HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Re: Talk.Origins Wrestling Federation
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:33:33 GMT

> Subject: Talk.Origins Wrestling Federation
> From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
> Date: 15 Dec 92 23:04:00 GMT
> 
>  > From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
>  > Message-ID: <1992Dec10.200039.4050@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>   >a statement such as Day made at close quarters, he/you would in all
>   >likelihood not be thrilled with what ensued.
>  > ] Gracious me...what have we here?  Ted "The Berserker" Holden
>  > ] of the WWF?
> 
>  > T.R., I do believe you're on to something big here--this could be pretty
>  > exciting, resolving t.o. disputes through the time-honored tradition of
>  > trial-by-combat, using our currently most honorable form of physical
>  > conflict resolution, the methods perfected by our own professional
>  > wrestlers.  No doubt the Tedster would be one of the most popular stars of
>  > the TOWF (Talk Origins Wrestling Federation) and would be greeted by the
>  > screams of his cheering fans in each of his no-holdens- barred matches.
> 
> I love it! Can i be the "Grand Inquisitor"? I'll nimbly dodge my opponent's
> attacks, and then, while the referee Brett "The Hanging Judge" Vickers
> conveniently looks away, i'll grab an illegal weapon, a faq supplied by
> "Gentleman Jim" Merritt or "Crusher" Chris Colby and stun them. While they
> are still groggy i'll go to work with a pair of thumbscrews while demanding
> a recitation of the theory of creationism. After my opponent, failing to
> answer, passes out from the pain, i'll declare them innocent, in the sight
> of God, of the charge of having a theory.

I'm afraid I'd be stuck with the nickname "Obersturmgruppenfuehrer Kluge", a
label pinned on me on sci.physics by Petr Beckmann. Ever try to write that
on an autograph? 

This was the result of having the temerity to suggest that one might just
question the scientific competence of Thomas Barnes based on his willingness
to put forward his scientific "proof" that the Earth is less than 10000
years old (our old friend, the magnetic field decay argument). Barnes and
Beckmann are both on the editorial board of GALILEIAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, the
journal for people who are smarter than Einstein. In fact, according to
INSPEC, Barnes and our old friend H. S. Slusher coauthored a paper for the
journal.

Of course, if Beckmann can declare me an Obersturmgruppenfuehrer, who does
that make him?
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Compleat?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92  18:15:00

 > Organization: University of Lowell
 > From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
 > Message-ID: <1992Dec11.082059.1@woods.ulowell.edu>
 > Newsgroups: talk.origins

 > My apologies to Andy Peters.  I didn't find the word "compleat"
 > in my
 > dictionary, so I assumed that he'd misspelled it.  Here's a
 > suggestion: post it
 > to alt.humor or something like that.

That's very mature of you. Now could you please state the teory of creationism 
for us? And also, if you would be so, er, considerate, define a "Kind" and
explain how to differentiate them?

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Clinton *can* be our     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| Santa Claus-- *if* we    | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| are willing to be the    | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| elves and the reindeer.  | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:00:43 GMT
Summary:  thanks for the correction

In article <1gsnvqINN4qa@moe.ksu.ksu.edu> jsanders@phys.ksu.edu
(Justin M. Sanders) writes:

>>being a particular radiative decay (Cesium, I think?).

>The standard for time measurement is NOT a radioactive decay.  It is an
>electronic transition in the cesium atom.  The second is defined as

(I was a bit afraid I had fudged that -- hence my choice of the more
ambiguous term "radiative.")  It is relevant (and somewhat, though not
I think disastrously, undercuts the argument) that the decays used for
dating rocks are nucleonic rather than electronic.  But is it not the
case that QED has been largely caught up in a unification with particle
physics?  Photon emission in a state transmission is a weak force near-
equivalent of nuclear emissions invovled in the nuclear decay series
(or am I misunderstanding something here :-))
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@panix.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
(please note address)			With your crooked heart."
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: "Evolutionary Biology"
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 20:48:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.084953.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
> . . .  This is a far cry from proving evolution.

Once again (please pay attention this time),

Absolutely NOTHING in this world has ever been proven, and nothing
ever will be.  Why would you expect evolution to be different?

If Ray Cote had the courage and intellectual honesty to look at
evidence, he would see that the theory of evolution is far superior
to Creationism, which has no evidence whatsoever to support it.
I think Ray already knows this at some level, but he's too scared to
face it.  Instead, he demands impossible standards of proof, and then
lies to himself again by not applying the same standards to
Creationism.

You mentioned faith in another posting, Ray.  I think you should take
some time to learn what that word means in a theological sense.  Hint:
It does not mean belief without evidence; that's superstition.  It
does not mean blindly following the tenets of your church, or studying
and espousing certain ideas solely so other people will accept you.
And it assuredly does not mean you get to decide how God operates.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Re: c decay and Special Relativity
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:05:44 GMT

> From: stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone)
> Subject: Re: c decay and Special Relativity
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:01:59 GMT
> 
> It is the assumption of a constant value of c which allows the observer in
> reference frame B to see the arrival of the pulses as nonsimultaneous in the
> first place, so, no, the idea of c changing is inconsistent with the SR
> effect you use as the cornerstone of your proof.  As Albert would have said:
> 
> [imitating game-show buzzer] "AAAAAAAH!  Wrong! Thank you for
> playing---better luck next time!"

