HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:17:45 CDT

Chuck Maier:
: 
: Here's the problem:  I have met at least four people in this city alone
: who claim to be Christians (and they may be), yet they are living in
: SIN (unmarried and cohabiting with the opposite sex).

Chuck, can you answer a simple question for me?

What is marriage?  What is the constituent of a marriage, the 
essential ingredient that separates a "married" couple from one
that, as you so quaintly put, are living in "SIN"?

I don't think the question is as simple as it seems.

rob derrick
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Noah's ark incompatible...with Noah's ark?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:18:45 GMT

In article <Bs13G8.3z1@well.sf.ca.us>, keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
writes:
> Warren Vonroeschlaub writes:
> >My point was simply that to show something is "internally inconsistant" one
> >must show there is ABSOLUTELY no set of circumstances under which it could
> >be true (show it is an anti-tautology).
> 
> I don't have a particular problem with this concept, but where I do have a
> problem is when people claim that the Bible's "message is clear".  The
> issues brought up here with regards to possible inconsistencies vs possible
> consistencies of various Bible passages, to me, is a basic indication that
> the messages are far from clear, despite claims to the contrary.

  I agree wholhatedly.  The Bible is clear in places, but there are plenty of
spots where it is opaque as lead.  Taking it as literal may be an attempt to
force the Bible to be clear, but as this entire newsgroup lives to show, it
doesn't work.

> And the reason it seems like the issue is basic, it distills down to the
> fact that Christianity claims that if you cannot read Gods mind, you are
> punished.

  I've never heard that one.  I used to joke back in college that my spiritual
gift was mis-interpreting scripture.  (As it turns out, after a bit of
background study I found I was quite proficient at the opposite).

>  In other words, if based on the Bible you are unable to come to
> the "correct" conclusions and therefore believe the party line (that Jesus
> is the savior) you won't be saved.

  Sure that's part of Christianity, but it has been part of it from the earliest
church records.  To say it isn't is to claim to have the "right" meaning from
the Bible, as it denies what has been generally accepted since the NT was
written.

[deleted complaints about Christian authority]
> There seems to be this pretense that they all have consensus on these
> issues, yet you don't have to look very hard to discover that it just
> ain't true.

  There are four basic principles of Christianity.  All the rest is up for
debate.  If someone tells you you must believe something outside them to be a
Christian, they are wrong.  (This again, is something passed down from the early
church, not my own opinion)

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:59:22 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: T. Rex, categories of evidence etc.


This bboard beats rec.humor.funny by a huge margin !

-arun gupta
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: paulg@col.hp.com (Paul Goble)
Subject: Wanted: bibliography for Paluxy footprints/ICR
Summary: How did ICR respond to the evidence?
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:26:07 GMT
Expires: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:00:00 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Keywords: Paluxy, bibliography, request, ICR
Followup-To: talk.origins

Here's your chance to sway an almost-neutral person to admire or despise
the famed ICR!

I'm compiling a bibliography about the Paluxy "giant footprints" *and*
how the Institute for Creation Research responded to scientific evidence
about the footprints.

I'm interested in:

  - Old examples of ICR statements about the footprints 
  - Transcripts of ICR broadcasts and films (e.g., the "Footprints" film)
  - Articles discussing the debunking of the footprints
  - Interviews with ICR people showing their response to the debunking
  - Examples of ICR or other creationist references to the footprints
      after the debunking


I'd also welcome references, opinions, and information about:

  - Photographs taken by Clifford Burdick which show clearly human
      footprints.  Were they a blatant fraud?

  - Other footprints which Morris et al have claimed to exist:  What
      are the "similar giant footprints ...  in Arizona, California, New
      Mexico, and other places"?


I'm mostly interested in *references* rather than net.interpretations of
the references.

If some of this has been posted recently, please save bandwidth and use
email rather than posting.  If there's interest, I'll summarize in a few
weeks.

                    --------======= * =======--------
                                Paul Goble
                             paulg@col.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Elaphants CAN'T gallop, ddamn it!!!  Nor mammoths!!!
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:49:53 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <2840@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|In article <712176600.10135@zooid.guild.org*, gecko@zooid.guild.org (GECKO) writes:
|*       A photograph?  Of a mammoth?  I don't believe it! 
|*  ....
|
|This is about the 20'th challenge I've seen on this one, and I figure a
|response is entirely justified.
|
|I intend to put this image out shortly on t.o as a uuencoded .gif image.

