HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kamphau@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: kamphau@oktext.UUCP (Mark Kamphaus)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 20:36:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.162241.26511@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <zs9msg+.alc@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
>
>>[..about dating trees by tree rings...]
>
>Suppose you had a garden. One day you look out of the window and see
>a tree in the middle of if where previously there had been none. Now
>a friend comes to visit you for the first time and looks at the tree.
>He counts the rings and says its been there for 100 years. You say 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>its been there for 1 day. Which of you is correct?
>
>Hint: It depends on your assumptions.
>Advice: Don't make too many assumptions about the origin of the
>        universe and of species.

Counting rings does not determine the amount of time the tree
had been in the garden.  Counting rings gives an indication
of the age of the tree.  Your logic is flawed if you think
that # of rings = # of years in the garden.
( Joe X posts on t.o., Joe X had never posted to t.o. previously,
Joe X is 35 yrs old.  How long will your friend say that
Joe X has posted?)

Here is the parallel to creationism.  You contend that the
tree appeared "ex nihlo".  It was never in existance before.
I would contend that the tree was 100yrs old but moved.
I look around and see a large hole in the ground.  I see that
the dirt around the tree is disturbed.  I see a large machine
with a shovel.  I find more and more evidence consistant with
my assertion that the tree was moved.  You claim that all of the
evidence that I find is meaningless because the "ex nihlo" creation
of the tree also had an "ex nihlo" creation of history as well and
that history could make it appear that it was moved.  So I ask you
why you believe that it wasn't moved.  You say that you read
it was done that way.  You tell me that your source is accurate
and undeniable.  Your source is right.  I read your source.
I don't see that it says what you claim.  You say that it may
not say that exactly, but that is what it means.  So which
should I accept - your *interpretation*  based on nothing but
self-proclaimation, or my *interpretation* (which did not violate
the way I read your source) and is supported by observable, measurable,
verifiable evidence.

mark
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: The problem with scientific creationism
Keywords: creationism, deconstructionism
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:33:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.151640.29993@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
(Scharle) writes:
>     You'd be better off to try "creationist deconstructionism", or 
> "post-modern creationism".  Better hurry, though, they may be out of 
> date if you don't spread the word quick.  Maybe you could try to 
> anticipate a little -- here are some suggestions:
> 
>     Neo-modernist creationism 
>     Post-deconstructionist creationism
>     Neo-structuralist creationism

  5 years ago it would have been "Hi-tech creationism" or "state-of-the-art
creationism"  but I think the most effectual one today would be "<insert the
name of a popular film or TV character> creationism".  I think it would be
something like "batman creationism" this summer.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:02:13 GMT

>     I have thought over the evolution of skin color, and have run into the
>following questions:
>
>1) Following that the darker colors for humans are generally dominant vis-a-vis
>the lighter colors
>2) That the darker the skin color, the better the protection from UV radiation
>
>    Then what would be the evolutionary mechanism that would select for lighter
>skin towards the northern climates?  

Maybe that the sun is a good source of vitamin D, and the white skin
helps to absorb more?  Hell, I dunno.

>KAMCHATKA CHARLIE          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu

C Frog
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9787 talk.religion.misc:14331
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:27:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


In article <1287@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>In article <6626@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>
>alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
|>
|>If one believes the Bible is the inspired word of God, one has no choice
|>but to believe that when Gen. 7:19 says "*all* the high mountains were
|>covered" it means exactly that.  Any other interpretation is putting words
|>in the mouth of the Bible writer and is only an attempt to reconcile the
|>Bible's statement with the fact that there is absolutely no geological
|>evidence for a global deluge.
|>
|>[...]
|>
|>The point is that it is precisely the lack of evidence of such geological 
|>disaster worldwide that forces thinking fundamentalists into the dubious
|>position of claiming the Bible does not mean what it says.
|>
|
|I believe that some of the original writings were inspired while
|others may have been observations of events as they were perceived.
|If I understand your comments, no errors have been made in copying or
|translating text from those original authors since the time of the
|Flood, or since the time the events of the Flood were recorded.  I
|also am not suggesting that the Flood was a minor local event, but a
|major event sufficient to destroy human life and much of the animal
|kingdom.  To Noah's family, this may have appeared to be all life on
|Earth and as far as they knew, the water rose above all the mountains,
|or some scribe decided the story wasn't good enough and beefed it up a
|bit.
|--
|Mark


I think there are only two logically consistent positions on whether the
original writings were inspired or not:  the fundamentalist position that
*all* scripture is inspired, which the Bible itself claims (2 Timothy 3:16),
or the opposite, that it is merely the writings of men.

