HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Horse Laugh On Ted
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  10:57:16

Tag1: Seth Bradley (sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley))
Tag2: Ted "I'm As Smart As An Elephant" Holden news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
 
SB>TH> "Bishop once mentioned making some poor little horse
SB>TH> haul her 200+ tochas around, and I mentioned the obvious
SB>TH> fact that somebody should call the SPCA. There ARE horses
SB>TH> which can carry men in armor, Belgians...
 
SB> "Ted, you ignorant slut."
 
No use trying to sweet-talk him.
 
SB> "How many times have you been told that the 200+ lbs. refers to
SB> Sue, saddle, gear and equipment? And how many times have you
SB> been told that 250-300 lbs is a common load in horse packing?
SB> Belgians were originally bred as draft horses (Sue, please
SB> correct me on this if I'm in error). A horse bred as a charger
SB> (say a Shire) carries little more than a pack horse when carrying
SB> an armored knight (maybe 400 lbs.). Their advantage was in being
SB> able to _gallop_ with these loads, delivering a tremendous shock
SB> to their opponent. How long will you continue putting your foot
SB> in your mouth? I still get a chuckle when you talk about 'Jumbo'
SB> in the Smithsonian..."
 
Pardon me while I put my Holden Hat on. . . .
 
Draft horses are alltogether a, er, ah, horse of a different color.
You see, they are at their potential when they are pulling heavy
loads, usually a wagon, or tree stump, or fire trucks. Since there
were no wagons and fire trucks millions of years ago, and since
what horse would willingly pull up a tree stump (millions of years
ago or yesterday), draft horses were OBVIOUSLY CREATED, and could
not possibly have evolved. Q.E.D. (or should that be T.E.D.?).
 
[Do I get the Bob Bales award for this????????]
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 160' Diplodocus...  429,895 lbs
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:38:00 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <985@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:

*|What you're really saying, is that for your goof refutation of my basic
*|theory to work, you need dinosaurs which scale in surrealistic fashion.

*However, I *was* also trying to make an important point.  You cannot simply
*apply linear scaling and expect to get reliable results, you have to use
*what anatomists call allometry, that is differential scaling.
*As I have been informed by e-mail, this is in fact how the weight estimates
*of about 55 tons for the Breviparopus(?sp) were arrived at.  

That sounds sort of like the manner in which politicians use economists to
produce the numbers they're looking for... "if it works, do it!"

*This is certainly what I would have expected from any competent paleontologist,
*so I cannot say I am surprised.

I AM a bit surprised that you would thus accuse paleontologists as a profession
of being bullshit artists and liars.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:46:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.152055.12331@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> It doesn't have that approach - it doesn't get deeply to any questions,
> that is what I wanted to say. 

  If _Life_ doesn't give any specific information why did you cite it when we
asked for the reasons for your disbelief.  Like cockroaches your claims
disappear as soon as any light is shed on them.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:28:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep8.095840.247@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
wrote:
> God has given you a very precious priviledge called _free choice_.
> On the one hand you can reject God and go your own way - the
> consequences are that you will not be allowed in His presence.
> On the other hand He says that He will let anyone who earnestly
> seeks Him find Him. The ball as they say is in your court.

This statement is also true concerning the art of science. Anyone
that is willing to use their own brain power will sooner or later
realize how the Western scientific system works. The ball is in
our own court, true, not inside dusty old books.

Cheers,
Ment
"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Louck's transcripts (not again!)
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:30:46 GMT

In article <01GQ03107d9000@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>The quote sounds familiar. I'll check the transcripts and a book by
>Sunderland.

	Hey Jim. Are you still claiming that Niles Eldridge says the horse
series is a 'joke'?

>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 

Rob Zuber
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Calvin and Hobbes reveal mans true purpose
Date: 7 Sep 92 22:04:15 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <f7Tj02b920=.01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.130157.3954@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>In article <dkristof.715431601@hq> dkristof@Pt.hq.af.mil (Capt Dave Kristof) writes:

>>>What is the purpose of mankind?  

>>To worship God.

>No, Bast placed us on this earth to feed the cats.

Ah, you are very, very close Chris 8-) The precise answer is given 
in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes. In the first panel of one of
Watterson's strips Calvin and Hobbes are in bed waiting to fall
asleep and Calvin asks "What is man's purpose? Why are we here?"
(from memory, probably not an exact quote). Hobbes replies "Tiger
food." The next two panels show Hobbes sleeping peacefully with
a nervous Calvin eyeing his furry friend.

>Chris Lee

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"
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: And what about the decay in the speed of light?
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:48:06 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <david_s.1.715531716@gribb.hsr.no> david_s@gribb.hsr.no (Sjen, David Andreas   8-94) writes:
|Has anyone out there read the report 'The Atomic Constants, Light and Time'
|by Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield, issued by the Stanford Research 
|Institute in August 1987? I have read it, and to me it sounds very 
|convincing ...
|
|Does anyone out there have any comments on this report?
|
Quick response - it's bullshit!

More reasoned response:

The paper contains numerous errors in statistical methodology and logic
that leave it fatally flawed.

