.
>It doesn't.
>
>ref "earthrise".  No, I haven't.  Reference, please.
>
This must be the stupidest thing ever written.

Take two balls. Have one revolve around the other without rotating.
at opposite ends of its orbit, opposite sides of the revolving ball
will be visable from the perspective of the stationary ball.

In order for only one side of the revolving ball to be visable,
it must complete exactly one rotation during its revolution

Robert Johnston
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:03:16 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <fargher.726452368@unixg.ubc.ca> fargher@unixg.ubc.ca (Robert Fargher) writes:
>In <1993Jan7.053238.14970@smds.com> rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:

>>No that wasn't me.  I did the time traveling angels, the creationist FAQ,
>>the Holden Scatology index, tomorrowism, atheistic creationism, and
>>sundry other japes, but not the human body temperature "proof".

>  I'm a newcomer to talk.origins and I really hope you saved the above
>mentioned essays.  If so, would you mind re-posting them?  

I can post some, but not all.  The Holden Scatology index was actually a
running gag in which I chastised Ted for posts which included shit (the
word, not the content) and commended him for posts that were clean.

Tomorrowism is the doctrine that the world, complete with memories, will
have been created tomorrow.

Time travelling angels is a reconciliation between old and new Earth.  The
gist of it is that God had the angels do a fix-up job on creation.  Each
time they went back in time they were a bit sloppy about the work and left
traces.

Atheistic creationsism combined an assault of evolution with speculative
non-theistic speculations about the origins of species.  A number of people
bit on it.  I don't have the article any more.

I did find a couple articles that I will repost.  One is the Creationist
faq, and the other is an essay about "true science".
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.