HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:51:33 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation  Sunnyvale California

The "Flood FAQ" poses the question:
>
>>   How were mountains formed?  Many very tall mountains are composed of
>> 	sedimentary rocks.  If these were laid down during the flood, how
>> 	did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys
>> 	between them eroded away?


>Wayne Folta writes (in email to Mark Isaac, subsequently posted):
> 
>As the land was raised up and the flood waters settled down into the ocean--- 
>basins, mountains would be raised and great erosion would occur. (This
>reminds me of the Mt. St. Helens video that Gish and company have. It shows
>a valley with a little stream running through it. The valley's walls show
>millions of fine layers of deposits. Three hundred years from now, people
>might assume that the layers had been deposited over millions of years and
>that the stream had taken hundreds of thousands of years to carve out the
>valley. In fact, the deposits occured in three days, and the valley was
>blown out by a huge steam/mud flood in half a day.)

*People might*, especially scientifically ignorant people,
 but no geologist would.  Especially after applying
radiometric dating methods to the emplaced layered tuff, which would give
uniformly young dates for all layers.  Since the tuff would be
very young, the valley would likewise be understood to be young,
by any scientifically-trained research geologist.

What irks me so much about this style of Creationist argument,
the "Whitcomb and Morris speculate" handwaving, is the incredible
arrogance demonstrated.   Thousands of competent, intelligent
scientists, including many comitted Christians,
 spend a century and a half investigating the 
geology of the crust, and come up at last with powerful 
and beautiful explanations of the record of the rocks,
consistent with the evidence from biology, astronomy,
physics, and paleontology.   Whitcomb, Morris, and their
fellow supposers coolly dismiss the work of lifetimes,
and "speculate" that a long series of near-miracles
and coincidences somehow produced today's world.

As John McPhee is fond of pointing out, the summit of Everest
is composed of deep-marine limestone, the type we observe forming
_slowly_ today in the basins off the continental shelves.
Whitcomb and Morris's apologetics don't begin to explain this
single observation.  

I'd very much like to hear their
explanation of the metamorphic rocks of California,
which made no sense at all until re-analyzed in the
context of terranes accreted over many millions of
years at an actively-subducting plate boundary.

Oh, they haven't gotten around to examining this problem
yet?  How strange.

----
Joel Hanes
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:14:37 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <o58uVB4w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>No. The most comprehensive explanation wins, not the simplest.

Yes, Occam's Razor is overdone by scientists who don't know philosophy.
Meanwhile, you don't have any comprehensive explanations for the thousands
and thousands of known dendrograms, now do you?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Summary: Holden dislexia?
Date: 20 Dec 92 02:36:49 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <178@fedfil.UUCP>
: Wayne Throop provides viewers with more than sufficient evidence for regarding
: him as an idiot.  There is the little matter of supposing a sauropod dinosaur
: the same size as Bill Kazmaier to be magically capable of lifting more than
: Kazmaier, the most powerful creature ever created by modern science at his
: size of 340 lbs.

Lucky for me, I never claimed the effect was magical.  That's all in
Ted's fevered imagination.  No, the effect is totally due to physics,
the calculations for which I've laid out and upon which Ted has never
given any relevant comment.  Further, 27000/27000^(2/3) = 30.0, while
1340/340^(2/3) = 27.5.  So, on Holden's own scale, the elephant
referenced in the GBR is stronger than Kazmaier, so I don't have to
"suppose" some creature.  If Ted has a problem with that, he can take it
up with Guiness, not with me.  And note well: this is a weight based on
a complete newly-dead carcass, not on a handful of vertebrae and a
shoulder blade. 

And before Ted can tell me to "take it up with McGowan", let me state
yet again that I don't have any particular problem with 180 tons
for Ultrasaurus.  I find it unlikely, that is all.   My dispute is
purely with Holden's claims of 600,000 lbs and up for Seismosaurus
and other large sauropods, for which he has no real evidence whatsoever.

: In one of Throop's recent massive disgorgings across t.o, we see:
:   ^Further, Ted (and Ginenthal) make much of how much heat energy is
:   ^consumed by raising the atmosphere, while ignoreing how much heat is
:   ^released when it falls back.  
: T.o regulars have taken me to task for using the colloqueal "heat rises", 
: rather than saying that heated air rises.  But "heat falls back"?

Since Ted has supplied the quote, we can see clearly that there is
NO place I've used the phrase "heat falls back".

In order to suppose I'm saying that "heat falls back", Ted has to leap
to the totally unreasonable and unsupportable conclusion that the "it"
in "it falls back" refers to "heat" instead of "the atmosphere".  Since
I was very carefull to say that the atmosphere was what rose, it is a
miracle of obtuseness on Ted's part to think I meant anything else. 

: See what I mean?  Sad, isn't it?

Yes, it IS sad.  Perhaps Ted is dislexic, along with his other problems.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:01:38 GMT

In article <o58uVB4w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
> 
> > To make a very long story very very short:  the primates were here
> > before us, and they created us in their image.  
> 
> No. Biologically, humans are primates, so the statement that primates
> were here before humans is logically invalid.

  Sorry Kalki, you have that backwards.  Let me rephrase the comment above:

      Planes were around before jets.

  Now you are arguing that since jets are planes the above is wrong.  However,
anyone can tell you that planes were around before jets.  Likewise, the
statement primates were around before humans is also perfectly valid. 

> > Yep, the simplest explanation of a phenomena wins.  Note that
> > the explanation didn't last but one solitary sentence.
> 
> No. The most comprehensive explanation wins, not the simplest.

  No.  The simplest comprehensive explanation wins.  Any explanation that is not
comprehensive looses automatically.  If there is no comprehensive explanation,
go find one, don't pick the "most comprehensive".

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Compleat?
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:05:56 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things


 cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes: >

>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.

This reminds me of a small humor book called "The Compleat Turkey."
It talked about annoying people who manage to insinuate themselves
into your life despite your best attempts to keep them at bay.  They
are lacking in social graces and unable take a hint that they are
not welcome.

Anyway, on the title page of the book is a cartoon of a turkey,
looking askance at the title, and saying "Shouldn't that be 
'C-O-M-P-L-E-T-E'?"

Ray, my dear, you have captured the essence of this obtuseness
perfectly.  Why don't you learn from this experience not to
engage pnews before putting your brain in gear?

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: Finnish Bible Translating
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 14:00:43 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1gb0m7INNbtc@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.121426.16272@abo.fi>, MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI
> (Mats Andtbacka) writes:

>>     Sill{ n{in sanoo Herra: Vasta kun ne seitsem{nkymment{
>>    Baabelin vuotta ovat t{yttyneet, min{ katson teid{n puoleenne
>>    ja panen t{yt{nt||n teit{ kohtaan hyv{n lupaukseni ja
>>    palautan teid{t t{h{n paikkaan.
> 
> Do Finnish sermons end with the closing of all the parenthesese,
> like German ones end with all the verbs?

      I didn't get your point at first, but then I understood... Your
terminal seems to have screwed up on the scandinavian characters, which
display fine on mine... I *did* put in a warning about that in my
posting. A nice laugh, tho'; too bad only net.people would understand
it...

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 If you think I'm gonna be responsible for this crap, you're madder than I am.
    "No logic here today / Do as you got to, Go your own way..." -- G 'n' R
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:22:59 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <62895@mimsy.umd.edu>, folta@cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) wrote:
> 
> "" Thus, what looks like "forest killed by volcano, tens of thousands of years
> "" until new forest, which is killed by volcano, ..." could have actually been
> "" entirely been deposited in rapid succession from a forest at another
> "" location. In fact, I think they presented (at their seminar) information
> "" that one of their group had gotten a Master's Thesis out of looking into the
> "" different forest's tree rings and finding that the many layers were from the
> "" same forest (tree rings corresponded).
> "
> "In other words, I'm sure we are dealing with a very intelligent
> "flood that is sentient and knows how to reorder tree deposits in 
> "a chronological order.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ummm... how does this follow? I did not mean that one flood deposited all of
> the trees. We are talking "flood" or "tsunami" not "Flood" here. While this
> was in the Flood FAQ, it is actually an anti-Young-Earth argument and was
> addressed as such.

As I understood the tree layers are organized into chronological orders,
style Grand Canyon. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. However if 
this is the case, then the Flood should be a sentient being that is capable
of creating bogus evidence, or in other words we are dealing with a 
"Joker flood" :-).

As for the Flood, looking at the title, aren't we talking about "The
Flood",
and not floods?

Just to end this with a rhetorical question, I'm sure God had a plan
when he deliberately hid away all traces for a universal flood, and 
instead placed out traces that point at the case of evolution. In other
words he want to shake out the believers from the loosers, I guess.