You still do not understand!  A *drawing* of a mammoth, even by someone
closely familiar with them proves *nothing*.  It requires a *photograph*,
or at least a preserved trackway showing a stride lenghth exceeding leg
span.

Drawings are *subjective*.  They do not necessarily represent anything
except the painter's point of view about something.

Yes, I believe that the cave drawing *looks* like it is galloping,
I will take you word on that.  What I, and others, challenge is the
*significance* of the drawing.

We maintain that it proves NADA!

[Introduction of this evidence is objected to on the grounds that it
is not the best evidence, and that it is incompetent, and immaterial].

[Objection sustained, the jury will please disregard this evidence].
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:17:48 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Jul27.215932.1953@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
> From article <1992Jul23.115606.202088@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, by fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za:
>> As a born-again Christian, I subscribe to the theory of a young earth
>>  (6000 to 10000 years old).
>> 
>> Does anyone have scientific evidence to support this?
>> (Stuff on dating methods, dynamic vs. atomic time, etc.)
>> Please e-mail or post.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Anthony Faull.
> 
> Try the Bible, starting from Genesis 1:1.  There are, apparently,
> many people who believe that the Bible contains the ultimate truth
> that transcend human knowledge, reasoning, or scientific evidence.  

You are describing a 'belief'.  This is not evidence.

> Since so many people from all over the world are turning to the 
> Bible to seek the truth, the book has been published in hundreds
> of translations.  Some people say that a mathematical computation
> of numbers from the Bible indicates that the earth was created 
> 6000 years ago or so.  Since this time frame just happens to 
> coincide with the above mentioned theory, the Bible would be the 
> right place to look for supporting arguments.  If you have any 
> questions, keep reading the Bible, or else, re-examine how firmly
> you believe in the Bible.
> 

Please explain how the Bible fits the scientific requirement of evidence.

Sue

> Young Huh
> yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Clarence Darrow Quote
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:55:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul28.161005.27623@scic.intel.com>, sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes...
>Some time ago, there was a discussion here about a quote supposedly made
>by Darrow during the Scopes trial that indicated he believed in "balanced
>treatment" of evolution and creation in the schools.  Does anyone have more
>info on this?  I remember the quote turning out to have been fabricated,
>if I recall correctly.  Thanks in advance!

Tom McIver's "Creationist Misquotation of Darrow" in the 23rd issue of
_Creation/Evolution_ (1988) covers this, but unfortunately I don't have
that issue.  The quote in question was "It is bigotry for public schools
to teach only one theory of origins," and was published in a 1978 article
by Wendell Bird in the _Yale Law Review_.  This quote was bogus, and
has apparently been admitted as such by Bird (I'm not sure where he got
it) and by Norman Geisler (in "Was Clarence Darrow a Bigot?" _C/E_ no.
25, 1989, which I *do* have and from which I'm getting this information).

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: speciation
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:28:44 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <92161@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|In article <712301716.1@iphase.FidoNet.Org> Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas) writes:
|
|	The apple maggot fly _Rhagoletis pomenella_ is living under
|conditions today that, if they continue, should lead to speciation.
|One race of the fly splintered off from the original host plant 
|(Hawthorn trees) and now infests apple trees. There are significant
|allele freqeuncy differences at six (linked) loci between the two races
|and they do not interbreed in the wild (although they can be forced to 
|mate in the lab and progeny are viable).

Actually, if they can only be induced to interbreed in the laboratory,
I would say they are *already* different species.  Sterility is not the
requirement, just lack of net introgression.


-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:48:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.010012.154199@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>
>My Responce to Henley's Thermo: Part 1
>
>First off, his main premise seems to be to confuse everyone by
>redefining what a "closed system" is.  Of course the 2nd Law of Thermo
>uses the term "isolated system" but many people use the term "closed
>system" as a synomyn.  With this in mind, he doesn't make much of any
>point at all.


I am going to address this point now, even though I will cover it in detail
later.  I was confused about why everyone kept saying that an open system
was an isolated system.  Maybe only engineers make the distinction.  So
I got out my Physical Chemistry textbook and looked it up to see how Chemists
define a closed system.  This is what I found:

  "An isolated system is one that does not interact in any way with its
   surroundings.  Changes in the surroundings cannot result in any changes
   in the isolated system.  Neither matter nor energy can pass across the
   boundaries of on isolated system.  Systems that are completely isolated
   from the rest of the universe do not really exist, but as limiting
   concepts they are often used in thermodynamic discussions."

  "A closed system is one in which there is no transfer of matter across the
   boundaries between system and surroundings.  The mass of a closed system
   remains constant.  Note that a closed system can still interact with its
   surroundings in many other ways, for example by compression or expansion,
   by transfers of energy.  *A CLOSED SYSTEM IS BY NO MEANS ISOLATED*."

_Basic_Physical_Chemistry_, Walter J. Moore, Prentice Hall, 1983, page 7.

Now I have found the same definition of closed and isolated systems in
every thermodynamics book that I have looked at, and also in a Physical
Chemistry Book.  For the life of me I cannot figure out how I can be accused
of redefining the meanings.  It appears to me that some other people around
here are doing the redefining, not me.

>Second, his writing style here unclear and confusing in general.
>His FAQ reads like many bad lectures I've had where you have no idea
>that the instructor is talking about, and you have no idea where the
>things he's talking about are coming from.  He makes statements
>without backing them up and throws out terms without explaining them.

This is rich, really rich.  So far, I have only seen one other reference
mentioned, and *IT DID NOT CONTRADICT WHAT I SAID*.  Yet I have seen
many statements by members of t.o that contratradicted what I said, and
none of them are backed up by references.  I thought it was only creationists
that did that kind of thing.

>
>|======================================================================|
>| Seth Kroger                                                          |
>| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu                                              |
>| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo                                            |


James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept
Auburn University
From: gecko@zooid.guild.org (GECKO)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: T. Rex & Triceratops
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:31:36 GMT

 
  Ted Holden writes: 
 
% I doubt the carnivores, which appear to have been bird-like, at least 
% morphologically, were brighter than the sauropods, which appear to have 
% been either mammals, or mammal-like. 
 
      Gadzooks!  Dinosaurs is dinosaurs :-).  Some were birdish, 
      others were mammal-like, but none were mammals! 
 
                                  - GECKO 
 
gecko@zooid.guild.org
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:12:22 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1992Jul27.124856.4423@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.192158.5801@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>:Let's put this into a different perspective.  The way I treat my wife is
>>:with honor and respect.  Why?  Because that is what the Bible tells me
>>:to do.  I submit, that's right, submit to my wife.  Why?  Because that's
>>:what the Bible tells me to do.  I serve my wife, I mean like a servant.
>>:Why?  Because that's what the Bible tells me to do.  
>>
>>	Is servility all that you can understand?
>>
>>	What about cooperation?
>
>I don't think servility and cooperation are mutually exclusive.
>Do you have an objection to husbands respecting, honouring and
>_serving_ their wives?

The point is, does the Bible say that husbands should respect,
honour and _serve_ their wives; why does the Bible make a sex-
distinction; why not say: that people should respect, honour
and _serve_ people with whom they are in a relationship, 
regardless of sex.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:52:55 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:

>I am posting a series of FAQs on Thermodynamics.
>The following references will be cited: [...]

Be sure and cite the work of Ilye Prigogine, who won the nobel
prize in chemistry in 1977 for proving our chief point against
the creationists: That all that is required to create order
in a non-equilibrium system is an influx of energy.

Thanks,
	Max


>James P. Henley Jr.
>Chemical Engineering Dept.
>Auburn University

-- 
mongo@techbook.COM          ATT: 1-503-227-1284
SNAIL: 1983 nw Flanders #205, Portland OR 97209
Xref: sparky talk.origins:8878 talk.religion.misc:12965
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Flat Earth Error
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:49:12 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

In article <l7bj9aINNd8@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

   Very interesting bit. I think this goes along with other myths
   that the dominant culture feeds its young: Paul Revere making
   the ride, George Washington being the first president, the U.S.
   as benevolent Papa in South America, etcetera.

What's weird here is the peculiar nature that all these three "myths"
bear: they are completely different.  The first was popularized in a
poem, "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere".  From an early age I was
told the actual story, and also the legend.  The legend is more
interesting, and there's no poem about the real story, but the people
on the Freedom Trail here in Boston will tell you the true story.
There isn't, nor has there ever been, serious doubt about what
happened.  

George Washington, of course, *was* the first US President.

Whether the US has been a "benevolent Papa" in South America is, of
course, highly debateable.  I think, generally, the answer is no, but
this is a live political issue.

To take then three "myths", one of which nobody's ever seriously
thought to be any thing but, one of which is actually true, and one of
which is a live, debated, political issue, and say that something
"goes along" with them in some fashion is ludicrous.  These three have
nothing in common.  How could anything "go along" with them?

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What they never told you about gyroscopes...
Summary: well, actually, they *did* tell me about that...
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:31:13 GMT

> From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
> Message-ID: <1992Jul22.235136.14326@uwm.edu>
> Actually, a spinning gyroscope will not keep a steady axis when it's
> set in rotation about the Earth.  The axis will tend to rotate somewhat
> (just a little bit) in the manner Ted is speaking of.

Uh... no, not really.  First, a perfectly spherical spinning object of
uniform density, orbiting another such object, *would* keep a steady
axis.  It is asymetries (eg: tidal or spin bulges) that exert torques
between an orbiting object and its primary.

Second, the axis won't tend to "rotate", it'll tend to "precess", which
isn't quite the same thing.  The standard gyroscope trick that has the
axis of rotation stay (roughly) within a plane requires a constant
torque that "follows" the gyroscope around.

Third (to extend the second point) a constant precession of the kind
Ted requires would require a torque from some effect that has never
been observed, since all the asymetries of the situation are aligned
towards the primary.  It is therefore misleading to say that a
gyroscope orbiting the earth would precess "in the manner
Ted is speaking of".

And finally, coupling such a torque magnetically to the earth's
core would necessarily involve some friction between core, mantle,
and crust, and thus involve an energy release, very likely enough
to shred the planet.  Similarly with a tidal coupling to asymetrical
mass distribution.

So.  To make this work as Ted requires involves some mysterious effect
that couples a torque to the earth evenly (definitely not
electromagnetically), and in exact and precise synchrony with the
orbit.  Very untenable proposal.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Giraffes and HN
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:20:45 GMT

In article <2834@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <BruKtp.InH@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael
R James) writes:
> > Has anyone looked at the HN for giraffes.
> 
> Around 13 or so.  No problem.  The problem Giraffes have is geting blood
> to their brains.  A giraffe's blood pressure would blow anything else's
> cardiovascular system apart.  

  Ted, this is the second time you have said this.  I will repeat: Girraffes
have muscles lining the arteries in their neck to pump blood (sort of a
distributed heart).  Their blood pressure, while high, is not _that_ high.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Levels of Evolution
Date: 21 Jul 92 04:00:58 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul20.081608@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
|> 	Therefore, we must state if we are talking about genetic
|> evolution (which must be the basis for all generational evolution)
|
|   "generational"?

I know this is not exactly standard terminology, but Ernst Mayr does
use it, in one of his essays, to clarify what Darwin meant by 'gradual',
in opposition to the 'organismic' forms of evolution proposed by Lamarck
and the mutationists (for example Goldschmidt).
 
That is Mayr was stressing that in Darwin's (and in our modern) theory
of evolution, all changes take place *between* generations, while in
Lamarck's theory they take place *within* *single* individuals.

Now whether this is what was meant in the preceding quote, I don't know.

|> If you follow
|> evolutional theory in the journals you would know that there is  A
|> LOT of politics involved and you should never take things as TRUTH
|> if the "scientist" says so.
|
| *sigh*  This sounds like obfuscation.  None of us do this as far as I know. 
|The rationalists are under an absolute obligation to question and the
|creationists largely don't trust scientists.  To whom was this remark
|addressed? In any case the fact of evolution has no "politics" involved. 
|Science, on the other hand always is shot through with politics.  The
|incomplete and growing theory of evolution is touched by this.

As are every other branch and segment of science.

This is called 'human ego', it happens all the time.

This is why the scientific method was designed to emphasize independent
verification of results.  This tends to *minimize* (not eliminate)
the *long* *term* effects of this political infighting.

So, yes Dan, this is obfuscation.  It is essentially a disguised version
of the ad hominem attack.  "Scientists are not perfect, so thier
conclusions are worthless" - bah!  This is simply *irrelevant*, *immaterial*,
and *incompetent* (in judicial terminology).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins