HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: comparing theories
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:17:58 GMT


>In article <1992Dec15.140325.4331@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
>writes:
>> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>> >The fact of common descent and the
>> >details of phylogeny are inferences, i.e. conclusions drawn from data.
>> 
>> Since when has common descent been established as a fact? It is merely
>> a theory, and a poor one at that.
>
>   That does it.  I'm going to have my friend tell on you.  We sent you the
>evidence.  Not only that, my friend and colleague Kurt vonRoeschlaub is going
>to put that little gem into forTun.  What else can we do?  No, really, I'd
>like a suggestion.
>
>   While I was reading the story in the paper about 1100 people in India being
>killed in religious rioting someone sent me e-mail taking me to task for
>flaming Lionel because Lionel's God was the God of love:  after the nausea from
>the irony faded it occured to me; we have to find a way of dealing with
>Lionel's way of thinking or we may have this shit in the west too.
>
>   It's not reliegion, it's human stupidity, and Lionel is a gonzo perfect test
>case.


Now that is the healthiest attitude I have heard on TO in months!!  This
newsgroup is a golden opportunity to interact with people whose worldview is
skewed from reality. Why not use that opportunity to learn how to handle these
people instead of flaming them all the time? If you haven't been able to change
their attitude then view it as *your* failure, not theirs. And then try to do
something with it, change your strategy, look for common denominators etc. 

Concerning Lionel, I think that he does not understand the concept of empirical
truth, the assymetry of truth and falsehood. Perhaps it would be a nice
introduction to the FAQ? I mean, what seems to be the common trouble with all
creationists is that they do not grasp the basis of science. How then can we 
expect them to adhere to the inductions of science?


Onar.
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evilutionary Biology
Date: 12 Dec 92 12:00:31 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1992Dec10.121018.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>So what everybody's telling me is there's no proof of evolution.  You're not
>telling me anything I didn't already know.  Maybe you should tell it to Loren
>the Masterbat...er, that is the Master Blaster.  She's the one that said that
>fossils and comparative anatomy prove evolution.
>
>Oh yeah, as far as these independent lines of evidence I keep hearing about,
>think about this.  The DNA of man and monkeys are extremely close.  Their
>morphologies on the other hand are strikingly different.  So much for
>comparative DNA and comparitive morphology agreeing.

Sir, you've found a terrible problem in evolutionary biology; I'm distraught...

Look what do you mean by "their morphologies are strikingly different"?? what
a load of rubbish. How about the basic body plan, the pattern of development,
the arrangement of internal organs, the comparative biochemistry?
Thank you for recognizing the similarity between the DNA sequences.
Kindly provide a Creationist explanation as to why that might be the case.
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Bogus religious reasoning in Time 20
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 12 Dec 92  17:01:00

 > From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
 > Message-ID: <1992Dec7.085723.1@woods.ulowell.edu>

 >  2) How do explain that accoeding to the Thoery of Evolution
 > woman was around before man,

Please withdraw this scurrilous lie or admit you know nothing about evolution.

10                    2
       DR PEPPER
                      4

---
From: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Finnish Bible Transla
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:35:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 

In article <1gb0m7INNbtc#fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com
(Jon Livesey) says:
-> In article <1992Dec11.121426.16272#abo.fi>, MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andt
-> acka) writes:
-> >
-> >     Sill{ n{in sanoo Herra: Vasta kun ne seitsem{nkymment{
-> >    Baabelin vuotta ovat t{yttyneet, min{ katson teid{n puoleenne
-> >    ja panen t{yt{nt||n teit{ kohtaan hyv{n lupaukseni ja
-> >    palautan teid{t t{h{n paikkaan.
-> 
-> Do Finnish sermons end with the closing of all the parenthesese,
-> like German ones end with all the verbs?

All those braces should be the letter a with an umlaut, and the "|" should
be an o with an umlaut.  They are considered separate letters in Finnish
and pronounced quite differently.  In any case, a relatively popular OS
(I think UNIX, or maybe VMS) insists on perverting the letters to those.
The IBM and Amiga use high ASCII symbols.  Usually, when going cross-format,
they're changed to a's and o's since the readers will usually be able to tell
the difference.  Evidently, it wasn't done in this case...

---
 . AME 1.07 . Jani Patokallio - acc1bbs!jani.patokallio@ssr.com
From: bkorb@starbase.Convergent.Com (Bruce Korb)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: FAQ List - HA!
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:42:16 GMT
Reply-To: bkorb@convergent.com
Organization: Unisys Open Systems Group, San Jose

In article <1992Dec11.122456.17672@abo.fi>, MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
|>       ==> If I don't get any good response this time either, I shall
|> surmise that no such list exists,

	Reasonable enough

|>                                   and undertake to create one myself.

	I'm less sure about this being reasonable.

Remember that there are *three* ought-to-be-well-known sides to these
issues, and five or six "sides", if you count as distinct the
fundie representation of doubtie position vs. the doubtie position, and the
doubtie representation of fundie position vs. the fundie position.
Then of course, there are CWACKers (and DWADKers?) that get largely
ignored anyways, and all of us have axes.  (There *is* a reason for
all the traffic and calling these groups 'talk.*'.:)  So, good luck
to you.  As long as the FAQs you present don't assume that Christians
perforce believe science invalid, and they do not assume that science
has all the answers to the questions about origins, and they do not
implicitly posit that God does not exist (though you can be explicit,
if you wish) *then* at least I won't take too many pot shots at your work.
In other words, if you are going to write something that will attempt
to represent a balanced collection of views, ... As I said before,
good luck. :-}

-- 
   Bruce Korb  (bkorb@convergent.com)   (408) 456-5507
   Convergent Technologies, aka Unisys, aka Sperry Univac, aka Burroughs
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Robert Bass on Velikovsky and Physics
Summary: Ted's example doesn't show what he claims it does
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:52:45 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <174@fedfil.UUCP>
: 3)  If one started Venus in an orbit lying entirely between the orbits
: of Jupiter and Saturn, with precisely the appropriate initial position
: and velocity, it would within LESS THAN TWO DECADES work its way inward
: into an orbit lying entirely between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

For an orbit to shift from one side of the largest body in the solar
system to the other side of it is unsurprising.  No more surprising
that a pebbel rolled down into a smooth valley will rise on the
opposite side of the valley.  

And just like the pebbel, this imaginary venus would then roll back down
in the valley and up the original side (that is, the next thing to
expect to happen over the NEXT twenty years would be for it to shift its
orbit completely OUTside Jupiter's again). 

Further, this observation doesn't show how earth and venus could
interact and reach stable, distant orbits in reasonable timeframes.

: Theory exists in order to explain reality.  History IS reality.  When
: the two conflict, you change the theory.  

Theory: Kazmaier limit of strength.
History: Elephants up to 27000 lbs.

Theory: venus source of oil and manna
History: no carbohydrates or hydrocarbons on venus

Theory: no glider over 50 lbs
History: humans soar and glide for hours on hang gliders

and so on and on and on
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Permission denied.
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:57:56 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
: 
: To all the people who were too lazy or cheap to get hold of the
: book Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, here's some news: Dr.
: Richard Thompson will not give permission to copy the chapter on
: information theory.
: 
: If you want the book, you'll have to buy it or borrow it.
: 
: Meanwhile, look for his new book Forbidden Archaeology, coming soon.
: 
: Sincerely,
: Kalki Dasa

Aw, what a surprise!  
This being the case, Kalkster, perhaps you could attempt to
summarize some of the essential points for us.  After all, 
there are a lot of books out there, and we can't by all of 
them.  Tell us why we should buy this one.   

Bill   : 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Conceit of t.o regulars
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:32:29 GMT

In article <175@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}Any non-standard view of anything presented on t.o. is immediatly pounced
}on by fifty odd people shrieking in unison, and essentially shouted down.

Thank you.  Could you please resolve a minor conflict in your presentation?
You have repeatedly decried the conclusions of those who are accepted as
experts within their specific filed when speaking within their field of
expertise (example:  Carl Sagan when speaking about extraterrestrial
atmospherics, especially venus's  He did design and assist in the evaluation
of some of the venerian probes) and you have simultaneously stated that
scientists don't know when they are wrong when they are speaking outside of
their field of expertise (though this does not seem to deter you when you
refer to Velikovsky, who had no expertise in astronomy, physics, chemistry,...
but was a psycho(analyst) trained individual, nor for advancing your conclusions
(prefaced with "it seems to me", on occasion) as truths when you have no training in
the "hard" sciences.  The combination of these two stances seems to indicate
that, in your opinion, nobody knows what is going on, including yourself.
Please clarify.
From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: comparing theories
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:00:20 GMT

In article 4331@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>The fact of common descent and the
>>details of phylogeny are inferences, i.e. conclusions drawn from data.
>
>Since when has common descent been established as a fact? It is merely
>a theory, and a poor one at that.
>

Now this really, really belongs in forTun, no? :)

Who wrote that program anyway?
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Doesn't it seem logical?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:19:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.204839.37771@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> 
  jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON) writes:
>I am new to this whole conversation here, but I think that it seems rather odd
>that people can make comments about man being created from mud when if you
>look at the theory of evolution, we all just evolved from some "primordial"
>soup.  

Please learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

>It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!  

Faith and the ability to ignore almost every branch of scientific thought
(including Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, Cosmology, Linguistics,
Archaeology, Anthropology, Genetics, and a few others I am sure I
have missed).

>What does it take
>to believe in evolution?  The fact that we might have evolved from some lower
>creatures wouldn't give me a heck of a lot of self-confidence.  

Tough.  The universe doesn't exist to make you feel more secure.  Does
gravity give you self confidence?  How about nuclear fusion?  Judge a
theory on how well it works.

>Jonathan Scott Gibson

C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Doesn't it seem logical?
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:16:28 GMT

JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON (jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu) wrote:
: I am new to this whole conversation here, but I think that it seems rather odd
: that people can make comments about man being created from mud when if you
: look at the theory of evolution, we all just evolved from some "primordial"
: soup.  It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!  What does it take
: to believe in evolution?  The fact that we might have evolved from some lower
: creatures wouldn't give me a heck of a lot of self-confidence.  I guess the
: fact that I was brought up in a church has a lot to do with why I think the
: way that I do, but I have seen both sides of the issue and it still seems so
: illogical that anyone could believe in such a crazy theory!
: -- 
:                         Jonathan Scott Gibson
:                         JSG1@LEHIGH.EDU
:                         BOX 479    X0264


	Jonathan Scott,

	It's obvious that you're new here.  Do yourself a favor and read
enough to determine that evolution is not a crazy theory.  It does not say
that man was created from mud -- in fact, abiogenesis should be
considered separately from evolution.  For light reading, I recommend the
January issue of _Discover_ magazine.  For heavier going, ask Chris Colby
for a FAQ.
	I just realized this:  the only statement about man being
created directly from mud (O.K. dry mud = dust) is in the Bible.  It takes
many more steps in the paleo-historic model.   Many, many, many, many, many
more steps.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov



Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hamilton@hitler.uucp ()
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Einstein, and Cohen
Organization: Chemistry Department, Univ. of Alabam at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:50:12 GMT

In article <1614@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>In article <169@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>|> ^What others?
>|> 
>|> Articles I've seen in newspaper and magazine accounts which, due to space
>|> limitations, I cannot always keep...  The Avon Field Guide to Dinosaurs.
>
>Oh, just lovely, such *reliable* sources, NOT!
>If the Avon Guide is the little pink pocket size, it is a piece of trash.
>

I think that Stan Friesen is confused about which dinosaur field 
guide is which.  The larger one must be the Avon guide since the
small pink one is the Mary Kay field guide.

Lionel Tun simulator (tm), using two-state logic!

(programmed by Tracy P. Hamilton)
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Apology to Kalki and t.o.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 02:18:31 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:

> 	Therefore, I offer to Kalki and the readers of t.o. an unconditional
> apology for posting Kalki's letter, which was meant for private exchange
> and not for public perusal.  I was in error, I transgressed the
> bounds of propriety and security, and I turned a reasoned debate into a
> personal vendetta.

Apology accepted.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:22:16 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <7979@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.191142.2201@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>>
>>Wayne Folta has responded to my flood FAQ by email, raising many points--
>>>   How could the flood deposit layers of solid salt --- sometimes meters in
>>> 	width.  This apparently occurs when a body of salt water has its
>>> 	fresh-water intake cut off, and then evaporates.  These layers can
>>> 	occur more or less at random times in the geological history, and
>>> 	have characteristic fossils on either side.  Therefore, if the
>>> 	fossils were themselves laid down during a catastrophic flood, there
>>> 	are, it seems, only two choices:
>>> 	(1) the salt layers were themselves laid down at the same time,
>>> 	during the heavy rains that began the flooding, or
>>> 	(2) the salt is a later intrusion.
>>> 	I suspect that both will prove insuperable difficulties for a theory
>>> 	of flood deposition of the geologic column and its fossils.
>>> 	[From: marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe)]
>>
>>Whitcomb & Morris, pg 412-417. Two simplified explanations: 1) the deposits
>>were moved from elsewhere, where they had been since the creation; or 2)
>>they were created by a lot of heat in a short time rather than a little
>>heat over a long time (volcanic versus solar).
>>
>>Also, salt domes are so large that a non-Flood explanation has problems,
>>too.  They claim that there are salt domes 3000 feet deep and deeper, and
>>Europe has domes that may be 15,000 feet deep. To have evaporated in place
>>would create enormous difficulties.
>>
>>They claim that such large deposits are only explainable in terms of non-
>>sedimentary mechanisms. The later intrusion mechanism above, sounds like
>>this.
>>
Salt buried under the surface of the earth is incompressible and upon
compaction of the surrounding sediments will be much less dense.  The
salt also has a low viscosity, and will flow give time.  The salt flows
upward because of the density contrast.  The salt was not evaporated in
place.  Petroleum geology has explained salt dome formation to the
satisfaction of nearly 100,000 geologists, Christian and otherwise. No
one sufficiently educated has a problem reconciling salt dome formation.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:01:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.130553.20138@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> Hahahahaha!
>>
>>Would you care to be more specific?
>
>I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
>evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
>effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
>world and of themselves.

Which "evolutionist" ideas do you find most outrageous?
What is your alternative explanation for these ideas?
As a Talented Amateur (tm), I have no professional attachment
to any theory of evolution, and I would gleefully
accept any alternative theory of creation which provides
a better explanation.

>I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
>the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
>seek Him.

What saddens me is that the Creator has never accepted
my offer to drop by my house and discuss these matters.
Questions of Life and Death are too important
to be left to intermediaries and questionable
translations; I want to hear it from the source.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
          Everything you know about God is wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:13:19 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1gq66hINNsv9@crcnis1.unl.edu> wigdahl@dragon.unl.edu (Matt Wigdahl) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.140135.28343@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>
>>Hahahahaha!
>
>Can someone tell me where to find the forTun program?  I don't think I
>can make it through break without a daily dose of this type of reasoned
>eloquence.
>
>Matt Wigdahl
>wigdahl@dragon.unl.edu

Ah-ha!  Lionel has gone away for the Christmas season & has left forTun
running with a usenet front end.  So, we can see his mindless drivel all
through the holidays.

Or did he ever exist?  Did someone write a proto-forTun that we've been
conversing with all this time?  It would explain:

	o repetitive arguments (starting at the top of the list)
	o periods of no posting (program is down for one reason or another)
	o sig file tests (trying out the new and improved version)

Oh well, its a throught


8)
-- 
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\  digi!jtisdel@uunet.uu.net
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\         jmtisdel@aol.com
   "I want to lie ship-wrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice."
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: c decay and Special Relativity
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:34:43 GMT

I suspect that I've come up with a trivial proof that c decay is
inconsistent with SR. Consider two distinct inertial frames, A & B. In frame
A, fire two pulses of light simultanously in the same direction from
separated sources and measure how long it takes each pulse to travel
distance X. An observer in A will see the two pulses take the same amount of
time to travel X. 

An observer in frame B does not see the pulses emitted simultaneously. As a
result, c will decrease by some amount in the interval between the emission
of pulses 1 and 2, and B will not see the pulses take the same amount of
time to travel distance X. Since the pulses are fired in the same direction,
their paths are Lorentz-contracted by the same amount. I don't think you can
fix this by making c a function of time in the Lorentz transform for time
dilation because the length contraction would also change as a function of
time.