The most important statistical/logical flaw is "extrapolation beyond
the data".  The data base against which the linear regression is made covers
only a very short time.  In such situations it is totally invalid to
assume without adequate reason that the linear relationship so derived
is valid beyond the scope of the data.  On such short time scales almost
*any* relationship can appear to be a simple linear one, even a random
relationship.  But certainly the data is also consistant with any number
of non-linear functions as well (quadratics, for instance).

Secondly, the linear regression performed fails to take proper cognizance
of changes in measurement technology, and thus in the *precision* of the
individual values.  The older, far less precise, values are given the
*same* weight as the more recent, extremely precise values.  The
contributions of the various values to the regression ought to be weighted
according to their standard error estimates. [Precision refers to the
size of the possible error].

Thirdly, the paper fails to determine the standard error value for the
regression coefficient.  And, thus they fail to check that the calculated
slope is significantly different from 0.  [I use 'significant' here in its
technical statistical meaning - where it refers to detectability, not
magnitude; a difference is statistically significant if it is statistically
unlikely given the neutral hypothesis (in this case 'slope = 0') - if the
error range around the calculated slope includes zero, the difference from
zero is *not* significant].


It is clear to any trained statistician that if one did both 2 and 3 above
one would end up with a slope that is not detectably different than zero.


I have left out of the above matters of data selection and so forth,
which have also been questioned for the article mentioned.  However,
I do not know this of my own knowledge, so I cannot state it with certainty.
[That is some people claim that the authors selected those data points
which supported thier theory and left others out, but I have not verified
this].
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: History or Science?
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 19:34 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep14.143332.22556@swbatl.sbc.com>, kamphau@oktext.UUCP (Mark Kamphaus) writes...
>In article <13SEP199221112905@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.181518.11696@swbatl.sbc.com>, kamphau@oktext.UUCP (Mark Kamphaus) writes...
>>>I am curious as to why creation "science" has focused on
>>>"science" instead of history.
> 
>Thanks to Jim and Bruce for responding to my post, but I guess I
>misphrased what my curiousity is about so let me restate my question
>in a different way.
> 
>Given the creationist axiom that "God created everything *with* a
>history" then why would a creationist expect science to find something
>other than that "created" history?  Science relies somewhat on observation,
>and those observations would reflect the events created and embedded in the 
>object under observation.  I see light from a star that I can measure
>as being >6000 light years away, but in order to have a 6K yr old earth,
>the star and light represent a created history which is indistinguishable
>from our reality.  I have used science to determine the distance of the star.
>It appears that there are two choices.  One, I distort the science so that
>anything prior to the 6K boundary uses different principles (like a change in
>the speed of light) or two, I say that science is consistent across the
>boundary but that it is not useful for the purpose of *history* as it only
>reveals the *events* that form the created history.

I think that most creationists really don't like the Omphalos argument, and
really don't want a position with the same logical status as Last
Thursdayism.  They maintain that the earth doesn't really appear to be
older than it is, and that science can determine its age accurately.
(They also maintain, at times, that it does have appearance of age in
some respects, but I don't think any of them have ever addressed this
tension in their view.  Do they really think that the earth is clearly
6,000 years old, but that scientists have all deluded themselves?)

I see two reasons for choosing science over history.  First, scientists
have greater authority than historians in today's society.  Second, they
recognize that a created history seems to imply deception by God.  Third,
they see that a created history at 6,000 years could just as well have
been a created history at 5 minutes.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:34:52 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.110341.27321@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
>(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
>> 	Here in Russia it's rude to answer right to the question. 

>When has Joensuu (a medium size town in Finland) moved to Russia?
>You aren't pulling a silly lie again about Finland being part of
>Russia, aren't you?

	1323 ce., 1595 ce., 1712 ce., 1742 ce., 1809 ce. Those years are 
	familiar to you, especially if you were good in history. 

	No, I'm not. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Xref: sparky talk.origins:11162 alt.atheism:16966 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3553 sci.skeptic:16247
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism,alt.fan.dan-quayle,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:32:22 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: talk.origins,alt.atheism
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

Sci.skeptic and alt.fan.dan-quayle removed from followups.

In article <m8snn6l.mvp@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>
>>    (IV) RU-486 is nothing but an abortion drug and abortion is murder. (the
>It's a comic strip.  Get a clue and a sense of humor.

All the other items in the list fall into the category of humor whose funniness
depends on somebody else's being the brunt.  There is usually some degree of
cruelty in humor.  However, the RU-486 "joke" is all bitterness and no humor.

A reasonable analogy might be if Doonesbury were to have a long shot of the
White House with a balloon saying, "Hey!  Let's invade Iraq so we can stiff
some ragheads!"  It wouldn't really be funny no matter what your political 
opinions.

-EMP
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Velikovsky FAQ addition
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 14 Sep 92  01:32:00

 > From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
 > Message-ID: BuDozq.590.2@cs.cmu.edu

 > Velikovsky's use of his sources when discussing legends and
 > myths is every
 > bit as tendentious as his use of historical sources. Looking at
 > chapter 3 of
 > part II, in the section "When was the Illiad created?", V. says:
 >

 > "I find in Lucian a statement which corroborates my interpretation
 >  of the cosmic drama in the ILLIAD. This author of the second
 >  century of the present era writes in his work ON ASTROLOGY
 >  this most significant and most neglected commentary on the Homeric
 > epics: 'All that he [Homer] hath said of Venus and of Mars his
 > passion, is also manifestly composed from no other source than this
 > science [astrology]. Indeed, it is the conjunction of Venus and
 > Mars that creates the poetry of Homer.' [8]
 > "Lucian is unaware that Athene is the goddess of the planet
 >  Venus [9], and yet he knows the real meaning of the cosmic plot
 >  of the Homeric epic...

Hmphh. There are two relevant passages in the Iliad that immediately come to
mind. In the first, Athena gives one of the warriors the power to see through 
the veil of ivisibility used by olympians meddling on the battlefield and
tells him "if you see Aphrodite, feel free to stab her". Later, when the
battle heats up and the gods rush headlong into the fray like soccer fans,
Athena personally punches out Aphrodite.

How can V continue to insist that the two are the same?


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| But Jane was wrong.      |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| Because when the Swedish | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| Jockstrap Team arrived,  | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| things got a whole lot   | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
| better.                  | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Antti is confused (was Re: macroevolution)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:35:11 GMT


In article <1992Sep9.150803.11851@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>Then they cannot be one species.  One of the more common definitions of 
>>species is 'animals who freely interbreed and produce life fertile offspring.'
>>If they don't/can't interbreed then they are different species.
>
>>This is one of the more basic tenents of science.  If you have studied
>>science, how come you don't know this?
>
>	Don't blame me - actually this was my point: The extreme subspecies 
>	can't interbreed with each other, so they're often considered to 
>	be different species - especially if the other subspecies are 
>	extinct. 

Antti, Antti, Antti.  Look at what you're saying:  if the intermediate
subspecies went extinct, the two extreme subspecies _would_ be completely
distinct species, without a doubt.  Like someone (sorry, don't
remember who) said, this is a perfect example of speciation occurring,
via microevolution.  The only thing that's keeping you from seeing
this is that Bible you're holding in front of your eyes.

Answer this, Antti (and remember, I'm in Bloomington, Indiana, not Russia or
Finland or wherever you claim to be:  Here, it's rude _not_ "to answer right
to the question):  if the intermediate subspecies did go extinct, why
would you continue to insist that the extreme (sub)species were not
full species?

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 8 Sep 92 03:09:30 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Sep8.040240.26054@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
*
*
*>Try holding a 20 lb weight horizontally out from your body for thirty
*>seconds, either from the shoulder or from the hip with elbow bent, it 
*>doesn't matter.  Picture holding that weight out like that for the rest
*>of your life.
*
*Now this is a tad misleading.  Try the following experiment instead.
*Take an 8 foot 2x4 and center it on your shoulder so that you have four
*feet hanging out in front of you and four feet hanging out in back.
*Piece of cake, right?  

I hope you don't seriously mean, that since sauropods had to hold their
necks out AND their tails out, that it all balanced, and that the whole
deal was therefore easy for them.  If so, a better analogy would be
holding TWO 20 lb weights out from your body, one in each hand, instead
of just the one we were talking about.

Believe me, it's harder.




-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Xref: sparky talk.origins:11353 alt.atheism:17274
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Date: 16 Sep 92 16:51:21 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

In article <esposito.6.716510256@uncg.edu>, esposito@uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.153652.12928@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au 
> writes:>
>>  I haven't noticed any posts condeming yoga/meditation/eastern philosophy 
> 
> Yoga, meditation, and eastern PHILOSOPHIES don't include a GOD.  We are 
> athiests.  We do not believe in a God.  Yoga, meditation and eastern 
> philosophies do not include a God.  That is why you don't hear us debating  
> them.

  No, under the New Age banner, they believe you EVOLVE into a god.

  Yoga is an integral part of Hinduism, which of course includes many gods. A
Yogi (and please don't ask who, I don't remember!) once said that without
Hinduism there is no yoga. Yoga is a form of Hindu prayer.

  The point being made is not really related to the EVO vs CRE debate as such,
but to point out that christians are not the only group trying to change school
curriculums. Since the US High Court decision (in 1962 I think) regarding
prayer and Bible in schools, any "smell" of Christianity has been hounded but
all sorts of other philosophies have been allowed to flourish.


  An interesting point (though not relevant to this thread) is that since that
decision, the discipline in US schools has deteriorated rapidly.



> 
> Note: Taoism as a philosophy does not include a God, however there is a 
> theistic version of Taoism, in which Lao Tsu was supposedly conceived 
> immaculately by a passing comet, that does include theistic thought.  The 
> easterners do seperate philosophy and religion.  Personally I think 
> conception from a passing comet is a load of horse pucky.
> 
> Trying to be helpful and contribute to a stimulating conversation.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Thankyou!!



-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================