One of us is having a reading comprehension problem. Yes, the idea of
time-changing c is inconsistent with SR. That was the point of the first
sentence in my post where I said

> I suspect that I've come up with a trivial proof that c decay is
> inconsistent with SR. 

The inconsistency may or may not have anything in particular to do with the
assumption that c is constant over time, i.e., it may be possible to patch
things so that SR is the small delta-time approximation to the "correct"
theory (assuming that there is evidence for c decay, a shakey assumption)
just as Newtonian dynamics is the small-velocity approximation to SR. I
can't think of any way to patch things without sliding an absolute space in
through the back door at the same time. I don't know if there is one, and
have no particular interest in wasting time trying to derive such a theory.
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Speed of Light *NOT* Constant
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:06:37 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <w28uVB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:
> 
>> Does this have anything to do with the fast-disappearing
>> photograph of God that Kalki claims to have? ;)
> 
> Your local public library probably has a photograph of God.

   Really?  Could you give the catalog number? (Library of Congress
system please)

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: comparing theories
Organization: City University, London
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 14:03:25 GMT

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.

--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Article recommendation:  why does creationism still exist?
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:51:18 GMT

In article <16DEC199210313654@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In the latest issue of _NCSE Reports_ is listed the article
>
>     Charles Alan Taylor, "Of Audience, Expertise, and Authority:  The
>         Evolving Creationism Debate," _Quarterly Journal of Speech_
>         vol. 78, no. 3, August 1992, pp. 277-295.
>
>I highly recommend that everyone interested in the debate go out and
>get a copy of this article and read it.
>
>Taylor argues that creationism continues to exist, in part, *because* of
>the way scientists have responded to it.  He argues that creationists
>hold on to their beliefs not primarily because of religious conviction,
>but because of a Baconian philosophy of science which says that scientific
>truths should be directly observable by *anyone*.  The way to persuade
>such people is not by telling them that creationism is not science, or
>is unfalsifiable, but by showing them concrete evidence which falsifies
>their specific claims.  (We see both tactics here in t.o, and I think
>the latter is vastly more effective.)

I agree that concrete evidence is preferable to epistemological (is
that the right word?  I dunno) debates about what is science and
what is not, but how is one to deal with those creationists (call
them, oh, I don't know, Coteroids) who refuse to offer any specific
claims, or who impeccably time their disappearances to coincide with
any specific claims they might make?

I will look up that article.  Thanks.

>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU

-- 
--Andy
     "God is a real estate developer / with offices around the nation
          They say one day he'll liquidate / his holdings on High
             I say it's all speculation." -- Michelle Shocked
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Creation Evidences
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92  19:25:00

 > From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
 > Message-ID: <1992Dec15.134757.3878@city.cs>

 > Hahahahaha! In that case you should look at the chapter entitled
 > "List of scientific proofs for evolution" in the book "The
 > Collapse of Evolution"

Very funny, i enjoyed the joke immensly. Say, how about stating the theory of 
creationism?

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Real americans don't     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| pledge allegiance, they  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| make the government earn | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| it.                      | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Doesn't it seem logical?
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:48:27 GMT

>In article <1992Dec18.105809.21831@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>> It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!  What does it take
>>>to believe in evolution? 
>>
>>What it takes is a) faith in the millions of scientists who have spent
>>enormuous efforts for centuries to come up with certain facts and answers and b)
>>a lot of reading on the subject. The more you read on evolutionary biology the
>>more you will realize that it is not a matter of faith. In fact, most
>>creationists I have encountered have read little or nothing on evolution. 
>>
>The beauty of science is that you do not have to take anything on faith.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>If you don't believe in evolution, become a biologist, paleontologist,etc.
>and find out for yourself. I double dog dare you!
>
>>Onar.
>
>Tracy P. Hamilton (ex-Creationist)


Well, actually that is not quite true. It is meaningless to talk of absolute
truth since NO law of nature can be proven to be true. Hence the notion of
empirical truth. One can challenge a law by testing it. If the law survived
the test then that has strengthened the law's credibility. And through the 
perpetual process of scrutiny, a law's credibility may converge towards absolute
truth, but in principle it will never reach the status of absolute truth. But not
all sciences have converged equally much. Quantum mechanics,Newtonian mechanics
and Relativity seems to rage at the top of science with near unquestionable
accuracy. Then comes the pillars of Biology as a good number two. Further down
the line one finds topics like economy, sociology and psychology and at the 
bottom, near false one finds astrology and creationism. 
   However, the amount of faith needed to adhere to quantum mechanics is much, 
much smaller (close to zero) than the amount of faith needed to believe in
Creation. 


Onar.
  
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule [sic] cause and monstrous effect
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:40:54 GMT

In article <1gbf6qINN91c@news.aero.org> zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess) writes:
>	Hey, if you want to do me a favor, learn to spell "minuscule"
>	before using it in a Subject line!

	I was about to jump on this, thinking that Ted did spell it
right, but I looked it up first.  Yow!  Dave WAS right!  I've been
spelling it wrong too!  Live and learn (A motto creationists need to
adopt.)  However, Webster's 9th does list "miniscule" as a variant
spelling, so I guess Ted and I aren't completely dim.  Well, I'm not,
anyway. 

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                                          Who says I should question authority?
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:21:06 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <justinf-121264011153@macintosh25.cco.caltech.edu>, justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:
^In article <170@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote:
^> In brief, the doctrine of uniformity is forcing natural scientists into
^> a tighter and tighter intellectual corner.  Amongst other problems, they are
^> continually forced to ascribe giant effects to piss-ant causes.

^> For instance, the assumption that the 900 F surface temperature on Venus
^> is caused by the tiny to non-existant modicum of solar energy which reaches
^> the surface as uv and then, supposedly, cannot escape as ir, despite there
^> being no lid on Venus' atmosphere at any level.

^Ted, do you have a real grasp of ANY area of science? The greenhouse effect
^on Venus comes about because of Venus's extremely dense CO2 atmosphere. The
^solar radiation which reaches the surface (mostly short wave IR) 

It is exceedingly doubtful at present that ANY solar radiation reaches the
surface at all.  Probes indicated utter darkness going through the middle 
cloud layer, and then light becoming more intense as the descent was made to
the surface.  The light present at the surface is thus local, caused by
some combination of chemical reactions and/or heat.  I've pointed this
out before.  Soviet and American probes showed the same thing.


^Photons check in but they don't check out.
^
Again, there is no glass lid to keep the heated air from checking out, as it
invariably will.  It isn't easy on Venus, but it does happen.  The concentric
rising waves which have been observed throughout the Venereal atmosphere are
no illusion.  That's heated air seeking its way upwards.

^


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Lionel Tun: evolutionary relic.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:43:02 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Dec18.133825@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) wrote:
> Let me second a fellow poster:  Care to post the theory of creation?

Yeah, I've asked about that one now for two years, and nobody from
the creation field has provided me with one. It's really sad, and
when there's a lack of a creation based theory (I deliberately left
out Hoyle :-) ), then the next best thing you could do is to sabotage
existing theories.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Uniformity:  miniscule [sic] cause a
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92  18:31:00

OK, that's it. I'm getting sick of this whining about "uniformitarian
bias" and people refusing to give catastrophism a serious hearing. I'm
putting an end to it once and for all. Catastrophism, that is, i'm
declaring it non existant.

How can i do that? Easy, i invoke timescaling.

For instance, here in SoCal we've recently had some nasty floods. Five
years of drought and suddenly, massive rain. Looks like a catastrophy,
a spike on the graph of yearly rainfall, right? Wrong. Plot the
average rainfall in decades and the graph becomes a serious of curves
of slightly varying amplitude.

Of course on this timescale the observation of climatary change may
look somewhat jerky. No problem, just change it to a scale of
centuries. Ice ages, you say? Try kiloyears and they become ripples on
the temperature charts.

Course if you look far back enough you see that nasty asteroid
smashing those poor dinos like a polish weightlifter dropping his
barbells. Now that must be a catastrophe, right? Wrong. Watch the
earth in 10 megayear increments and you've got asteroids coming down
like pebbles.

Pull back a bit more and you'll see the planets form. Hmm, that
happens only once. Exactly, once per solar system. See those nebulas
contract and light up?

In fact with the proper observational mode you can see the life of the
universe in one scintillating puff. And if it has enough mass it'll do
it over and over and over and over and over...

Now what about Ted? Oh, well, like he always says, the musical orbits
found in V cosmology are based entirely on universal laws of nature.
That means that Earth and Venus weren't special cases, why they're
absolutely to be expected! Use the right calendar and you'll see
planets galore skipping merrily right and left. Look, Pluto and
Ganymede just did a dosey-do!

So i'm sorry to tell you this, Ted, but there is no Santa Claus, and
there are no catastrophes. You'll just have to stop using the word.

Or else admit you don't understand the felt effect of chronographic
factoring.



+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Hussein: We made him, we |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| broke him, we'll build   | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| him up again if we want  | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| to, we're the US.        | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: zeus@aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule [sic] cause and monstrous effect
Date: 12 Dec 1992 01:27:54 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.aero.org
Summary: what caribou? what science? what next?
Keywords: soi-disant great thinkers

In article <170@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> ...
>Likewise, Hyde and others, you have cause to be angry at whoever had sold
>you this doctrine of uniformity, but not at me.  Like the little kid, I've
>ultimately done you a favor.
>Ted Holden

	Hey, if you want to do me a favor, learn to spell "minuscule"
	before using it in a Subject line!  Thanks for the giggles.
				Dave Suess	zeus@aerospace.aero.org