Any position in between runs into the problem of judging what is inspired
and what is not.  By what standard do you pick and choose what part you
will believe?  If you pick and choose, what then becomes the basis of
your faith?  Your own ideas?

Fundamentalists argue correctly that Jesus Christ himself believed in a
global Flood.  They say he compared it to the coming end of the world.
Do you disagree?  If so, on what basis?

Alan
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Debating Tactics (Was Re: Creationism and its debunking in Australia
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:17:55 GMT

My thanks to Jim Lippard for his article of Plimer and Price's dirty tactics.
Unlike Thomas Jukes, I don't consider Jim's article to be a case of American
'cultural imperialism' towards Australians, but rather one anti-creationist
cleaning up the mess caused by two others.

Jim's article raises the question of precisely what is the best way to combat
Creationism. The attitiude of many academics here in Australia has been to say
'Just ignore them, they're only cranks anyway.' I get the impression that this
was the attitude in the US in the seventies, and its result here has also been
similar: Creationism has grown relatively unchecked.

Plimer would justify his rather dirty tactics by saying that if we confront
them soberly, seriously and calmly we are legitimising them by treating them
as equals and that we lose most of our audience because we get technical while
they keep it all on an idiot-level. He believes in going for the balls.

Plimer has a point, and he has been successful in making the debunking of 
Creationism *entertaining* and thus got some useful publicity. But I feel
we can keep the public's interest without resorting to dirty tactics. So what
is the best way to debate creationists? How much sarcasm/ridicule/humour can 
we use? Is there a danger of legitimising their stupid position by taking it 
seriously? Comments?

Tim O'Neill
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Jim sez: who ya gonna trust, me or your senses?
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:02:23 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <39EA03P761SV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
>Loucks) writes:
>                                [deletions]
>>Maybe we shouldn't be messin' around where we're messin' around. I 
>>believe the Bible to be a revelation of God, not just "religion." 
>>The Bible states that God will frustrate the intelligence of the
>>intelligent, and just maybe this origins debate is one of the 
>>frustrations. I think we can all admit that man can be extremely
>>proud, and wouldn't intellectual pride be an extremely easy trap
>>to fall into? Maybe God never intended for us to try to figure out
>>how old the earth is, or how he created life. But man with all his 
>>pride must know, and for this pride, God frustrates those minds. 

>   Jim, I will refrain from swearing and profanity BUT do you realize what you
>just said?  You just said that any attempt to use reason to deduce things about
>the world is an act of hubris and that we should just all accept the Bible
>instead.  From this I deduce that you think God gave us brains IN ORDER TO AID
>THE DEVIL IN DAMNING OURSELVES?!?

Dan, there is pride, and then there is pride. Since this is a rather 
difficult subject to effectively communicate in this forum, it is
best we drop it here and now. But I will repeat the following:

   I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but ...
   I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Once again you have misunderstood me and I'm beginning to think it's
intentional as has been suggested by some. If you desire to take up
this conversation in email then great. Otherwise, I won't be responding
to further posts on this subject, so please don't take it personally
when I ignore future postings on this subject.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: JW's claim of a "Water Canopy"
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:01:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


I've recently been reading a book called _The Waters Above_, by Joseph C.
Dillow, Moody Press, 1981.  It purports to give a "scientific view" of
the "earth's pre-flood vapor canopy."  

The basic thesis is that the above mentioned Water Canopy was actually
a "vapor canopy" containing the equivalent of about 40 feet of water,
held up by some sort of a massive temperature inversion.  The whole idea,
of course, goes against all the physics I ever learned.

Does anyone know of any scholarly reviews of this book, or of any other
books or publications like it?

Alan Feuerbacher
Tektronic, Inc.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:57:11 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <Bt8816.HLs@world.std.com>, twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:
> Ted, let's imagine that another of your bursts of radiation bathes the
> Earth and a bunch of new mutants are created.
 
> Is it possible that one of these mutants could get more weight off the
> ground than Kaz?

In my opinion, no.  By all published accounts, muscle tissue is nearly 
identical from any vertibrate to any other, so that mouse, human, and
elephant muscle tissue is hard to tell apart under the microscope.  I
don't easily see what any further mutation could add to that picture.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Challenge to harmonize two creation accounts in Genesis.
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:07:18 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Distribution: na
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <1992Aug11.155324.29859@swbatl.sbc.com>, kamphau@oktext.sbc.com (Mark
Kamphaus) writes:
> The translators of the NIV set about to accomplish their task
> of making the account readible by telling you what they think
> the scripture means by what it said, in words less confusing
> and words that don't give rise to recognized difficulties.
> In other words, the NIV had an agenda of making the accounts
> compatible.  [ for a thorough critic of the NIV from this
> perspective see "The NIV Reconsidered" by the translators
> of the NKJV (no hidden motive on their part either! :-) ).

  True, I have never been fond of the NIV.  Here is a literal, word-for-word
translation (please note that idioms don't work well when doing this):

  Gen 2:5 (and every) (shrub of) (the field) not yet (it was) (on the earth)
(and every) (herb of) (the field) (not yet) (had it sprung up) for not (had
rain) Jehovah God on (the earth) (and a man) (was not) (to till) (the ground)

And with word order fixed (and other minor things; note this was done by a
professional, not me):

  Gen 2:5 and every shrub of the field was not yet on the earth, and every plant
of the field was not yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not sent rain on the
earth, and there was no man to till the ground.

> >  Gen 2:19 NIV
> >
> >  "Now the Lord God *had* formed out of the ground, all the beasts
> >   of the field and all the birds of the air.  He brought them
> >   to the man to see what he would call them."
> 
> Again the NIV seems to be the only translation that renders the verse
> in this manner.

  Here is the exact translation:

  Gen 2:19 (and formed) Jehovah God from (the ground) (every beast of) (the
field) (and every bird of) (the heavens) (and brought) (to the man) (to see)
what (he would call) it (and all) which (might call it) (the man) ([each] soul)
living (that [was]) (its name)

  And cleaned up as above:

  Gen 2:19 And fJehovah God formed every animal of the field and every bird of
the heavens out of the ground.  And [He] brought [them] to the man, to see what
he would call it.  And all which the man might call it, [each] living soul, that
[was] its name.

  Just as a point of interest, the first creation story refers to God only as
"God", but the second uses only "Jehovah God".  This clearly indicates the
stories are separate.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: muchow@zebo.network.com (Jim Muchow)
Subject: Re: Round 1 again
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 20:35:22 GMT

In article <94147@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>
>Although we are constantly assured that
>the people at the ICR are top notch scientists engaged in science,
>they seem not to have taken that first scientific baby step of
>forming a hypothesis to test.

All right! All right! Up until now we were just playing around. Here you
go: Simon says, form a creationist hypothesis to test (or take 1
scientific baby step whichever).

Jim Muchow - happy now?
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Brachiosaur vs. diplodocus = more Throop quibbling
Date: 15 Aug 92 22:26:56 GMT
Organization: HTE


We know of two antediluvian creatures significantly longer than the
ultrasaur:  the brevaparapus which we know only from tracks indicating
something like a 160' length, and the seismosaur for which bones have
recently been unearthed.  The breviparipus is simply described (Avon
Field Guide for Dinosaurs) as "dwarfing" brachiosaurs, ultrasaurs,
supersaurs, and everything else we know of.

Artists conceptions of the seismosaur do not show him as a diplodocid.
I suspect the jury is still out on that one.  From reconstructions I've
seen, I would have to figure him to be heavier than the ultrasaur, but
this is really immaterial.

I have not seen any figures on weight for the seismosaur yet, and the last
person on this planet I'd trust for such figures is Wayne Throop.

>> If you check out recent editions of
>> Guiness' Book of World Records, you'll find much lower weight estimates
>> for sauropods, and you'll notice that the claim is being made that these
>> estimates are made via a study of track depths.

>Only if one reads with very poor attention.

I think my attention is pretty good.  I noticed that Guiness gives weight
figures only up to about a quarter of what appears in most of the rest of the
literature.  You'd figure there had to be some reason for that.

They note that the tracks of breviparopus indicate a weight
of around 55 tons.  Now, a footprint that old isn't going to tell you a
damned thing about what KIND of sauropod this guy was.  The only
possible way they could be drawing such information is track depth.

You combine that with the estimates which are uniformely 1/4 what you
normally see in books, and I figured it a safe assumption they're going by
track depths.


There's one other funny little thing about what Guiness has to say about
breviparopus:  "...the print named Brevoparopus, taken together with those
						 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of the BRACHIOSAUR Pleurocoelus from the Paluxy River TX, suggest that they
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
also in the very large size class, i.e. 55 tons." (pg 106, 91 edit.)


So that we have Guiness claiming that Breviparopus was a brachiosaur.

Putting that piece of information together with normal published weights for
brachiosaurs, brontosaurs. supersaurs, ultrasaurs etc., you're right back with
my 500,000+ lb weight figure for the breviparipus.


But all of this is really immaterial, and Throop is quibbling as usual.

Forget the seismosaur and the breviparopus if you don't like them.

The ultrasaur is impossible in our world.  McGowan gives a 180 ton
figure for the ultrasaur on page 119 of his book.  The same figure
appears elsewhere in the literature, and McGowen clearly shows how such
figures are derived.

For him simply to stand, he'd need a ratio of weight lifted to 2/3 power
of weight (Holden number) of around 71.  This would be equivalent to
Bill Kazmaier doing a squat with around 3200 lbs on his shoulders.

It cannot happen in our world.

That's the bottom line.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Round 1 again
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:12:01 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.131753@IASTATE.EDU>, btd@IASTATE (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>>       Jim, you have said before that there are many areas of
>>discussion which you are not technically competent to discuss, like
>>ice cores or something.  Not that anyone expects you to know
>>everything, but you should think about it and understand the
>>magnitude of the evidence you're up against.

>But how can understanding of magnitude exist in such a small space?

I see we're back to the personal attacks. Round and round we go. 

>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9841 soc.culture.african.american:8955 alt.rap:4156
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:14:40 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Aug20.223509.7577@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap writes:
>
>     I have thought over the evolution of skin color, and have run into the
>following questions:

I will leave it to the evolutionists to come up with a `just-so'
story to explain this scientifically. Meanwhile while we are on
this subject I would like to raise a point.

According to evolutionist thinking, whites and blacks can be
considered two separate species. So the situation in apartheid
countries has an evolutionary basis. How are whites and blacks
considered different species? Well evolutionists like to show
speciation has and is occuring. A popular method is to say that
two sets of organisms that are identical but differ in mating
habits or preferences `cannot' interbreed and are therefore
two distinct species. This can be extended to human society if
social factors cause different races to prefer not to interbreed.

>    As for the distribution matrix:
>    talk.origins would seem to be the place where the knowledge is
>    soc.culture.african.american would seem to be a group heavily involved with
>skin color from what I've heard
>    alt.rap--same as s.c.af.a, and I happen to read this group regularly.

>KAMCHATKA CHARLIE          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu

Actually I think the main three racial groupings (black, white,
yellow) are descended from Noah's three sons.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: JW's claim of a "Water Canopy"
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:04:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.132647@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|>   12) "radiocarbon" does not form from cosmic rays, the carbon-14 drops in from
|> the sky itself.


	C-14 forms in the reaction

	N-14 + neutron --> C-14 + H

	where the free neutrons are generally produced by
	cosmic rays.  So the JW's are correct that such
	a canopy would foul up C-14 dating.  However, as you
	pointed out in your post, it would also have many other
	effects, none of which are observed.  I would add:

	13) Such a canopy would have a serious effect on
	solar and thermal radiation.  Just exactly how this
	would affect the climate depends on the canopy's thickness,
	but it is unlikely to have no effect.  No such effect is
	evident in the paleoclimatic record.

	14) As well as dendrochronology, thermoluminescence dating,
	fission track dating, amino-acid dating, and uranium/thorium
	dating confirm C-14 dates for humans at the last ice age
	(i.e. about 21,000 years ago for the glacial maximum) within
	20%.  If the canopy had existed up to 4,000 years ago this
	would not be the case since all of the above, with the possible
	exception of thermoluminescence dating, are unaffected by
	the presence or absence of cosmic rays.

	15) If there was very little C-14 production before 4000 B.P.
	and normal production since, no objects would carbon date
	between 4000 and about 20,000 years old.  This is not
	what is observed.



						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac