HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:56:22 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec15.191142.2201@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
|> 
|> Wayne Folta has responded to my flood FAQ by email, raising many points--
|> some valid, some not, and some which I can't evaluate myself.  He has given
|> me permission to post the email, but the whole thing is too long and diverse
|> to post at once, so I'm excerpting parts.  This posting deals with arguments
|> from Whitcomb and Morris.  I hope those who are familiar with those specific
|> arguments will comment on them.

Rather than comment on them individually, which I am sure others will
do, I'd rather comment that there's a common thread which runs through
them all.

When asked "How do you explain xxx" where xxx is a very common phenomenon,
the reply is "I have found *one* example that I can explain".

I don't suppose that it's too hard to find *one* example of a quick
erosion that looks like a long-term one, or *one* plateau that is
suspiciously flat, or *one* fossil forest where what looks like
several successive beds of debris turn out to be one.

The problem is, however, that young-Earth theorists have to explain
a whole lot of evidence.   As has been pointed out here many times, 
quite a lot of ambiguous evidence does not disprove an old Earth, 
while even one unambiguous piece of evidence for an old Earth poses 
a real problem for young-Earth theorists.

By the way, did anyone notice that when the fossil record came up,
the response was "This section of questions does raise difficulties".
But the difficulties which were never addressed, since the subject 
was quickly turned to "Well you have difficulties, too".

In his earlier work, Morris used to claim that he could explain the
fossil record.    Now his fans just say "This section of questions 
does raise difficulties"

Curious, eh?

jon.
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: TEST
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:30:16 GMT

In article <s74gVB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>This is a test message to see if our posts are getting through.
>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

Your posts are not getting through.

Facetiously,
Eric.


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Don't forget to chant       |
      |                           Don't forget to chant       |
      |                           Don't forget to chant       |
      |                           Don't forget to chant       |
      |                                                       |
      |   Eric's Carnivore Infoline BBS,                      |
      |   Cheeseburger, WA                                    |
       -------------------------------------------------------


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Next?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:35:44 GMT

In article <60Ti02lv2fnN01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jjh00@diag.amdahl.com writes:
} m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>What is next?
}>talk.origins:  On the evolutionary side, 
}> homo sapiens is seen as merely the most recent
}> step in a series of rungs in a ladder. 
}>  What do you see as the "next rung"? 
} 
}I'm sorry to see a t.o regular like Jim Meritt even hint
}at the "ladder of progress" or "great chain of being"
}view of evolutionary succession.  

I know.  But what is the right word for our particular branch?

And I don't recall "progress" being mentioned at all...

>Humans aren'e in any
}way the penultimate step in a long directed journey --
}they're one of the few flourishing twigs on a sparse bush
}of ape species, a lineage that's been notably unsuccessful
}since the Miocene.  Bats have done much better than apes;
}so have the ungulates.

And beetles have done better yet.  And roaches are REAL successful.
But they don't fit the context of the branch I specifically
addressed.

}So, our evolution wasn't linear or directed; the question
}remains: what next?

yup.

}So what selective pressures might be acting on humanity as
}a whole?  Although the ability to withstand famine is undoubtedly
}being brutally selected for in many areas of the world, this is
}nothing new, and I think represents the a frequent condition
}of much of human history.

A non-trivial potential selection pressure is us.  The
stress associated with shutting short the flight-or-fight reflex,
the barrage of information, ...  The environment is, after
all, more than just geography.

}Physically, humans haven't changed much since the development
}of Neolithic culture, nearly a hundred thousand years ago.
}I wouldn't expect the pace of biological change to be rapid
}any time soon.

But the environment, at least as far as people are concerned, is a far
cry from that of a hundred thousand years ago.  And why should you assume
that the only change would have its roots in "natural"
biological change?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Kalki's quiet?
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:22:46 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <2g0HVB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
> Thompson has a new book coming out soon: Forbidden Archaeology. I
> believe there is a review of it in Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson
> (Washington, DC. Regnery Gateway, 1991)

   There's a review of a book that hasn't come out yet in one that
came out last year?  Have you found a way to get time to flow backwards?

> Not gone. Just don't care much what evolutionists have to say. Except
> for my own and the other devotees posts, everything here is rubbish.

   I see.  Are all our posts rubbish by definition?

> Now, if you guys would wake up and admit that your belief in evolution
> is actually based on faith, then maybe we could get somewhere. But I
> don't suppose you'll ever admit to that, will you? :-)

   No.  But if you and the other creationists wake up and admit that
your faith is based on nonsense, then maybe we could get somewhere.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Response to Bill Jefferys, part 5
Date: 18 Dec 1992 01:28:28 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <8000@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>Based on present rates of erosion, the entire mass of the continents could be
>worn away in just under 15 million years.  Continent-building could maintain
>the continents indefinitely, but we would expect the "average" rock we see to
>be less than 15 million years old.  Obviously, some rocks could last longer
>than average.  But we would expect a plot of the number (or percentage) of
>rock samples as a function of age to peak at something less than 15 million
>years and tail off shaply with age.  I don't know, but I will hazard a guess
>that a plot of reported dates vs. age would not have this shape, that it
>would show a majority of dates older than 15 million years.

	I thought that it would be fun to pick out one flawed claim in Bales'
post and comment. First, erosion does not erase continents, to just levels them
to 'base", idealy sealevel, but usually not owing to protection of grade by
hard rocks. Second, even if the "average" age of continents were found to be
15 million years, which I don't think is ture, it is older, the issue is not
whether 50% or even 98% of the crust is rcycled but whether at least some rocks
can be found anywhere that set an upper least bound on the age of the crust.
Such rocks do exist, and the ages are found to be 3 billion years or more old
based on radioisotope dating.

	Also, don't forget that we are not dealing only with surface rocks, but
datable rocks can be sampled at considerable depth. A geologic map may indicate
that most rocks at the surface in Souther California are 60 million years oid 
or less, but there are small coucroppings of much older rocks and older rocks
can be found.

Bruce Salem
From: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:11:40 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation  Sunnyvale California

>} m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) posed the question --
>}> What is next?
>}> talk.origins:  On the evolutionary side, 
>}> homo sapiens is seen as merely the most recent
>}> step in a series of rungs in a ladder. 
>}>  What do you see as the "next rung"? 

>  jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (I, deponent) responded:
>} 
>} I'm sorry to see a t.o regular like Jim Meritt even hint
>} at the "ladder of progress" or "great chain of being"
>} view of evolutionary succession.  


m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) answers back:
>
> I know.  But what is the right word for our particular branch?

I'd have phrased it:
 "What evolutionary changes do you expect in the human
  lineage?  What will our distant descendents be like?"


> And I don't recall "progress" being mentioned at all...

You're right, my mistake, sorry.  I guess I inferred the
idea from the old "ladder" analogy, which has connotatively
carried the idea of "progress" for lo these many years.


>} Physically, humans haven't changed much since the development
>} of Neolithic culture, nearly a hundred thousand years ago.
>} I wouldn't expect the pace of biological change to be rapid
>} any time soon.

> But the environment, at least as far as people are concerned, is a far
> cry from that of a hundred thousand years ago.  And why should you assume
> that the only change would have its roots in "natural"
> biological change?

Sure the environment is different -- and I think that one of the major
differences is that human culture has shut off a lot of the earlier
selection pressures -- endurance running doesn't contribute much
to most family's food gathering, nor does visual acuity, and individuals
with poor teeth or poor resistance to bacterial infection are now
quite likely to reproduce.

I'm not foolish enough to think I can predict what humans might
do with their new-found ability to directly mess with their
own genome.  Create god in our own image, perhaps.

---
Joel Hanes
From: folta@cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:07:37 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

" This month's Science journal (4 Dec 1992, Vol 258) has a number of good
"articles on previously unknown earthquake(s) in Seattle 1000 to 1500 years
"ago. The only photograph of tree stumps is Fig 1 on page 1620 captioned
"'Drowned snags extending above surface of Spider Lake at low-water level,
"September 1992.' The text refers to these as 'bark-free trunks of separate
"standing dead trees (snags) ... died within a year of being drowned behind
"a rock-avalanche dam.'
" Obviously these trees died in place and were not uprooted and deposited
"roots-down as the Creationist claims. 

Yes, I see that I was wrong on this one. I was trying to knock off a whole
list of replies to the FAQ in one sitting and I had just read the Science
that day. I only looked at the picture and caption and got it wrong. (I
cannot complain, as I did give permission for the email to be posted, but
maybe that is some kind of excuse?)

Also, if I might be so bold, I am not "the Creationist", I am Wayne Folta.
(Or "Mr. Creationist", to you. :-))
-- 


Wayne Folta          (folta@cs.umd.edu  128.8.128.8)
From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re:In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:28:29 GMT


Michael Simon recently wrote a fairly lengthy article arguing against one of
my postings.  I'm going to address these issues, but I'd like to make some
general comments first.  I've seen it written often in this group that my
arguments are frequently demolished and complaining that I continue to put
forth these "demolished" arguments. I'm sure that those who disagree with me
will see Michael's article as another such instance.

However, I'd like to make some observations about the nature of the article and
why I don't find the supposed rebuttals convincing:

1. My points that Michael disagrees with  have been based on resuts from
   scientific texts and journals.  It's possible, of course, that I've
   misinterpreted these results.  But in most cases, Michael doesn't even
   acknowledge that I've based my arguments on a factual base -- even if it is
   thought to be wrong.  Rather, they are portrayed as strange "inconceivable"
   conclusions that I presumably created out of thin air.

2. Many statements below say that I am wrong by simply stating the oppo-
   site.  There are no references to books or journals.  If I really do put out
   the "crap" which Michael says, there should be plenty of observations which
   directly contradict me.

3. The response to a challenge is sometimes a repetition of the point
   challenged.  Stripped of details, I make an argument with the logical form,
   "Observations 'Y' show that statement 'X' may be wrong."  A logical refuta-
   tion of the argument could take one of two forms: "Observations 'Y' are
   incorrect because of 'Z'" or "Observations 'Y' do not invalidate 'X'
   because of fact 'Z.'"  Most of the resonses I get are of the second type.
   However, fact 'Z' is often taken to be "statement 'X' is true," which makes
   the rebuttal attempt circular and does not show anything.

Considering that I'm not the only one whoose postings draw this reaction, I
think it would well for those in this group, myself included, to try to look
at both sides.  When answering an argument, pretend for just a moment that
the side you are about to take was actually your opponnent's and that you
disbelieve it strongly.  What evidence would it take for you to change your
mind?  You can believe in your own argument for whatever reason you wish, but
unless you can give evidence which would cause you to change your mind, you
shouldn't expect your opponnent to change his/her mind.

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone)
Subject: Re: c decay and Special Relativity
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:01:59 GMT



It is the assumption of a constant value of c which allows 
the observer in reference frame B to see the arrival of the
pulses as nonsimultaneous in the first place, so, no, the
idea of c changing is inconsistent with the SR effect you
use as the cornerstone of your proof.  As Albert would have
said:

[imitating game-show buzzer] "AAAAAAAH!  Wrong! Thank you for
playing---better luck next time!"

...T.R. Stone
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hamilton@hitler.chem.uab.edu ()
Subject: Re: Doesn't it seem logical?
Organization: Chemistry Department, Univ. of Alabam at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:15:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.105809.21831@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>> It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!  What does it take
>>to believe in evolution? 
>
>What it takes is a) faith in the millions of scientists who have spent
>enormuous efforts for centuries to come up with certain facts and answers and b)
>a lot of reading on the subject. The more you read on evolutionary biology the
>more you will realize that it is not a matter of faith. In fact, most
>creationists I have encountered have read little or nothing on evolution. 
>
The beauty of science is that you do not have to take anything on faith.
If you don't believe in evolution, become a biologist, paleontologist,etc.
and find out for yourself. I double dog dare you!

>Onar.

Tracy P. Hamilton (ex-Creationist)
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:26:06 GMT
Organization: City University, London

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>I'm going to have a friend of mine who happens to be a priest
>tell on you.

Thats OK, I'm a priest as well.

>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU


--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Ragnarok Is Nigh! Be Ware!
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:14:21 GMT

>Both Kalki(s) and Lionel Tun will be VERY surprised when Odin,
>whom is the One True Creator, comes down and collects warriors
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to help Him fight Ragnarok, and Kalki(s) and Lionel find out
>they BOTH picked the wrong Gods!
 

By Thor! How many times must I say that Onar, not Odin, created the universe. He 
then retired and let Odin in charge. There is a place in Norway called Onarheim 
and it is supposedly the place where Onar retired.


Onar.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: comparing theories
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:53:21 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Dec10.121018.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>BTW, you know how everyone was saying how stupid Dan Quayle was for misspelling
>potato.  Well Andy misspelled "complete" 4 times.  What does that make
>him?

About four orders of magnitude smarter than you. Ray, you have been
trying to cast aspersions on evolutionary theory by saying it is
based on inferences. As far as determining the history of life on 
this planet goes, this is correct. The fact of common descent and the
details of phylogeny are inferences, i.e. conclusions drawn from data.
So tell us Ray, what is creationism based on? Why is it better than
something based on data?

>--Ray Cote 

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: dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Date: 15 Dec 1992 18:13:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpdstma.ptp.hp.com

In article <1992Dec15.034006.7724@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
|> In article <n118ft@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
|> >Who: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu (Ray Cote)
|> >Only to your eyes, it seems. I look remarkably like a chimp
|> >myself, and I suspect you look remarkably like a babboon.
|> >What of it? Do -YOU- have a good explanation of why humans
|> >(not just the men [see your sentence reproduced above]) look
|> >so much like primates? 
|> 
|> To make a very long story very very short:  the primates were here
|> before us, and they created us in their image.

Geez, people, let's get this right, Okay?

We *are* primates. It doesn't make sense to say, "the primates were here
before us" as if we are something other than a primate that evolved from
primates.

Humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, baboons, monkeys, etc. are *all* primates.
We *all* evolved from common ancestors that were primates as well. To
distinguish between primates and humans is nonsensical.  

-- 
Dave Waller
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Permission denied.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:58:38 GMT
Summary:  alright!

In article <101836@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
(Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>Oh boy.  Hey Kooko: why don't you write a book too and sell your chants
>and other doodoo for big bucks, and then refuse to post to USENET also?

Sounds good to me!

-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@panix.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
(please note address)			With your crooked heart."
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Robert Bass on Velikovsky and Physics
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:56:14 GMT

In article <174@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}I am not a dynamical astronomer.  

Of this there has, to the best of my knowledge, never been any doubt.
Why should we believe that you are a competent authority in evaluating it then?

}Robert Bass is or was;  I am uncertain
}as to whether he is still alive.  His credentials read as follows:

For fun and our own amusement, why not post VELIKOVSKY and TALBOTT's
credentials as dynamic astronomers.  Then please say why we should
then take anything except amusement at their statements in this arena.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hamilton@hitler.chem.uab.edu ()
Subject: Re: Doesn't it seem logical?
Organization: Chemistry Department, Univ. of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:04:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.105809.21831@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>> It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!  What does it take
>>to believe in evolution? 
>
>What it takes is a) faith in the millions of scientists who have spent
>enormuous efforts for centuries to come up with certain facts and answers and b)
>a lot of reading on the subject. The more you read on evolutionary biology the
>more you will realize that it is not a matter of faith. In fact, most
>creationists I have encountered have read little or nothing on evolution. 

[deletions]

The beuaty of science is that you don't have to take it on faith but
can check for yourself! If you don't believe in evolution, become a
paleontologist, biologist, etc.

Tracy P. Hamilton