HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:13:10 GMT

	Ah, yes... the Cotera himself...

In article <1993Jan26.114045.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>Well, I can't answer all your questions (or even most of them), but you can't
>say I've ignored the issue.

	The Bible :   How was the ark made seaworthy?  The longest wooden ships in modern seas
: 	are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps
: 	and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped.
>
>You're not going to like this answer.  What was the point of having Noah build
>the ark? Wasn't it to preserve man and the animals? So wouldn't it make sense
>if God made sure the ark was sea-worthy? 

	So Noah didn't do it himself?

:   How were animals collected from all over the world?

>Like I said before, they were brought to Noah.

	Sez who?

: Life on the ark:
:   What did the carnivorous animals eat, especially those which require fresh
: 	meat?

>Man was not able to eat meat until after the flood.  Perhaps this was true of
>all carnivores and omnivores.

	Huh? I thought it was only after the Fall (much earlier than
the Flood) that animals started killing other animals and eating meat.
At least that's what used to be believed. But that does not explain
the abundance of adaptations for a predatory lifestyle that some
animals have. This means fossil ones also.

	In summary:

	Were all the lions eating Vegecat in the Garden of Eden?

	It's a pity that the Bible makes no mention of Vegecat as a
non-meatfood for hungry felines.

:   How did creatures needing special environments survive on the ark?
>
>For example?

	Like cold or heat. The Flood would have been terribly mixed
up, and would have been of the wrong salinity for a lot of sea life.
Freshwater fish only like freshwater and saltwater fish only like
saltwater, and it is the rare fish that can live in both kinds.

	So did Noah's Ark contain a big aquarium? Or two big ones, one
for the freshwater fish and one for the saltwater fish?

:   How well ventilated was the ark?  The body heat from millions of closely
: 	packed animals must have been very intense.
>
>Obviously it was ventilated enough.

	It was, therefore it was, therefore it was.

>It's still here.

	Not enough to cover the land.

: Is the flood model consistent with the Bible?
:   The model seems to say that large numbers of kinds of land animals
: 	became extinct because of the flood, while Genesis repeatedly says
: 	that Noah was ordered to take a representative sample of all kinds of
: 	land animals on the Ark to save them from extinction, and that Noah
: 	did as ordered.  Which is right?
>
>The Bible takes precedence over any theory (Creationist or otherwise).

	Tell that to our friendly neighborhood Veda-thumper, Kalki
Dasa. He'll tell you all about which sacred books take precedence over
all the others :-)




-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: Muscle tissue from mouse to sauropod
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 22:28:59 GMT

Ted, here's some evidence that you may actually want to pay attention to.

1. Paul Anderson, the champion weightlifter, back-lifted over six thousand
pounds at Toccoa, Georgia, in 1957.  (Source: _Book_of_Lists_)  What does
this do to your calculations?

2. Your calculations using Kaz show that a 24,000 pound animal that feeds on
low grade material like grass would collapse under its own weight, since
even if it were as strong as Kaz it could support only 21,000 pounds, and
then only for a short time; feeding on grass would make the scenario even
more implausible.  Now the catch: we actually know of a twelve-ton elephant.
(I can dig up a reference if you want.)

Note to Ted's opponents: though these examples are not as conclusive as
others that have been posted, I think that they stand a better chance of
getting Ted's attention.  For example, somebody's parody of Ted's post
using an ant might be dismissed by Ted because ants don't have bones or
muscles like vertebrates do.  Someone else's example of long jumpers and
sprinters can be dismissed because the issue here is sheer ability to
support weight.  In other words, it seems somewhat reasonable to say, "If
Kaz couldn't lift this car, then no human being can," even though it is
not reasonable to say, "If Kaz couldn't jump this far, then no human
being can."

I do like the reptile muscle example, which Ted seems to have misunderstood.
As someone else has pointed out, the argument is *not* "reptile muscle can
be twice as strong as mammalian muscle, therefore sauropod muscle is" but
rather "some vertebrate muscle is twice as strong as mammalian muscle,
therefore for all we know sauropod muscle *might* have been twice as strong,
so there is a gap in Ted's proof."  Ted, what do you say to this?  Saying
that there is no way a herbivore could have big muscles is handwaving;
elephants are herbivores.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Gould vs. Johnson
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:13:39 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <146837@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
#
#   My other comment is that I believe that those who consider
#theism and Darwinian evolution incompatible are guilty of a
#rather profound anthropomorphism of God: they insist that God
#_must_ behave in a causal, physically detectable manner.  

Indeed, and it is worse than this. It is actually heretical,
for it is an attempt to limit God.

Bill
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The demons are getting nervous
Date: 29 Jan 93 04:36:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

In article <9RNZXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) wrote:
> It is characteristic of the unregenerate that they cannot long maintain
> peace of mind when constantly reminded of the presence of God and the
> necessity of surrendering to Him. Every time Schumacher and persons like
> him read my posts, they are reminded of this. It is natural, therefore,
> that such persons, hounded by the thought of the Lord, Whom they hate
> with all their hearts, eventually lose their carefully maintained
> pretense of decency and become like roaring beasts, fit only to be
> hunted and killed by other, stronger beasts.

Pretty strong words, eh? I actually agree that sometimes the debate
in this forum becomes to much ad hominem based, but usually it takes
two to tango. There's an easy way to zap such cases, and that's for 
instance to avoid responding, and let the other part ramble on for 
a while.

I think in your case if you want this 'misery' to stop, just don't 
feed the existing flaming, and I'm sure things will cool down. 

Additionally, if you have opinions and you present them , you should 
be prepared to see people tear them apart. Then again, if you think 
you are right, you don't have anything to loose. 

Calling deamons that are responsible for the misery requires 
some kind of evidence in order to justify the case. 

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Keywords: info requested
Organization: City University, London
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:55:08 GMT

rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
>The fossil record leading to the vertebrate grade is pretty sparse,
>but the fossil record is sparse for most invertebrates.  Is that
>supposed to be a surprise?

The fossil record for intermediates is sparse or non existent
per se. There is a good reason for this.

--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:48:56 GMT

In article <244@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

|> I assume that this may not have been the case prior to the flood and the
|> accompanying catastrophes.  It is known for instance that Etrurean pottery
|> often shows magnetism imparted from the earth's field which is far
|> greater than the earth's field could impart now.

	As I have some interest in paleomagnetism I would be grateful
	if you could tell me who did these measurements and where I could
	read about them.  I do not regard Ginenthal as a source.  If this
	comes from his works, please give me the source he cites.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:06:28 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu (cotera@woods.ulowell.edu) wrote:
: Well, I can't answer all your questions (or even most of them), but you can't
: say I've ignored the issue.

[ other "answers" deleted ]

: >   How well ventilated was the ark?  The body heat from millions of closely
: > 	packed animals must have been very intense.

: Obviously it was ventilated enough.

You are calling this an answer?

--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:48:57 GMT
Organization: The Language Game Inc.
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1993Jan26.114045.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
wrote:
> I'm not sure of the problem here.  My house is over 100 years old and it hasn't
> decayed.  With regards to gathering the animals, as I recall the animals came
> to him.

Well, we have a cottage by the sea that is totally damaged after 20 years.
And
what does that show us really,
 
> You're not going to like this answer.  What was the point of having Noah build
> the ark? Wasn't it to preserve man and the animals? So wouldn't it make sense
> if God made sure the ark was sea-worthy? 

If God is that powerful, he would not use such archaic methods to preserve
animals...
If he was capable of creating Earth, I'm sure he would be able to preserve
animals
in a statis for 40 days easily. 

The more you read the Flood mythology, you will realize that it was written
by
people that lived many, many years ago, and that their ideas of saving
animals
were reflected by their culture, not by Godlike ideas.

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Date: 27 Jan 1993 04:17:09 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: agar.engin.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan26.231136.8562@nmsu.edu> epowers@mccoy (POWERS) writes:
>In article <1jvlplINNl54@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com  
>(Jon Livesey) writes:
[deletions]
>> You can have a material test for the material effects of immaterial
>> influences.

>	No, you can't.  Anything observed is always assumed to have a  
>natural cause, whether or not a naturalistic explanation is immediately  
>apparent.  The supernatural is automatically cut out of science.

 Erik, read what Jon wrote. If an immaterial force had a material effect,
you could test for it. Han Solo doubted the Force at first, but after he'd
seen it levitate X-wings and such, he was a believer. :-> (Well, okay,
it didn't happen quite that way, but you get the idea.)
 Even if the effects were subtle, you could still test for them. If a
religion claimed, for example, to bring peace and joy to its followers,
one might expect them to have a lower average stress-related illness
rate, and one could devise statistical tests which might show this.
 If a guy were to come around saying, "The power of Thor is upon me,
and I can bring down lightning bolts," I can name one pretty good test
of that claim...

 Now, what if these immaterial forces had no material effects at all? No
way to measure them, detect them, or to differentiate a universe that had
them from one that didn't.
 Then they would have no effect on science at all. There would be no area
where the predictions of a purely material science failed to match what
was actually observed. (Well, assuming that the models used were the
*right* models, but again, you get the idea.)
 Ergo, pleading 'immaterial forces affected things, but you can't detect
that' is a singularly unconvincing argument. (Note: I'm not saying *you*
plead that, Erik. Honest. Les Kalki I'm not sure about...)

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:34:00 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu

In article <1993Jan25.144819.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods writes:
>However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God created
>the universe.

Great.  What was it, 18 billion years ago?  Sounds good to me.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Theory of evolution - doomed
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:42 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan28.165939.1594@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes...
>It seems to me that the theory of evolution is suffering
>severe setbacks here and may soon be entirely in ruins,
>being bashed down under the onslaught of pure logic and
>powerful science.

Lionel:

Thought you might be interested in knowing that the Winter 1993 issue
of _The Skeptical Review_ (one year free from The Skeptical Review, 
P.O. Box 617, Canton, IL 61520-0617) reports that _Christian News_,
September 21, 1992, p. 1, says that a nationwide (U.S.) Gallup poll
shows that "the Average American's belief in the reliability of
Scripture has declined by half in the last 30 years (from 65 per cent
in 1963 to 32 percent today)."  I'm sure matters are worse in the UK.

We are indeed living in the last days, aren't we?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Date: 28 Jan 93 23:04:55 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <2B645A9F.10128@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
[Quoting Rob P.J. Day]
|> 
|> Following this was yet another out of context quote, this by G. G. Simpson,

Well, for anybody that knows his history of science, the idea of using
G.G. Simpson as a source to oppose evolution is just plain silly - considering
that he was one of the architects of The New Synthesis (the core of the
modern theory of evolution - a combination of Darwin's ideas with genetics).

|> which deserves careful examination since it demonstrates clearly the
|> lack of scholarship on the part of whoever designed the handout.
|> The statement attributed to Simpson, referenced only as "Science Vol. 45",
|> reads as follows:
|> 
|>    "It is inherent in any definition of science that the
|>    statements that can not be checked by observation are not really about
|>    anything ... or at the very least they are not science."
|> 
|> Based on this, the handout then concludes that, since neither evolution
|> nor creation were observed, falsifiable or repeatable, "What part
|> of evolution or creation can be considered a science?"

Cheez - I can rip this one up without even checking back to the original sources.
Dr. Simpson said that statements must be susceptible of *checking* by observation,
not that they must be *about* observable things.

The distinction is critical, and is what allows paleontology (and even history)
to have a scientific basis.  As long as there are ways, no matter how indirect,
of *checking* (or verifying) a statement, it is acceptible to science.

|> This approach was, in fact, successful far beyond my expectations,
|> as there was not a single objection to my lack of discussion of evolution
|> during the audience time, and it left me free to use my entire presentation
|> to eviscerate creation science.

 Well, I'm glad to see that university students can still think on occasions.

|>  One report has it that a Catholic biologist in the audience
|> was extremely unimpressed with Taylor and his "evidence," and let him
|> know in no uncertain terms.

Oh dear, I can just imagine how ell it would go over if he tried to claim
that a Catholic bishop was an atheist for accepting evolution!  Catholics
are hardly what one would call a *liberal* denomination.

|> Another rumor was that a small number of
|> Catholics pressed Taylor for his opinion on the link between evolution and
|> Christianity, until he finally admitted that he did not believe the
|> Pope was a Christian, and that the arguments of these Catholics were
|> "just theology." 

What!?  You mean he *actually* had the gall to *say* it!

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: dgt@phy.duke.edu (Dinko Eduardo Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:25:27 GMT
Organization: Duke University Physics Dept.; Durham, N.C.


In a previous posting I wrote:

> [..]
>what about plants?  There is no mention of them in the Noah story, and
>they surely must have died in a flood, deprived of sunlight and 
>nutrients.  [..]

and Eric Sotnak answered:

  Don't be so dense.  Just like the animals, they came to Noah.  God said to
the plants "go to Noah" and they just uprooted themselves and marched their
way to the ark.  Sheesh, it's so simple.  Oh, as for how they stayed alive
in the ark, the answer is obvious -- God did it.

--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu    |  One chance. 
_________________________*********______________________________________________

To this I answer:

Gosh!  I thought crab grass was the only plant capable of walk, you know, picture them taking hesitant steps on their feeble stem/legs in their journey toward the awesome 300 m long ark.  What a sight!  I should have thought about this 
before!

-- 
Dinko Gonzalez Trotter
dgt@phy.duke.edu
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:43:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1993Jan27.112130.1@woods.ulowell.edu>
   cotera@woods.ulowell.edu tries to amaze us yet again:

>In article <72610d3d@ofa123.fidonet.org>,
    Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:

>>  > However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God
>>  > created the universe.
>> 
>> Here is my rebuttle: No evidence.
>> 
>
>Do you see the irony of this statement? Every time a Creationist brings up the
>gaps in the fossil record, Evolutionists say "Lack of evidence does not
>contradict evolution." Now you're using the same argument against my
>theory.

Ray, you really are a piece of work, you know.  The argument from the
gaps attempts to claim that since some evidence is missing, we can
ignore the evidence that exists.  Dr. Pepper is claiming that for your
view there is no evidence whatsoever.  Do you see the difference now?

>... The second law says that the amount of entropy in the universe is
>decreasing.  This means that the amount of energy that can be put to
>useful work is decreasing. From this we get the idea of the heat death
>of the universe.  Now if we go backwards in time we see that the
>entropy of the universe is decreasing.  Eventually we get to a point
>where there is no entropy.  So before that point either the laws of
>physics no longer hold (no evidence of this), or God created the
>universe.

Ray did you actually read this before you sent it out?  Are you having
that contest with Lionel as I suggested through e-mail?  Let's see, I
have a monotonically decreasing function Y(t).  Therefore at some
point t0, in the past Y(t0) = 0 is your conclusion?  Let me graph a
decreasing function of time for you, Ray:

Y |\
  |  \
  |    \
  |      \
  |_________
     
Do you see it crossing through zero to the left or to the right?  (I'm
not going to take on the stupid physics involved--I don't want to
spoil every one else's fun...)

>--Ray Cote

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Ethnocentrism of Evolutionists
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:56:52 GMT

In article <223@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>And, the more I look at it, the more I am becoming convinced that
>evolutionism itself is not a scientific theory or doctrine at all;

You're absolutely right.  In fact evolutionism doesn't even exist
except in the mind of creationists.  The theory of evolution, on the
other hand, is extremely well supported by many diverse lines of
inquiry.

>it is a modern version of an expansionist religion
>which, from the behavior of its practitioners and the tactics employed,
>up to and including forced indoctrination in public schools which the 
>majority of our children are forced to attend, should rightly be compared
>with Islam more so than with Christianity.

Are you also opposed to the forced indoctrination of the equally
groundless subjects of english, history, and mathematics?
-- 
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: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:33:15 GMT

rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:

>According to the standard definition of species (which you used in a
>section I deleted below), speciation has been observed in the wild.
>The organisms in question were plants, however, and the parent and
>daughter species don't look much different.  You wouldn't likely be
>terribly impressed, but your statement is nonetheless false.

References please?

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...