HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Holden and radiation
Summary: facts don't bear Ted out
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:31:17 GMT

> From: news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden)
> Message-ID: <2837@fedfil.UUCP> 
>  * WT> "Let's try to quantify what Ted's getting at here. He is
>  * WT> saying that within a span of seven days, enough radiation
>  * WT> was released to create the diversity we currently see from
>  * WT> a severe population pinch.
>  This is a serious misstatement of my position.  I never said ALL the
>  diversity we see was caused by the flood...   just a LOT of it.
>  There were other major league catastrophes both before and after the
>  flood and some of what we see, in fact a lot of what we see, was caused
>  by them rather than the flood.

How many doses, over how long?  Let's assume 5 major catastrophes,
lasting 10 days each.  Let's assume that only half of the currently
visible genetic variation came from those 5 incidents.  That's still
something like 250 Rad/day, which is 100% lethal in 4 days.  Nobody
would survive even one of these "major league catastrophes".

Further, the theory can't be fixed up by supposing that some people hid
in caves, or otherwise minimized their exposure.  If they minimized
their exposure, then they didn't aquire additional variation: the 250
Rad/day is for actual dose of the survivors.  And at that dose level,
there wouldn't be any survivors.

Even if you postulate a dosage of, say 100 Rad/day for 5 days for each
catastrophe, you can't simply add enough catastrophes to get the
required amount of variation, because each catastrophe kills off most
of the variation generated from the previous ones:  each catastrophe
represents a population (and hence variation) bottleneck.

Thus, IF there were major radiation doses in recent history, most of
present day variation in present-day species must have been caused by
the most recent one, simply because it would have killed off the
variation from previous ones.  The only way major, radiation-dosing
catastrophes can fit with present observed variation is be being far
enough in the past.  Well outside 10,000 years, probably further. And
it's not some deep-seated race-memory fear prompting me to "want" to
"get away" from catastrophe.  It's just the way the numbers work out.

Ted's theory simply can't be made to work with real-world
facts and figures.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:21:22 GMT
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center

In <1992Jul27.161124.21134@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>In article <schinder.712073310@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov> schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
>>Photons have no mass.  You can define an "effective mass" for a photon
>>by m = E/c^2, but that's pretty pointless.  When a physicist says
>>"mass" nowadays, he means exclusively rest mass, that mass that a
>>particle would have in it's rest frame (if any).  

>This idea is somewhat erroneous. Give me a sensitive enough scale,
>a box made of perfect mirrors with light inside and I'll weigh the
>light for you.

Nope, the idea is exactly correct.  I meant what I said.  The mass of
a photon is zero. Mass != weight.  The mass is the square root of the
square of the four momentum vector, and it's exactly zero for a
photon.  That you can "weight" photons is a consequence of the fact
that all forms of energy (including massless particles) gravitate.

>-- 
>>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
>Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
>in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
>       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:10:16 GMT
Organization: Auburn University Engineering

In article <2A70C782.20905@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>
>Don't write a FAQ file unless you're really answering FAQs and you
>know what you're talking about.
>

Hmm, does this apply only to creationists, or is this a principle that should
apply across the board?

>--
> ___            _    _     _  _        _
>(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
>(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
>Brett Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept
Auburn University
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Biogenesis (+ an invitation to C. Menem)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:02:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.135645.22992@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> mark@austin.ibm.com (Mark Einkauf) writes:
>
>  (the invitation to Mr. Menem is near the end of this post)
>
>  I have followed talk.origins for about two months.  There  is much heated
>  debate on the fossil record, the  flood, macroevolution,  dinosaurs, etc.
>  These are all valid  topics.  However,  I'm amazed  that no  one seems to
>  question what is surely the very foundation  of the  evolutionary theory.
>  The theory (as I understand it) claims  that not  only the specialization
>  of life (i.e.  species) can be explained by purely natural  forces acting
>  through time, but that the very genesis of life  occurred through natural
>  forces acting randomly on inorganic matter over time.  I find  this claim
>  that  evolution   explains  biogenesis   to  be   preposterous,   and  in
>  disagreement with scientific evidence.  I don't know why  no one  in this
>  group has questioned this, for this  is surely  the Achilles  Heel of the
>  theory.