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: bell-peter@yale.edu (Peter Bell)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Powered flight
Date: 14 Dec 92 02:23:08 GMT
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <1992Dec13.185932.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>In article <1gg3voINNd63@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, bell-peter@yale.edu (Peter Bell) writes:
>> 
>> (yes, in the teleost fish--there is a fish, I forget the species now, which 
>> is capable of using its enlarged pectoral fins in a flapping manner for short
>> distances, on the order of 20 feet, as an augment to jumping out of the water.)
>
>   Flying fish can "fly" for farther than that, but I don't think it's
>generally regarded as powered flight, more like gliding.
>
>Karl
>------
>"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
>					 --Negativland, "U2"
Right, but that is not the species I am thinking of.  I was specifically in-
terested in powered flight;  once you get into gliding, you start 
really racking up examples fast.  And most of them would be argued as 
"yeah, but not really very winglike...", as in the skin flaps of gliding 
snakes and lizards..



-- 
Peter					Deficit solution:  eat the rich,
bell@minerva.cis.yale.edu		seize their estates, repeat as needed
Is it conceivable that I could be speaking on behalf of Yale University?
Please, if you think so, send me 20 dollars.  I will be *your* spokesman too
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ragnarok Is Nigh! Be Ware!
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 14 Dec 92  08:30:24

From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
ID: <1992Dec11.073220.23714@smds.com>
 
>Both Kalki(s) and Lionel Tun will be VERY surprised when Odin,
>whom is the One True Creator, comes down and collects warriors
>to help Him fight Ragnarok, and Kalki(s) and Lionel find out
>they BOTH picked the wrong Gods!
 
>(Of course if one DOES pick the correct God, i.e. Odin, one is
>still equally screwed--- you're Giant bait no matter what.)
 
RH> "Yeah, it's going to be very sad. I predict that they will
RH> turn out to be thor losers. How unloki for them."
 
We'll all be Frigg-ed.
 
I've given much thought on if I should join the side of the Giants,
and live the life of a food animal for a year or so before they
eat me, or join the side of the Gods, and die by being hacked into
tiny bits of bloody pieces. . . . Damned if yah do, damned if yah
don't.
 
What I want to know is, how does Loki manage to survive?!
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: a message from Asgard
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:03:50 GMT
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Chris Colby (colby@bu-bio.bu.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec11.073220.23714@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
: >In article <n10e0t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
: 
: >>(Of course if one DOES pick the correct God, i.e. Odin, one is
: >>still equally screwed--- you're Giant bait no matter what.)
: 
: >Yeah, it's going to be very sad.  I predict that they will
: >turn out to be thor losers.  How unloki for them.
: 
: Richard,
: Odin is not amused. To make amends for your tomfoolerly, you
: may post a humble paean to the Norse gods. But beware, any
: further misuse of their sacred names may take you out the 
: frying pan and into the Freyr 8-)

	This is all Balder-dash, and I for one am Siegfried and tired
of it.  I'll give all of you a Heimdallr if you will just stop.

	Jim "date with a Valkyrie" Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Robert Bass on Velikovsky and Physics
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:58:36 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cygnus.cis.ksu.edu

justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:

>Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it happened.

Evolution?

-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |
Xref: sparky talk.origins:15813 sci.skeptic:21550
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Speed of light
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:27:14 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:


> >       New Light on an Old Problem
> >       ===========================     by Alan Montgomery
> 
> >     In 1981, Barry Setterfield a young Australian astronomer, gathered
> > and analyzed all the available data on 'c'.  To his amazement he
> > discovered not only the systematic decrease of 'c' with time, but also
> > that the best mathematical relationship to fit the data was a
> > trigonometric formula:

I was lucky enough to discover that monograph in a second-hand bookshop
in the small town of Bendigo (an ex gold-rush town, with some grand
buildings inherited from that rich era). What Montgomery forgets to say,
and what Setterfield conveniently ignored, even though he mentioned it
fleetingly, is that he also found that, recently, the speed of light
appeared to have stopped decreasing, and even, some years, had been
increasing again! The whole thing boils down to smoothing observations
of the speed of light for the past 200 years or so, then extrapolating
the resulting curve (which is *very* flat) thousands of years into the past.
The extrapolated curve, looking like an exponential decrease of c, is
a lot more exciting than wondering if the recording methods and instruments
might not er... let's not broach upon that dark subject.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 20 Dec 1992 06:10:14 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec18.130553.20138@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> In article <1gr8nhINNl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >|> >
|> >|> >Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
|> >|> >whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Hahahahaha!
|> >
|> >Would you care to be more specific?
|> 
|> I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of evolutionists in 
|> coming up with outrageous ideas in an effort to convince themselves of the 
|> non-creation of the world and of themselves.

Well, there are a couple of problems with what you say here.   In the first
place, the notion that we may simply live in the particular Universe that is
set up right for us to exist is not really an "evolutionist" idea.   It's just
an extension - and a highly speculative one - of the notion that this Universe
was created in a Big Bang.   If this one was, then maybe many were, and maybe 
they didn't all have the same physical laws, and so maybe some of them never 
had life, but the one we are in obviously does, and we know that because we're
it.

Do I claim this is true?   No, of course not, since I can never have evidence
one way or another.   However, I do claim that as long as this is a *possibility*,
then the rival, extremely strong, claim that the configuration of our own 
Universe is somehow miraculous and proof of the existence of a Creator, remains
unproven.

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

If you really think this way - personally I think it's just a pose - then
the way for you to help is to make sensible postings that don't portray
yourself, and perhaps other Christians, as fools.

jon.
From: malc@pyramid.unr.edu (Malcolm L. Carlock)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Matters of Gravity
Date: 9 Dec 92 02:00:06 GMT
Organization: Xinaian Tourist Bureau

In article <158@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|> Take wings, for example.  A wing in anything other than its fully developed
|> form would be a terrible disadaptation.

I've always found it interesting that the skin a flying squirrel uses for
gliding follows the same basic structural and attachment pattern, if not
nearly so fully developed, as that of a bat.
--
Malcolm L. Carlock                      Internet:  malc@unr.edu
                                        UUCP:      unr!malc
                                        BITNET:    malc@equinox
From: dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
Date: 15 Dec 1992 18:19:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpdstma.ptp.hp.com

In article <1992Dec15.134757.3878@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec13.130836@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> >  Like many libraries that use the LOC sorting method for books, the library
|> >here sometimes puts jounals onto the same shelves as books.  In order to keep
|> >the journals from getting damaged before they are bound, they are kept in small
|> >boxes that maintain a rigid space on the shelves.
|> >
|> >  As I was looking through the shelves yesterday I saw a box labeled "Creation
|> >Evidences".  Curious I pulled out the box to take a look at the journals.
|> >
|> >  I guess I shouldn't have been too suprised to find that it was empty.
|> 
|> Hahahahaha! In that case you should look at the chapter entitled
|> "List of scientific proofs for evolution" in the book "The Collapse
|> of Evolution"

Lionel, do you really consider yourself Christian? Do you think the way
you have been acting of late on this forum walks the path of Christ?

God certainly doesn't.

-- 
Dave Waller
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Prehistoric flying creatures and gravity
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:15:06 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <94839@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>, tkacik@hobbes.hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik) writes:
|> Unlike birds, pterosaurs did not have tails.  That made them rather unstable.
|> McReady discovered that it was possible to use the head as a stabilizer, ...
|> 
|> In order to fly, the pterosaur needed active stability.  McReady got this by
|> controlling head movement during the flight.  The real thing would have been
|> able to do this much more smoothly, leading to better stability in flight.

Yep, that's it, this was at least part of my point.

It was obvious from watching the thing fly that it had *far* less active
stabilization than *any* real vertebrate can produce, just by virtue of
having lots of nerves and muscles.

Thus, the Gossamer Pteranodon is best seen as a *minimal* model, showing that
even a *less* *capable* form of that size and weight can fly, if just barely.
Thus, it becomes a trivial inference that a *living* Pteranodon would be able
to fly with ease. [Twitch that wing, ...]

[P.S. only *some* pterosaurs lacked wings, but since this subset includes all of
the *large* ones, this is not really relevent to refuting Ted's argument].

|> People use this to be able to walk in two legs.  You need to actively adjust your
|> stance, or you will fall over.  For humans, this is a very natural thing, and
|> noone would say that people can't walk.  But it is extremely difficult to build
|> a robot that can walk on two legs.

For that matter it is extremely difficult to build a robot that can walk on
*four* legs, except on a flat surface - obstacles are still a major problem
for any robot with less than *six* legs.

Hey, ted, are you now going to claim, on the basis of the failure to build
a two-legged robot, that bipedalism violates the laws of physics?
[This is the same argument as the one you used for the giant pterosaurs].

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins