HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Hoof-in-Holden Disease
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:57:58 GMT

In article <2837@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <n05e6t@ofa123.fidonet.org*, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> * 2) "Where did this radiation go?"
> 
> I've answered this before also.  What the fuck do you mean, "where did
> this radiation go"?

  He means where has the enegry from the radiation gone.  The energy must have
been absorbed by the Earth, and there hasn't been enough time for it to have
re-emitted yet.

>  Whee does light from a light bulb go after you turn
> the light off?

  Lets see: It is absorbed by the walls, then re-emitted several times at a
lower frequency in a random direction.  Some returns to the walls, some passes
through the walls, and some is absorbed by the air (and then re-emitted.  Since
the walls of the room are (I assume) made from elements that do not absorb
energy at high rates the whole process takes at most a few seconds. 
theoretically though, some light from last week may still be bouncing about your
room, too faint to see.

>  Where has your youth gone?  

  Decay of organs is caused by a buildup of "junk" in the cells.  Sorry, don't
know enough biology to be more specific.

> That has to be the single stupidest question I've ever seen on usenet,

  Yours or his?

> in any group on usenet.  Other than t.o, I keep track occasionally of one
> or two of the political talk groups, two of the language groups (Ada and C++)
> several of the programming groups, DOS, Windows, one or two of the AI 
> groups...  I've never seen a question that STUPID elsewhere.

  Go to alt.tv.red-dwarf and ask what Vindaloo is.

***********************************************************************
* 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                             *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: oh rah...
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:54:32 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Jul27.155010.3311@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> In article <2840@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> }If you return this image to
> }me email, as an attempt at getting my sysadm pissed off, I will email you
> }a copy of the entire King James bible, all 4.7 MB worth.  We'll see whose
> }sysadm gets pissed off first.
> 
> Oh rah.  Didn't take Ted long to get around to the threats.
> 
> Tell you what.  I'll see your KJV, and raise you a ASCII Koran, Book of
> Mormon, Pearls of Great Price, and Doctrine & Covenants.  And throw in the
> talk.origins FAQ, evaluations of McDowell's joke, and a few k of the
> contradictions of the KJV, places where Yahweh directs or implements killing,
> and a few other things.

Since I can bet that NO ONE is interested in Ted's image, why don't we ALL
send it back to him.  I bet his sysadm would REALLY get pissed off!  And maybe
even enough to yank Ted's account.  Wouldn't that be nice?

BTW, Ted, my sysadm is hooked on my home-made scones.  I get just about
anything I want, more space, all kinds of perks.   So, if you do send me
the entire King James bible, I'll just get her to personally call your 
sysadm and complain.

Sue


> 
> Isn't it about time for your homophobic physical threats?  Is McLean
> easier for you to find?
> 
> 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:03:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.160119.14708@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.013947.284@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
::Sexism

:Sexism is rather a fraught term. Sex identity would be better.

::(1 Peter
::3:1-7) Women should submit to their husbands and should look plain;
::they should call their husbands their masters, as Sarah had called
::Abraham.

:Submitting to husbands yes, but where do you get that wives should
:look plain? I think the passage does not tell wives to look plain,
:nor to call their husbands their masters.

	I get that bit from the original text, buster. If it does not
say that, then what _does_ it say?

	Now if you are going to interpret all that I posted from my
Biblical Satanic Verses away, then what excuse do you have for
insisting on the literal truth and historicity of the early chapters
of Genesis?

:Throughout your analysis you have left out the balancing bits eg.
:(1 Peter 3:7) "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to
:knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel,
:and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your
:prayers be not hindered."

	And it also states that masters should be nice to their
slaves, though slaves should obey their masters. Does that make
slavery a wonderful thing?

:Ie. husbands should honour their wives. Would you disagree with this
:command?

	I would not depend too much on King James (mis)translations.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Mr. Henley continues to ignore the issue of force
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:58:32 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <henley.920730115337@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>In article <92333@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>Allele frequency equilibrium would indeed mean no evolution.  But that would
>only be true if there were no driving forces.  What are the driving forces?
>How about environmental stresses?  That's what I would guess.

	No, the driving "forces" are mutation, recombination, gene
flow, genetic drift and selection. None of these are forces in the
sense of having the ability to do work. Had you read my FAQ file,
you might have had a grasp of the basics of the theory you are
trying to criticise. Also, do you think anyone here is so stupid
not to notice that you are trying to slide this whole argument by
on the grounds of a sliding definition of "force".

>Allele frequency steady state, however...
>
>If you don't know the difference, then you need to learn some thermo.

	I know the difference between a steady state and an equilibrium.
One of my undergraduate majors was chemistry. If you think a change in
allele frequencies is a thermodynamic process -- _you_ need to learn
some thermo. How long are you going to ignore this criticism? Are you
going to continue to maintain that "forces" change the gene pool with-
out providing support for this contention? Your whole argument is
riding on that point and you don't seem to understand the problem.
In addition, changes in allele frequencies have been observed. Its
kind of stupid to say "theoretically, this can't happen", when
something has been directly observed.
 
Of course, you haven't got around to explicitly saying the laws of 
thermo prevent evolution -- but if that isn't your thesis, what in
the hell is your point?

>James P. Henley Jr.

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: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: 6'th Category of flood evidence / the flood and evolution
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:42:17 GMT

Ted wrote:
>In all truth, I am not into racism;  my favorite poet (Pushkin) and
>
    [...]
>
>     pronounced a curse upon Ham in the person of his youngest
>     son Canaan.  To Ham himself he could do no harm, for God
>     had conferred a blessing upon Noah and his three sons as
>     they departed from the ark.  Therefore he put the curse
>     upon the last-born son of the son that had prevented him
>     from begetting a younger son than the three he had.  The
>     descendants of Ham through Canaan therefore have red
>     eyes, because Ham looked upon the nakedness of his
>     father;  they have misshapen lips, because Ham spoke with
>     his lips to his brothers about the unseemly condition of
>     his father;  they have twisted curly hair, because Ham
>     turned and twisted his head around to see the nakedness
>     of his father; and they go about naked, because Ham did
>     not cover the nakedness of his father."
>
>
Ted, you have outdone yourself this time.  I will, for charity sake, take
you word for it that you are not into racism.  But surely you realize that
the argument you have just given is used to promote racism.  In fact, the
only other people I have ever heard use that argument were using it to
justify blatent racism.  It is not supported by any serious theologians
that I know of, and I know quite a few.

I would have to say that this is more offensive to me personally than
anything else I have read on t.o, so I would ask you to please verify
your story from some independent, non-racist source.  I don't think that
it has any place in a public discussion.

>Afterwards, technology (our sort) lacking, slavery must have
>quickly evolved, and who better to make slaves of than the
>recipients of some kind of an outlandish (catastrophic
>evolution) curse?  Blacks therefore escaped, probably in all
>directions, and thrived and survived in areas in which they
>are found in historical times.

Slavery did not start as black and white.  It started as oppressors and
oppressed, sometimes all white, sometimes all black.  It only evolved into
a black and white situation, and only in recent history.  Your previous
argument was one of the justifications for white ownership of black slaves
in the United States, even though in the beginning there were white slaves
and yellow slaves, and black slave owners as well. The reason that slaves 
were predominantly black in the first place is that the slavers could easily 
obtain them from black slave owners in Africa.


James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Giraffes and HN
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:36:51 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

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.
> I just read an article that talked about the strength
> of the legs of rhinos ( it was New Scientist, I think)
> and the author brought up giraffes as an example of a large
> animal with thin legs.  What would happen if you applied HTE's
> equation to the giraffe?  Their weight is about 2500 lbs
> typically, and their  legs have a very small cross-section.
> 

And if giraffes fall they are very prone to severe injury.  Dr. Taylor
specifically discussed in one of his books the extreme problems he had
in tranquilizing giraffes due to dropping them to the ground.  They also
have problems with certain medications because of their reactions to them.

Sue

I know!   *This* time it's....... 'The Felt Effect of Long Legs!"


> --
>  Michael James       mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
> 
>       "Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
>        mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand.  Paul Ehrenfest, carrying
>        on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study
>        statistical mechanics."  
>                                   -David L. Goodman "States of Matter" 
> 
> P.S.  They also run VERY fast.
> 
> 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: maier@romulus (Chuck Maier)
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Reply-To: cmaier@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:21:27 GMT

In <1992Jul23.115606.202088@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

>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.

Your best source for info would be:

The Institute for Creation Research
P.O. Box 2667
El Cajon, CA 92091

I have most of their materials and have participated in most of their activities
over the past several years.  They are an effective and dedicated group of 
Christian scientists (and are thus constantly besmirched by the denizens of
this newsgroup) who publish on the scientific evidence for a young earth and
flood geology and immutability of created biological prototypes.

The best line of evidence is simply the fact that there is no physical evidence of
human existence prior to the time of the Floood.  That is , of course, if you
discount the vivid tales and a coffin full of mouldy ape teeth that 
paleoanthropologists would have us believe mean something.

Hopefully, they will soon make their materials available on diskette so we
in the newsgroups can 'Flood' the world with this important information.

chuck

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: goldader@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Jeffrey Goldader)
Subject: July 2 Nature article
Summary: comments?
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:57:03 GMT

The July 2 issue of Nature had what seems to me to be a very 
interesting article on the presence of what seem to be
transitional fossils between different species of dinosaurs
in Cretaceous sediments in Montana.  The authors suggested
the structural changes may have been related to fluctuations
("transgressions and regressions,") in the intercontinental sea-ways
causing changes in the coastal plains in what is now Montana.

Problem is, this is waaay out of my field.  Are any knowledgable 
biology or paleontology types out there willing to discuss the paper?
(It looks as though the authors also said something about how this
relates to punctuated equilibrium, but the terminology was just
too obscure for me to follow...)

ref: Horner, J. R., Varricchio, D. J., and Goodwin, M. B. 1992,
Nature, 358, 59

Thanks

Jeff Goldader			  Disclaimer:  They don't know what I say,
goldader@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu	               I don't care what they think,
				               and we're all happy that way.
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:53:54 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <BryLrs.Bus@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
> The Institute for Creation Research
> P.O. Box 2667
> El Cajon, CA 92091
> 
> Hopefully, they will soon make their materials available on diskette so we
> in the newsgroups can 'Flood' the world with this important information.

  Oh goody :-S.  That will certainly proove you right. (apply sarcasm hevily)

***********************************************************************
* 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: jgacker@NEPTUNE.GSFC.NASA.GOV (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Biogenesis in the warm pool -- the next step
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:06:16 GMT


	One question, Paul -- why does intelligence have to be alive?
I didn't get that  (yah, it does get into the higher philosophical
realms of "Is God alive?")  But the intent of the proposed "research"
is to prove that biogenesis does not require interaction with an 
intelligent "force".  IF intelligent interaction is proven as 
necessary, then we can start worrying about where it came from.


	Now, thank you for supplying abiotic carbon.  I should've remembered
the carbon dioxide snows of Mars.  We now have CO2, we also have water 
(because the theory is that "warm springs" on the seafloor are the 
proper location for abiogenesis.)  We therefore also have dissolved CO2.
What we need now is a reaction that will create a carbon skeleton alkane,
or perhaps hydrogen cyanide (HCN).  This warm spring is also likely to 
have hydrogen sulfide (H2S), dissolved nitrogen (N), and plenty of
trace metals to act as catalysts.  What's a good reaction for creating
initial simple chemical species?

	Another tack (take what you like):  Amino acids and other 
species being created in the hostile primordial atmosphere (the "lightning in
a bottle" method), dissolving and reaching the "warm seafloor springs".
Is this too much of a leap?

	From these choices, where do we go next?

	(I may seem simple-minded, but perhaps a route like this will
underscore where the major uncertainties lie, and then we can design
the NASA proposal to investigate the problem.)
	Seriously, if it is possible to take abiogenetic theories up
to the point "where a miracle occurs", we may reduce the target area
for potshots aimed at "self-evident" need for intelligent design.  Much
of this area has already been covered in books -- I acknowledge Chris
Stassen for supplying me with references (and I don't have 'em, but
as this proceeds I or others can look for 'em.)

	As I was writing this, I think that the point "where a miracle
occurs" will be when a collection of lipid spheres encapsulating
nucleic acids (and other stuff) suddenly begin to self-replicate.  But
let's get that far, O.K.?


	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


Xref: sparky talk.origins:8911 bionet.molbio.evolution:291
From: kramer@news.miami.edu (Jack Kramer)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,bionet.molbio.evolution
Subject: Re: Age of Earth and Origin of Life
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:46:14 GMT
Organization: University of Miami, RSMAS

In article <1992Jul28.004905.7322@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> jlogsdon@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (John Logsdon) writes:
>
>In a recent paper in  _Science_ (v257: 232-235, 10 July 1992), the authors
>claim to have found fossil eukaryotic algae that are ca. 2.1 BY old. This 
>is striking to me because this lineage likely represents a fairly derived
>eukaryotic lineage itself.  In other words, there are a number of eukaryote
>lineages which branched off before this one did.  This makes these other euks
>older than 2.1 BY.  In fact, Archaezoa (euks with out mitochondria, ie:
>_Giardia_, that wonderful intestinal parasite) are probably MUCH older than 
>the Algae they found (_Grypania_).  Given this and that the root of the 
>tree of life is EVEN DEEPER [either between eubacteria and 
>archaebacteria+eukaryotes, OR between two groups of archaes (see _Science_ 
>v257: 74-76, 3 July 1992)], this seems to put "life" (ie: the common ancestor 
>of all life: the "progenote") fairly ancient, perhaps ca. 3.5 BYA.  
>
There is only confusion if the current dogma of the serial symbiotic
origin of the eukaryotic is accepted verbatim.  SUPPOSE

The earth was covered with prokaryotic organism of many types,
photosynthetic, respiratory, and parasites living off of the carbon and
energy cycles between these two major ecotypes.  Many 
symbiotic relationships evolved, some becoming increasingly obligate.
Eventually, some of these minimal ecological units consisting of a
photosynthetic prokaryote (prochloroplast), a resripatory prokaryote
(promitochondria) and an organizing parasitic administrator (pronucleus)
became so interdependant that they formed a new organizational level of 
organism (urkaryote or proeukaryote).

Thus the early prokaryotic earth was a source of different units for
each of the functions: rd, green, golden, brown for the chloroplasts,
a couple of different types of respiratory units for the eventual
mitochondria, and a few different types of nuclear units.  If one
studies the algae, there are many monophyletic groups which could be
assembled from the appropriate selection of one each of each of the
three elemental units.

There could have been direct polyphyletic origins of many protistan by
simultaneous (vs. serial) formation of the initial eukaryote for each
lineage. Mix and match one of each unit to get a eukaryote.

jack
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Elephants CAN'T gallop, damn it!!!
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:32:47 EST
Organization: Wright State University 


Ted, you have been told on numerous occasions that elephants can't gallop due
to their conformation.  In case you don't know what that word means, it 
means the way they are built.  Ostriches and kangaroos can't gallop either.
And Mammoths were not larger than elephants, you've been told that repeatedly
also.

Sigh, looks like I gotta dust off the mammoth stuff and post it again.   Next
thing we know, Ted will start ranting about quick-frozen mammoths........


Sue
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Why bible nonsense in t.o.????
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:19:33 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <1992Jul28.035821.3770@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dreiswig@nyx.cs.du.edu (Darwin E. Reiswig) writes:
>
>I suggest you take a look at where your morals actually came 
>from.  C. S. Lewis offers a highly logical argument for God.

Well, not really.  Lewis argues that his concept of morality is
evidence for God.  I think the more obvious conclusion is that
his concept of morality is evidence of indoctrination by his 
society.

Care to test Lewis?  Examine two individuals from differing
cultural, social, ethnic, and religious backgrounds.  Do they
share the same concept of morals?  Well, you can certainly
find two such examples who don't.  So, the notion that it is
one's social environment which teaches morality holds up 
better than the notion that it is God (at least, in this
example).

Try another such experiment.  Compare yourself with an
individual with effectively _no_ social indoctrination.
Same values?  Not.



-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
Newsgroups: talk.origins