Uh, no.  Not really.  The Theory of Evolution does *not* claim to explain
how life got here in the first place.  It doesn't care about that.  It
simply explains what happens to life when it *is* there (simplification I
know, but bear with me).  Criticizing evolution because it doesn't explain
abiogenesis is like complaining that Kepler's Laws don't explain
how the planets got there.

>  The fact that biogenesis cannot occur  "naturally" is  a scientific fact,
>  and also,   I think,   self-evident.  It   is silly   to think   that the
>  complexity of our bodies  is the  result of  random forces.   I think the
>  theory of evolution makes some thoughtful predictions on how  species can
>  adapt and develop, given  that a  living organism  exists and  is able to
>  reproduce and pass on characteristics (inheritance).  However, an initial
>  living organism must first be obtained.  The theory does not  explain how
>  this happens.   

It also doesn't explain why the Dodgers can't play for shit this year, or
why grass is green, or how many bites it takes to get to the center
of a Tootsie pop.

>  If the  theory is  woefully inadequate  on something this
>  fundamental, then I think the entire theory is suspect.
>
>  As mentioned, I think that  the fact  that life  is too  complex to arise
>  spontaneously is  self-evident.  

Yes, I thought you might.  It is self evident that the Earth is flat
too.

.. much deleted ..

I am amazed that you admit that you have no in depth kowledge of
biology and yet feel qualified to say that all the biologits and
biochemists are kidding themselves when it comes to abiogenesis
(I apologize if I am misrepresenting your position).  Doesn't
it occur to you that maybe the experts in the field *do* know more
than you (that is, after all, why they are called experts)?

C Frog
From: hrbob@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.e.wiersbe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Mammoths don't smegging gallop...........
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:26:49 GMT
Followup-To: /dev/null
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <2845@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>In the antediluvian world, as I have elaborately shown, the felt
>effect of gravity was heavily attenuated;  this allowed the existence
>of creatures which would be so heavy in our world today, that they
>would be crushed by their own weight.  It also apparently allowed
>mammoths to gallop with abandon.
>

Well, I downloaded the mammoth gif and took a look at it. Ted, are you really 
serious about using this picture of a piece of art as proof of your theory?
Is this a picture of a drawing, or a picture of a statue? It looks like a 
statue to me - the legs are missing! If this is really what a mammoth looked
like it's no wonder they're not around anymore, they wouldn't be able to out-
run a turtle.

Seriously, how can you possibly think that this picture proves anything? For 
all you know it was made by a 2nd grader in art class. It proves nothing. If
this is an example of your "proof", then you have no credibility whatsoever.

It's kind of like expecting someone in the future who finds a Far Side cartoon
to believe that dolphins could speak Spanish. Ooops, what a second, wouldn't
that be proof that man and animals could communicate in your antedeludian (sic)
time?

>
>This is from the pictures worth 1000 words dept.

It's worth about 3 words - Give It Up!

>
>For those of you who cannot read the insignia on the image, it says,
>more or less:
>
Thank you for the translation, I can't read Russian. 

Bob Wiersbe	hrbob@ihlpb.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: 7'th Category of evidence / Greco-Roman myth and tradition
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:05:11 GMT

In article <2833@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In our present system, the only three possible candidates for celestial
>deity are the sun, the moon, and Venus.

>Two of the least large, least impressive, least assuming, inconspicuous,
>non-candidates for deity in the entire universe today are the
>far-off planets Jupiter and Saturn.  An overwhelming majority of people
>in the world couldn't even find them or point them out.

Jupiter is brighter than most of the brightest fixed stars.
After Sun, Moon and Venus, it is the fourth-brightest thing in the sky
(sometimes; it changes brightness).
Saturn and Mars are not far off.  If you knew the constellations, you
would see that they sometimes contain bright stars that should not be
there.  That's exactly those "inconspicuous non-candidates".  Of course
you don't need to know the constellations, but our ancestors had to.
One can tell the time from the stars as well as the directions...

>Hesiod and Ovid both speak of a golden age, when Kronos (Saturn) was
>"king in heaven".  For those of you who haven't ever been able to fathom
>that phrase, it means when Saturn was our sun.  That's what "king of
>heaven" IS.

Can you please tell me how they knew after the alleged "catastrophe"
that those supposedly "inconspicuous" bodies were the same ones that
before the alleged "catastrophe" were giant gas balls at the sky?

>I have claimed that this planet once orbitted a small electromagnetic
>star, one pole forever pointed straight at that star, [..]

Please tell us when the law of conservation of angular momentum started
to exist.  This scenario happens to contradict it.

>There is one other effect you'd notice.  There would be no seasons.
>
>You might expect Greek and Roman authors to mention that.  They do.
>[..]

>According to standard theory, the familiar pattern of the seasons whould
>have been with us since long before anything man lived on this planet.
>
>The notion of having to EXPLAIN the recent coming into existence of the
>ordinary cycle of the seasons is impossible given standard beliefs.

It's a myth.  Why don't you try to explain the myth that the founders of the
city of Athens were snake-men that grew out of the earth, that their lower
limbs consisted of snakes?  Or the myths of Medusa, Sphinx, Pegasus, Chimaira?

The law of conservation of angular momentum is stronger than the Golden Age
myth because you can make experiments to test it.

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Do you ask a Napoleon why it has to be Moscow, of all places?  Do you ask a
Mondrian why one has to paint only in the rectangularly framed primary colours
Red, Blue, and Yellow?  Ah, how all questions are ruined in view of a persuas-
ively recited system of madness! And is there a mortar keeping those systems
together firmer than real or supposed enemies?  -  Robert Gernhardt
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:46:08 GMT
Organization: City University, London

(Andy Peters) writes:
>So, you're saying that if I "repent of my sins, turn to God and 
>ask for forgiveness based on Jesus's sacrifice in my place," then
>go out and sin some more, then repent again, then sin again, etc.,
>that's better than not believing, but not sinning at all?

In a word, yes. This is because there is a problem with not sinning
at all - nobody except Jesus Christ can do it.

In other words there is no hope for any of us, we are all doomed -
apart from the saving _grace_ of God through Jesus. This salvation
comes by _grace_ not by good works (or trying not to sin), and
it is an undeserved, unearned free gift.

Once saved though, most people turn over a new leaf out of
gratitude and love for God, and don't want to keep sinning.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministery of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:04:57 GMT

In article <Brsv1y.CFn@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R
James) writes:
> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
> 
> >In article <BrsMCD.8rp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier)
writes:
> 
> >>On the other hand , if A&E are just a figleaf of our illustration, and
> >>humans originated from herds of apemen, then it is the natural order of
> >>things to be polygamous and copulate with anything in heat.
> 
> [explanations for monogamy in evo deleted]
> 
> >I don't know what the currently-accepted explanation is for human
> >monogamy, but I would suspect it is some combination of 1 and 2
> 
> I hate to muddy the waters here, but I don't think
> humans are strictly monogamous.  Actually I've heard that
> polygamous cultures greatly outnumber the monogamous ones.

  If you study those cultures you will probably find that they are ones where
"polygamy is acceptable".  Actual polygamy would probably be restricted to a
small social elite in almost all cases.

  In this case it still fits in with explanation #1, as the very wealthy can
usually afford to support more females.

> What is important to keep in mind is that humans are born practically
> a blank slate.

  Not quite true.  I am sure there are others, but a big one is that humans are
preprogrammed to react to a woman screaming.

>  Most other animals are born with a host of _instinctual_
> behavior patterns, but humans acquire most of their behaviors
> through *learning*.

  Is fingernail-biting learned?  What about nose picking, or ear picking.  If
anything these are discouraged, but they still happen.  There is also the
rooting reflex in infants, and the sucking reflex.  The list goes on.

>  This also ties in with the thread karl pfaff had
> advanced.  It is (almost) meaningless to try to look to nature for
> any "natural" behavior for man.  If such a pattern of behaviors were
> to exist, it would be best to search across cultures for similiarities.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
From: ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:47:50 GMT
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
: In <1992Jul20.104506.18345@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
: 
: many deletions...
: 
: >Under no interpretation that calls itself literal can this be
: >shown to mean that under some circumstances should women teach.
: >It clearly and unequivocally says No!
: 
: Again, I refer you to Titus for a broader pastoral perspective
: on women/teaching/authority.
: 

Ok Chuck, looking at Titus seems to be a good idea.  Let's see 
what it says:

Titus 2: 1-5  (Authorized King James)

But speak thou the things which come sound doctrine:
That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound 
in faith, in charity, in patience.  The aged women
likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh
holiness, not false accusers, not given to too much
wine, teachers of good things;  That they may teach
the young women to be sober, to love their husbands,
to love their children, To be discrete, chaste, keepers
at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the
word of God be not blasphemed.

Now that we have looked at the "broader pastoral perspective",
we can clearly see that the Bible says it is OK for women to
teach.  However when we look more closely, it says thay women
may only teach other women.  It clearly states this.  It does
NOT say that women can teach men. 

To summarize:

I have now provided three explicit verses showing that women
should not teach Sunday School.  How can you still say that
your belief is consistent with the Bible?  You seem to be
applying 20th century secular humanist reasoning that says it
is OK to ignore selected verses of scripture.
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Noah's ark incompatible...with Noah's ark?
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:55:09 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministery of Silly Walks

In article <mtx014.711789557@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov>, mtx014@cck.cov.ac.uk (Robert
Low) writes:
> In <1992Jul21.172154@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
writes:
> >  By interpretation I mean the transference of the phrases into their
logical
> >equivalents.  This is encompasses both the logical and exegetical processes.
> >The two things are too intertwined to be easily separated in this context.
> 
> Sorry, Warren, but I just don't think we're really communicating 
> effectively. What you are calling an interpretation is well beyond what I
> understand by the word. I *think* that what is happening is that
> you are claiming that it there is a possible original
> meaning of the author that is consistent which you obtain
> by claiming that "unclean" is to be understood; my claim is
> that in the absence of said author to consult, the text as
> it stands is inconsistent.

  Without the author to cunsult we have no way of knowing what the intent was. 
Why should a literal interpretation be assumed just because the author is
inaccessable?

> I think (hope, whatever) that
> we are saying the same thing in different ways, but I now
> doubt that we can establish that. Shall we simply drop the
> discussion before we both start to suffer from terminal
> frustration?

  Sounds fine.  But I'm still willing to pick up on t.r.m if you want.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: Was: Thermodynamics FAQ, Now: Pardon me while I rant.
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:35:37 GMT

In <1992Jul28.200827.7159@techbook.com> mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb) writes:

>henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>>Come on some of you people who call yourselves scientists.  Make a stand.
>>Either tell these poor fools that they are wrong, or tell me why all the
>>sources that I have are wrong.

>I just talked to a physics professor at your university named Gary Cantini,
>and gave him your description of why you believe that order can
>only decrease on the earth, since, no mass enters this system, and
>according to you, pure energy coming into a system doesn't count.
> 

Whoa.  I don't remember Henley ever claiming this.  In fact, I asked
him specifically in e-mail if he agreed that a closed (his definition)
system could decrease in entropy, and he agreed.  (Maybe we should
post our correspondence, James.)   His (to us) confusing definition of
closed seems pointless to me, but I have no reason to doubt that it exists
in the texts he mentioned, and I don't recall seeing him make any claims
about the entropy of a closed (his definition) system.


> 
>Regards,
>        Max G. Webb

>>James P. Henley Jr.
>>Chemical Engineering Dept
>>Auburn University
>-- 
>mongo@techbook.COM          ATT: 1-503-227-1284
>SNAIL: 1983 nw Flanders #205, Portland OR 97209
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Green Ray Turns People Black, News at 11
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:15:55 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <Bs1qMv.w4@world.std.com*, twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:
* In article <2837@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
* >That is a serious misstatement of my position.  I have stated a belief
* >that both the white and the black races as we see them now are very
* >recent, the black race a tiny bit MORE recent.
 
* Just so I get this right, you seem to be saying that a bunch of
* radiation suddenly turned half the people in the world into blacks.
* Is this correct?
* Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com

Obviously not.  Just one person.  But then, that one person had children,
and those people had children, and those children had more children...



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE