HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Arkathon
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:22:28 GMT

In article <n0abat@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> Tag: callen roy (allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy))
>  
> CR> "Noah's Ark. Did it exist? Does it still exist?"
>  
> No, and No.

  Well, now hold on.  Certainly an Ark which contained all species of animals in
the world, which survived a world-wide flood has never existed.  However, most
stories, such as that of Noah's ark, are usually based on some fact.  I don't
think anybody would be too suprised if there really was an ark that survived a
_local_ flood on which the story is based.

  Of course, it would be really suprising if such an ark survives. Even wood
preserved for shorter times in highly arid areas tends to wind up as
unrecognizable lumps.  If Noah's ark ever existed, it has most certainly become
plant food long since.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:05:47 CDT

Antti Siivonen (asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi) wrote:
: 
: 	No - and that is the biggest problem we have with evolution. I follow
: 	the universal rule that Great Dane and Chihuahua are only races of 
: 	dogs, were there intermediate races or not. 

I wonder if* one of these experienced TAE scientists were to come across
a Great Dane, a Chihuahua, and let's throw in a one of them floppy all-
skin Chinese dogs (Shihtzu? - whatever!), and have this brilliant
naturalist tell us just what process they would use to determine that
these three disparate creatures were all members of the same species.

I mean, the only reason I know it, is because somebody told me.  I don't
think it is sufficient to say that you can just look at them and say
they are the same species.  I don't see how, if one had never seen
a dog before, you could say that all three are simply descended from
one kind, one single pair of animals, ~4000 years ago.  If these three
creatures were discovered in three separate geographical locations,
what, other that established evolutionary methodologies, would a TAE
use to determine they were related?  Not morphology.  There are many
different species of birds that look very much more alike.
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com


* (I don't actually wonder.  That is just rhetoric.  I already know the
   answer to the question.  And that is, they would say something stupid
   or non-sequitor, and hope nobody noticed.  I am astounded that AS
   is willing to parade such profound ignorance in public.  I think
   that most real thoughts inside his head must be quite lonely.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Teemu Makinen
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Organization: Finnish Academic and Research Network Project - FUNET
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 10:53:51 GMT

There has been a lot of discussion and doubt about the amount of how closely
the algorithm Dawkin used decribes the natural selection. Why not use a better
one? I would recommend algorithms like Metropolis or Heat bath, which are even
philosophically very close to the process evolution is said to use. Having a
proper type of potential operator who knows what will evolve? Go on anybody who
has some spare time.

Teemu Makinen -- teemu.makinen@fmi.fi
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:40:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.020510.19489@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG
(Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.121140.24899@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
>>All it shows is that different forms of life appear in the
>>fossil record at different _layers_!

   Yeah.  The layers themselves contain no information.  Hee hee.  
Murfle!  Bwa, ha ha ha hahahahaHaHaHaHAHAHAskkkkkkktttt.  Stop it,
*wheeze* I can't stand it. #chough#.  

>>As to the interpretation of that, evo's say its because of
>>evo, but an equally if not more valid interpretation is that
>>of hydrological sorting in the flood.

   Aw, comeon, I asked you to stop it.  The clear standard of validity here
is agreement with your braindamaged beliefs.  If you repeat a joke too
often it stops being funny.
 
> Are creationists willing to put this to the test? Construct a large pool
> containing models of all the creatures found in the layers, churn the
> water and see if they all settle out in the right order...
> 
> If its "creation science" then its time to start testing some of its
> theories in the lab...

   This could get quite complicated; some of the models (the "right ones") have
to be able to run uphill as the water is added, inclding a few plants.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:00:28 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Sep28.121140.24899@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>
> All it shows is that different forms of life appear in the
> fossil record at different _layers_!
>
> As to the interpretation of that, evo's say its because of
> evo, but an equally if not more valid interpretation is that
> of hydrological sorting in the flood.

Put your money where your mouth is, Mr Tun.   Explain the fossil 
record using hydraulic sorting, and answer the questions people
put to you as you do so.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:45:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.121140.24899@city.cs> 
  lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.154335.4430@aurora.com> 
>  isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>>In article <19920924.141504.179@almaden.ibm.com> 
>>  mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>>>I ask again for observations of macro-evolution happening.
>>
>>The fossil record (even as assembled by 19th-century
>>Creationists, not to mention the much more extensive work
>>that has been done since then) clearly shows that different
>>forms of life appeared at different times.  Change
>>unquestionably occurred; the only question is how.
>
>All it shows is that different forms of life appear in the
>fossil record at different _layers_!

But if there are tiny changes in the life between each of the
layers, doesn't it seem at least *possible* that evolution occurred?

>As to the interpretation of that, evo's say its because of
>evo, but an equally if not more valid interpretation is that
>of hydrological sorting in the flood.

Just because you like an idea more doesn't make it equally valid.
No one has yet managed to explain how hydrological sorting *works*.
Would you like to be the first?

If hydrological sorting is the answer, then why don't human fossils
show up in rocks that are millions of years old?  Surely there were
some old and arthritic humans who couldn't escape the water?  Why
do plants appear throughout the fossil record?  Why do birds appear
lower in the record than some other animals (surely a bird would have
as good a chance as anything of escaping)?  Please explain how a 
catastrophic flood could lay down such neat layers of sediment.  Please
explain why the radioactive dating methods used agree with the numbers
that the geologists had before radioactivity was even discovered and
totally disagree with your time scale.

>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)

C Frog
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Why Fossils Cannot be Used as Evidence for Evolution
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:02:13 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link



m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>} Perhaps I am
>}"ignorant" with respect to evolution because the theories change to
>}fit the changing data.

>Science does that. Perhaps you should review the scientific method.
>Science changes - religions don't.  Well, really religions do but they
>don`t (apparently) like to admit it.  The change is part and parcel of
>what _IS_ science.

Creationists apparently think that if they can show that evolutionary
science varies over time, and therefore is not absolute that it is somehow
lacking.  Quite the contrary however, it is this very aspect of science
that is its strength, its ability to self-correct and adapt to new
evidence.  In fact, that creationism cannot do these things is one of the
main reasons it is not scientific.  Now that the ICR seems wont to consider
science as TRUTH (capitalization theirs), they couldn't be making it more
clear that their understanding of science is completely confused by their
understanding of religion and truth.

Keith
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: A brief tirade
Date: 25 Sep 92  00:46:00 EST

-> he couldn't be bothered to read it)? Ever seen Bales come up with the
-> answer to the question I've been asking him for three years (HEY BOB,
-> WHAT'S THE THEORY OF CREATIONISM?).

Or another question I have never gotten any response to -

"If God created Adam and then Eve and they had (among others) two kids named Cain and Abel, and Cain slew Abel and was kicked out of town whereupon he found himself a wife and married her, who the hell did he marry???"

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation! NOT!!
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:35:45 GMT

   Okay, I'm a fool.  He WAS joking. (Wiping egg from face, 
looking embarrased).

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: Jeff.Otto@p32.f32.n154.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Usenet news
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 26 Sep 92  09:47:24

 Uu> It is (IMHO) ridiculous to put humans in a separate family when we are
 Uu> more genetically similar to chimps than many sister species are to
 Uu> each other. Pongids are (in the current classification) a paraphyletic
 Uu> clade; e.g. species derived from others within the clade are excluded.

 Uu> orangutan    gorilla        chimp   human
 Uu> |          |               |       |
 Uu>   \                \               \   /
 Uu>       \               \              |
 Uu>           \              \         /
 Uu>               \             \  /
 Uu>                  \           |
 Uu>                      \    /
 Uu>                         |

 Uu> To me it doesn't make sense to have a group consisting of gorillas
 Uu> and chimps, but not humans. (The same could be said for reptiles
 Uu> and fish, incidentally -- these groups are also paraphyletic.)

 Uu> Chris Colby     ---     email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu    ---
 Uu> "'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
 Uu> resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 Uu>     --Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"


I don't know if this will get routed back properly, but I hope so.  The
message above you claim that chimps are more closely related to humans
than to gorillas.  For the sake of curiosity, by what means was this
finally demonstrated?  From my recollections, there seemed to be
some confusion over the ape, chimp, human ancestrey.  I believe that
molecular comparisons of the repeating pattern of Involucrin, were in
agreement with your statment.  On the other hand molecular analysises of
other genes suggested a different lineage.  I am completely ignorant of
the phlyogenetic predictions made by non molecular means.

Jeff

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation!
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:26:30 GMT


   Could someone explain to me why you need least squares to fit a line
through two points?  If the points are (a,b) and (c,d) then

                      (y-b)=(d-b)/(c-a)*(x-a)

right?  Then you do some algebra...

This has GOT to be a joke.  If it is, I withdraw the previous flame :).

Dan Ashlock
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa,
50011

Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:07:01 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

>absurd:-   General Assumption: The Bible Is Absolutely true;
>           1st Step: I think that the absence of Archaeological evidence for
>                     some of the historical places/people/events means the
>                     Bible is NOT absolutely true.
>           New Theory: I think the Bible is a composite of Tribal stories
>                      (Wellhausen's Redactors hypothesis)
>           Result: New General Assumption: The Bible is not Asolutely
>                                           Trustworthy

    

>           2nd Step: I discover the absent Archaeological evidence.

prove it.


>           Logical Result: Return to the original Assumption, since the basis
>                           for rejecting it was in error.
>           Illogical Result: Retain the NEW Assumption - inspite of the fact
>                             that it is based on an incorrect assumption - just
>                             adjust the New Theory to accomodate new data.
>
>Guess what the General Assumption is Today!
>Illogical? or not?
>Gary
>
There are tons of geological evidence that genesis is wrong. I wont even bother
presenting them here since this newsgroup are full of well-written articles on
the subject. Read them. 


Onar.
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:55:09 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <714@oscar.UUCP> shouse@oscar.UUCP (claude shouse) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.121140.24899@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>> 
>> All it shows is that different forms of life appear in the
>> fossil record at different _layers_!
>> 
>> As to the interpretation of that, evo's say its because of
>> evo, but an equally if not more valid interpretation is that
>> of hydrological sorting in the flood.
>> 
>> --
>> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
>
>Hydrological sorting.  OK Lionel, I'll buy that if you can tell me
>two things:  1.  Where did all the water come from.  and  2.  Where
>did it go.  Remember, no miracles.  This is science not belief.

1. The water came from the water vapour canopy around the earth.
2. The water ended up in the oceans.

This also explains why lifespans became shorter after the flood,
because of the cosmic rays getting through and causing ageing.
I can supply details of lifespans if you wish.

>Claude Shouse

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:43:30 GMT

isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>I propose a more basic quiz for Antti:  Accurately state the
>theory of evolution by natural selection.  Briefly describe
>at least four independent lines of evidence which support it.
          --------------------------------------------------- 


	Ha ha ! How can I answer such question, when I claim that there are 
	no supporting lines of evidence at all !
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: evolution and natural selection
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:47:40 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

> From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
> Subject: evolution and natural selection
> Date: 30 Sep 92 21:44:44 GMT
> 
> >|> >The moths are an example of natural selection, NOT of evolution. 
> 
> evolution: a change in the gene pool of a population over time
> (or, more narrowly,a change in allele frequency)

Since neither Darwin or Wallace knew anything about genes or alleles, I will
admit to a certain discomfort with this definition. It seems to me that the
core of evolution is common ancestry. 

> natural selection: differential reproductive success of (pre-existing)
> genotypes in a population

Similarly, natural selection would be a fairly useless concept if which
genotypes showed greater reproductive success was random. Why not define it
as "(pre-existing) genotypes which are more fit (in an objective,
engineering sense) increase in frequency in a population."

> fitness: average reproductive success of a genotype in a population
> (usually expressed relative to the most fit genotype in the population
> which is arbitrarily assigned a fitness of one.)

This is how population genetic defines the term, and it is vulnerable to the
creationist criticism of circularity.

> When fitness differences exist, natural selection can cause a change
> in allele frequencies (evolution). 

I.e. by plug-and-chug of the above definitions, "When differences in average
reproductive success of the genotypes in a population exist, differential
reproductive success leads to a change in genotype frequencies in the
population." I don't mean to be nasty, Chris, but BFD.

Karl
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: antti's file of "nonr
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:39:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep28.190752.19908@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> Ken.Stuckas@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Stuckas) writes:
> >I am an aero engineer (Purdue '69).  I loved the last book I read best. It is a recent biography of Darwin from the point of view of a psychiatrist, John Bowlby, who died shortly after finishing the book at the age of eighty-something.
 
> 	I don't consider shrinks as scientists. 
Justify this statement logically, thanks.

 > 	Perhaps you don't actually know what Genesis teaches. Young earth is 
> 	rubbish. 

Same with six-day creation then as well, I guess.

Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel   IMPORTANT !
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:47:28 GMT
	<BRUCE.92Sep30153607@suprenum.supr.scm.liv.ac.uk>
	<1992Oct1.134258.23953@cs.joensuu.fi>
	<1992Oct02.201320.124421@zeus.calpoly.edu>
	<1992Oct5.173157.4527@cs.joensuu.fi>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 5 Oct 92 17:31:57 GMT, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) said:

> 	[...] Also he said that when creationists were asked how
> 	God has born, they asked that it has always been. In the same way 
> 	Dawkins said that he can make a claim life has always existed. 

You're misunderstanding what he meant.  It is common for Creationists
to argue that living things are obviously designed, and that they
could not have come about except by the intervention of a rational
being: God.

When non-Creationists ask the obvious question, "Well, who designed
God then?", the standard answer seems to be that God has always been
there, and needs no explanation.  Dawkins is simply saying that one
*could* argue that life has always been there, and that this would be
just as valid a position.  (Neither position is particularly valid,
but the important thing is that the second is as reasonable as the
first.)

But as far as I'm aware nobody actually believes that life has always
been here, and certainly Dawkins doesn't.  

> 	Dawkins himself claims that evolutionism is a religion. 

No he doesn't.  And anyway, you're confusing abiogenesis with
evolution again.

--
Bruce Stephens
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 05:53:43 GMT

In article <58@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1186@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>
>*Oh by the way Ted, I have thoght of one very solid reason why such large
>*animals have not re-evolved.  The plant ecology of the world has changed.
>*When sauropods wheree the most common, and the largest, the dominant plants
>*were 'confers', seed ferns and cycads, *no* flowering plants at all.
>*
>*Thus, it may well be that angiosperms (the scientific name for flowering
>*plants) are not suited to supporting such lrge critters.
>
>There's an easy way to test it out:  try living on pine cones for about
>a month or two.  I'll stick to the apples and pears, myself...

Where is Euell Gibbons when we need him?

Trygve   (Would Grape Nuts be an acceptable substitute for this experiment?)
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Goodbye t.o -I'm interested in evolution not ideology
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:31:29 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Sep24.041302.25282@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> John Wilkins <john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au> writes:
}When I discovered t.o, I thought "how wonderful, people discussing one of
}my favourite topics, the theory of evolution. I think over the last year
}or so, I've read about a dozen articles on the topic. The rest have been
}on "creation science". Perhaps this group should be renamed
}"talk.creationism", and another set up for "talk.evolution"? At least
}then the ICR partisans would be openly dishonest if they invaded t.e.
}Food for thought :-)

No problem.  Set up your kill file to delete any message with the contents
"Annti", "bible", "genesis","bales","flood","god","created","creationism",
"Holden", and a few others.  ZAP, gone.  Simple!
Newsgroups: talk.origins