HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: answer to John Ata's whining
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:28:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.004715.20325@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.042358.20900@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au
(Tim O'Neill) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep1.013810.28124@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> >
> >> If one party is polite and the other is rude (in any debate or argument)
> >> then to an outside observer, the "rude party" is the one that looks
> >> suspicious and insecure about its own theory.
> >>
> >> I know this is a cruel assumption that people make (as the real reason
could
> >> be that the "rude party" simply is immature & has bad communication
> >> skills, but happens to have the correct theory) but that is the way things
> >> are.
> >
> >Another reason, Derek, could be that after refuting the same tired old
> >non-arguments time after time, after having the same sophistical tricks
> >attempted day in and day out and after having masses of evidence presented
> >but ignored over and over again, your politeness fuse burns down and you
> >start switching into scorn-mode.
> >
 
	Gee, this sure sounds familiar. :)

> Have you tried ignore mode?

	A nice idea.  But morons can be dangerous things; people come on with
irrational statements, unsupported assertions, misapplications of scientific
theory, and occaisionaly outright lies which they use to attack scientific
theories.  This is maddening as hell but can occaisionally be ignored.
	However, these same morons also hold that their gibberings are as
valid as the scientific theories which they attack, and they often wish to
pass laws (at least here in the U.S.) to mandate teaching of their theories.
This is a threat which cannot be ignored.  Furthermore, to allow these 
inanities to go unchallenged would be an insult to science itself; letting
this go unchallenged may be seen as a tacit approval in some sense. 
	Finally, often these nonsense theories contain accusations and
inflamatory material in there own right, such as the celebrated 'evolutionist
conspiracy' stuff.  A bit of rudeness in a reply will perhaps get the message
across that the sender was deeply offended by these suggestions, moreso than
a calm 'but that isn't nice'.  (There is evidence to support this.)
	Being polite in the face of adversity is a nice idea; however, I'm
going to keep the explicitives handy for those special occaissions where I
don't seem to be getting the point across clearly enough.  
	(By the way, have you ever seen Eddy Murphy?  He does a very good
job of using profanity as a means of expression.)

> >But what are you doing here Mr Abbott?
> 
> I'm everywhere. Watch out.

	I am watching out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 160' Diplodocus...  429,895 lbs
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:27:52 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <BtpH9t.ELM@cs.dal.ca*, hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:
* 
* |> Nothing 41 tones lives anymore.  If it could happen, it would happen,
* 
* 	Interesting logic.  If it can happen, it will, so if it
* 	hasn't happened, it cannot.
* 
* 	People don't build 300 foot pyramids any more - must be impossible
* 	now.
* 
* 	In the past, some creatures had far more bony armour than
* 	any large creature has today.  Must be impossible now.
* 
* 	Dinosaurs grew new teeth throughout their adult lives, but
* 	mammals don't.  Must be impossible now.
* 
* 	In case you missed it, just because something can happen
* 	doesn't mean it will.  

In evolution, if something can happen, and there are huge advantages to
it and few if any countervailing disadvantages, then it will happen.

Size and strength are always an advantage UNTIL you come to some point,
which varies with the design for any given life form, at which which 
increased size begins to equate with disfunction.  

As I have noted, these limits were always a LOT higher in antediluvian 
times than they are now.  There was a reason for that.

I'm not the one who's missed something.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Subject: Re: Willful ignorance 
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:16:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.103330@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>
>   Take for example his [Lionel's] recent pronouncement
>
>           "There is no scientific evidence for evolutionism"
>
>in the teeth of megabytes of scientific proof posted with his name on the lable
>and e-mailed to him personally.  That was a lie or the result of profound
>denial of reality.  If he'd even attempted to refute that evidence I might
>be unwilling to call him a liar.

Note that Lionel is saying that there is no scientific evidence for
*evolutionISM*, and what he has been provided with is megabytes of
evidence for *evolution*.  

Of course there is no scientific evidence for evolutionISM.  This
is not science; it is the much-disputed "philosophy of evolution"
which is set up as a straw man by TAEs*.   EvolutionISM is said to
be the unavoidable natural result of accepting the evolution science
explanation of origins.  Therefore, according to TAEs, even if evol-
ution is supported by scientific evidence, it must be false, and 
must be rejected by Christians because it inevitably leads to 
evolutionISM, and evolutionISM is anti-Christian.

*Theistic Anti-Evolutionists (acronym stolen from Rob Derrick).

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:15:15 GMT

	As an evolutionary biologist (in training) I find your
criticism very weak.  Please read a bit, mayby starting with
an intro to science textbook and then on with a standard bio textbook
and then get into an evol. bio text.  Once you have grasped the basics
of the theories that have been presented to you (as a kind of bio dogma)
you are then relatively qualified to offer serious criticism.  
	Another good way to become a valuble critic of evolutionary
thinking is to become a knowledgeable in some other realm (say philosophy)
and then offer a critique from that point of view.  Unless you wish to 
offer reasonabley well thought out criticisms (which don't nessesarily
always come from those that have specializzed in a particualar field), 
very few evolutionary biologists will listen to you.  If I spend my 
life working in a particular field, it is very unlikely that one 
uneducated peson will change my mind by crying out "I don't belive
you!".  Evolution seems to be the most adequate explanation for the  
origin and diversity of life on earth.  However this should by no means
eliminate criticism, as evolutionary biology is a part of science, it
should always be open to question.  That is perhaps the most important
thing about scientific knowledge.  No one threw out Euclidian 
geometry just because a group got together and chanted "We don't
 think that there is only one parallel line to a given staight line
passing through any one point!".  Our views on geometry changed when
someone thought hard about geometry and found that Euclids fifth
postulate was false.  
	We leave scientific "facts" and "laws" open to question
because that is the nature of science.  Please feel free to question
but no one appreciates it if you throw tomatoes.

	Richard Pocklington
				pockling@sfu.ca

	THERE ARE NO RULES IN UTOPIA

there are multi
state that is 
	
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Robert Jastrow
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:48:54 GMT

I need information on a scientist named Robert Jastrow.  What his
background is, and more importantly, what his views are concerning
the age of the Earth and (if possible) evolution.  He wrote a book
titled "God and the Astronomers".  Thanks in advance!
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:34:26 GMT
Reply-To: stassen@alc.com
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose

[Someone (Dan Ashlock?) asks:]
> Leaving aside the fact that both these points of view require one to ignore
> all sorts of relevant information, does anyone else have examples of
> creationist or evangelical propaganda on the comics pages?  How long has B.C.
> been pulling this stuff?

I have (er, had) a relatively complete collection of "B.C." cartoon books
(nearly 30 of them, I think).  There have always been (usually reasonably
subtle) religious overtones to Hart's work, IMO.  However, the strip has
been making quite a bit of rather blatant political and religious commentary
recently (the two strips others have mentioned, plus a recent Sunday strip
on the Persian Gulf War come to mind).

My last issue of _Bible-Science News_ (printed before the strips in question)
had remarked on the pro-creationist slant of B.C. and (I recall) mentioned
keeping an eye on it.  Perhaps Hart has ties to B-SA, so they knew about
the (recent) strips in advance?

I don't really care about Hart's personal opinions, and I usually enjoy
B.C.  However, I find it annoying that his characterization of evolution
is simply the creationist strawman "by chance" (in one of the recent strips).
Perhaps if Hart were clearer about taking shots at materialism rather than
bogus characterizations of evolution, it wouldn't bug me as much.

[Hart's understanding of the "Separation Clause" is also apparently rather
 limited, but that is a topic for another group.  Misc.legal, anyone?]
-- 
Chris Stassen						stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER:  My employer's account, but not their opinions.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden and superhumongoreallybigosaur weights
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:01:30 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <714251299@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
|
|Interestingly, one of the references I was just looking at contains some
|work which has been done on statistical species identification that shows
|that tibia/fibula length and breadth ratios can distinguish sauropod
|species.  The "Dinosaur Systematics" collection of papers, I think.

Yep, that is the source.  A really good symposium on the current state
of dinosaur taxonomy. (The revisions of ceratopsian classification are
quite well done - not to mention confirming my long standing suspicion
that they have been consistantly over-split).

|Of course, with a new specimen of such enormous size, the application
|might not be straightforward.

Actually, it is trickier than that - it requires at least one reasonably
complete specimen to establish a 'standard' for each species.
[Though I suppose discovery of leg bones with  new, and distinctive,
set of ratios would justify the provisional establishment of a new species].
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Reply-To: dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones)
Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:30:06 GMT

In article <2878@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil (news) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.014027.19210@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu*, dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones) writes:

>*Um, someone correct me if I've missed something, but hasn't Ted
>*traditionally maintained that the first humans were white and the
>*"large volumes of energy" were responsible for the origins of
>*dark-skinned people?
>
>Allow me to correct you, since you have missed something.  

Thank you.  I did indeed misremember your claims.

>To the best of my
>knowledge, and this comes from a number of James Strickling's papers, my 

Could you list some specific papers by Strickling that the interested
reader can go to for more details?  Journals and approximate years
should be enough.

> and that one or other of
>the white and black races is almost assuredly an even more recent offshoot
>of the other.   To my thinking at least, antique literature makes it fairly
>clear as to which way that last detail worked.

With the black evolving from the white, you mean?

David M. Jones                              "Trifles! Trifles light as air!"
dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu                              -- the Hystricide
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lionel sez: evolution ==> apartheid.
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:20:28 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <5142@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
|In article <1992Aug21.121122@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
|[lots of things I agree with, exposing the sillyness of the 
| pigmentation=species theory of one Lionel Tun, but]
|>
|>   I am utterly sure this is a lie.  ...
|....  Also, let's reserve the term
|'lie' for an intentionally false statement.  And let's only use it when
|the intent to deceive has been clearly established.  It's no use calling
|every ignorant a liar.

I suppose, at first sight, one could suppose Lionel Tun to be an innocent
dupe. But he had to get that statement form *someone*.  And anyone who has
actually studied the literature would know it to be a false presentation of
the what scientists have concluded.  Thus it most certainly *is* a lie, and
a scurrilous one at that.

Howver, Lionel has been corrected on this sort of thing too often in the
past for him to be held innocent here.  By now he should know better. He
has never yet gotten away with trying to smear evolutionary theory by
bringing up supposed conclusion one must draw from it.  Why should he
think *this* time would be any different?  By now he *has* to know that
this sort of attack is completely phony, yet he keeps trying new variants
on it.  This time he tries to a particularly nasty variant - tell it to a
new audience (sci.skeptic) that has not previously heard his garbage, as
if he thought he could find new dupes to fool over here.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:40:46 GMT

cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>Just to clear things up, as I understand it Antti is not a biologist,
>he's a birdwatcher. He compares himself to Darwin and calls himself a
>"field biologist".
	
	No, you don't understand. I'm a biologist, but I major at ornithology, 
	partly because I don't have so much time for other biology. 

	Darwin was a field biologist, I am too. I respect him as a colleague.
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:32:26 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)

In article <BtK2G0.F8G@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>Are you ignoring, or have you never heard, "Kill them all, God will know his
>own" which was uttered in a European religious war that vastly predates Darwin?

This is widely stated, but there is no evidence for it.  It was attributed
to ????--sorry, I don't remember his name--who was a leader in the persecu-
tions against the Abigensians about a century after the fact.

His actions spoke louder than the quotation, though.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Blind Watchmaker program
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:01:09 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

I'm just through the first half of Richard Dawkins' _The Blind Watchmaker_, and
I was wondering if anyone had any further information on a comment Dawkins makes
on pages 62-63 of Chapter 3, "Accumulating small change."  He expresses the hope
that a computer program might be developed to simulate evolution with evolving
biomorphs trying to survive with predators, prey, and parasites.  He also dis-
cusses a program that would show the mutual evolution of insects and flowers.

Does anyone know whether he's already undertaken the "flower" program or if some
industrious programmer has attempted the "hostile environment" program?  The 
latter would be a tremendous undertaking but results from either would be highly
interesting.


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:05:51 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Sep2.170957.11021@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>Her name is Lynn Margulis.
>
>	Thank you. And she is majoring at ...

She is one of the most famous evolutionary biologists living(*). I thought
you said you knew something about evolution? It would be almost im-
possible to have any knowledge of it (or biology in general) and not
know who she is.

(*) author of the theory of endosymbiosis

>>In any case, big deal -- it's still speciation.
>
>	Hmmm... I would appreciate if I would know more about this particular
>	case and what tests have been made. 

Then go to your library.

PS You still haven't coughed up the reference to animals forming
tetraploid offspring, or explained it's relevence to the case
of _Tragopogon_ (two cases of allopolyploid speciation observed).
The latter is the most important aspect, but lets see the reference
for good measure.

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: winner@cua.edu
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:02:35 GMT

In article <2886@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <BtpK05.FD8@cs.dal.ca*, hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:
> * 	Or to phrase it as Darwin himself did:
> * 	"After life had been breathed by the Creator into a few
> * 	forms or one...."
> * 	(origins, last page, quoted from memory but I'm sure the substance
> * 	is accurate).
> * 	So Darwin, at least, did not see an evident contradiction
> * 	between evolution and god.  And though his own beliefs "evolved"
> * 	towards atheism/agnosticism in later life, he never claimed
> * 	that such a contradiction existed.
> * 	Amazing that a single quote from Darwin answers both Mr. Nelson
> * 	and Mr. Larsen.
> * 						Bill Hyde
> That's a real slick answer there, Hyde.  So basically God figures "Gee,
> I'm probably bright enough to create a single-celled organism but I wouldn't
> have the talent to create anything higher than that, so I'll create the
> one-celled organism and let evolution take care of the rest..."
> You should start a new religion with that as the core idea.  There might
> even be money in it.
> Ted Holden
> HTE

Ted, I cannot even begin to see how your read your quote into the meaning
of Bill's message.  It is an incredible leap even for you (and that is saying
something).

Claims that some people make (and I'm not sure Bill was making the claim
himself) that God started the ball rolling and let it go from there is not 
the same as saying that God wasn't capable of doing it all.  As a matter of
fact, such claims (which, by the way, are not part of science) are ususally
expressed as a beleif that this view of nature shows God's power and abilities
better than the simple view that God created everything in one fell swoop.

Please try to limit how far you distort your quotes.

-Jim Winner

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:28:24 GMT

In article <2888@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>* What was his doctorate in again?
>
>Psychiatry, under one of Freud's top students.  In those days, you still had
>well-rounded and multi-faceted people in academia.  My understanding is that
>Velikovsky and Albert Einstein used to sort of run the Prussian Scientific

What psychology papers did Einstein publish?

>Academy...  The only way I can picture Carl Sagan, Harlow Shapeley, or a 
>number of Velikovsky's other prominent critics getting INTO the Prussian
>Scientific Academy would be through the servants' entrance as janitors.

This is rediculous.

>The sauropods were graviportal, as are elephants now.  Their entire physiology
>was designed to support weight.  The legs went straight up and down.  Any bend
>in the knees of the sort which allows birds to sleep the way they do would
>cause the creature to collapse.

Why were they graviportal?  Did they survive the planet being ripped
from one orbit and shifted into this orbit?  If so, what are some of the
current examples of sauropods?  Why would they have been designed from
way back to support weight and other animals not?

>Ted Holden

Just curious,

-- 

Frank Doss 
The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions,
attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affilliated organizations.