HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbates@encore.com (John W. Bates)
Subject: Re: Category 4 / Other large animal anomalies
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
	<1992Jul20.023230.13942@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
	<1992Jul20.171249@IASTATE.EDU>
	<1992Jul21.010325.5901@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
	<1992Jul21.143628.8803@bsu-ucs.uucp>
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:09:26

In article <1992Jul21.143628.8803@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer) writes:

> The world record for 100 yards is 9.00 +/- .1 sec (I don't recall
> the actual current record, but it is certainly within that range).
> 200 m and 220 yd are pretty close together, as are 400 m and 440 yd,
> though in both of those cases, the metric distance is slightly less,
> so the metric Olympic times are less than you would have for the
> 'English' distances.  Not only do those times represent champion
> athletes who spend a lot of time in training, but they represent
> times achieved only with the aid of special shoes and on a perfectly
> flat (and in the 100 m/yd case, straight) course.  (And they still
> represent speeds of less than 27 mph.)

But you are forgetting that the world record times represent the
total time it takes for the athlete to complete the course: including
time spent accelerating. The sprinter may peak at 27 mph, but his/her
average velocity over the length of the sprint will of course be
less than the maximum velocity.

John
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:30:03 GMT

In article <BrsxAp.DGt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
>
>Below is an illustration of why a Christian should utterly reject evolution.
>It is also an example of how much of what is called science and or education
>is a crime against the family and taxpayers in general.

Shit, I knew when we invented fire it was going to be downhill from that
point onwards.

>Andy Peters has relegated the holy institution of monogomaous  marriage to 
>some evolutionary
>happenchance, which may not be universal for humans, and is the subject of 
>some scientific
>debate as to why it came about in the first place.  Of course, Mr. Peters is
>certainly correct, if there were such a thing as evolution.  His assertions
>would certainly be valid.  

Then I have some really bad news for you....

You are pathetic.  If you choose to reject something because you have
evidence for it being false, that is one thing.  If you choose to
reject something because a source which you trust absolutely tells
you it is false (whether or not you have evidence of the reliability of
this source), that is another.

If you choose to reject something because you think it would be nasty
if it were true, because you don't *want* it to be true, because the
thought scares you - then you are an ASS.

There are a great many religious scientists whom you have offended with
this posting, men and women of integrity (look the word up, it might teach you
something).  They *should* reject evolution?  What if it happens to be correct?
Is your religious belief so weak and ill founded that it can't fact up to fact?

Rejecting scientific fact because it is immoral is sickening.

C Frog
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bob and DNA
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:33:28 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <6230@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
 [deletions]

>Bruce apparetly missed the context of the discussion. I did not denigrate
>emperical science, nor did I insis that evolution be a priori.  The context was
>whether or not evolution makes a priori predictions which make it a better
>theory than creation.  I was discussing whether ther are or are not a priori
>predictions in evolution.  I said nothing at all against emperical science.

OK, OK. Let me give you an example of an a priori predicion in the context
of my field (molec. gen.).

I am working on a group of proteins (let's not worry which, although I'd be
happy to provide data). These are a very newly discovered group involved in
gene regulation. At first there were only a few sequenced, but now the list
is growing; there's even a bacterial "homologue" which is 50% identical to
the vertebrate examples. Anyway, the following happened:

I obtain the sequences of the Xenopus examples (=an amphibian). I know that
there are examples of mouse, rat and human homologues in the database. I know
that these proteins have the same function in all the above species. Now from
my evolutionary paradigm I make the prediction that THE MOUSE AND RAT PROTEINS
WILL BE VERY MUCH CLOSER TO EACH OTHER, AND THAT THEY (RAT+MOUSE) WILL BE
CLOSER TO THE HUMAN HOMOLOGUE THAN THE AMPHIBIAN ONE. That is because the
theory of evolution suggests to me that Xenopus diverged much earlier. Now
you may criticize the *specific* example, but the fact remains that I made
a prediction, and it was indeed confirmed by the computer software (then you
might criticize the software...). Now tell me: what predictions could
creationism make about the relatedness of the above proteins? I'll tell
you: none, other than "they're like that because God made them so" 
(circular). So the conclusion that I draw, from this and other examples,
is that at least *in the context of molecular genetics* evolutionary
theory >>>> creationism at making such predictions. Others might
comment on the fields they're competent in.
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Elaphants CAN'T gallop, ddamn it!!! Nor mammoths!!!
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 02:33:32 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.171106@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:


>>   Ted, if you are worried about wasting bandwidth why not post it as a .jpg? 
>> Sure it's lossy, but not so much that the cave painting will suffer, and it
>> reduces picture size 50%-80% (depending on data and compression rate).

>Unlike t.o regulars, I'll admitt when I don't understand something.
>What's a .jpg?

.jpg is the filename ending conventionally used for files compressed
using the JPEG standard. JPEG is excellent for compressing 8-bit grey-scale
and 24-bit colour images. It is not well-suited to compressing bitmaps.

If you decide to repost the mammoth picture here, then
	if it's a thresholded bitmap (like your first post) or
	a dithered bitmap, then GIF is probably the best choice
	for compression.

	if you post a grey-scale or colour image, then JPEG offers better
	compression than GIF.

I believe the ImageMagik (sp?) software for the PC can handle JPEG images.
On the U*ix side, XV can be used for viewing JPEG images under X-windows.
A package for compressing and uncompressing JPEG images on a variety of
systems (including VMS, U*ix, MS-DOS, Mac & Amiga) was posted by the
Independent JPEG Group in volume 29 of comp.sources.misc. To be
found on an archice server near you :-)

How are you going on your refutation of the problems with Rose's
grapefruit?

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: stars & carbon
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:24:37 GMT


Given a preference for carbon-based life, I started wondering...

carbon is a product of a massive stellar event (boom!), right?  If so,
is the locale from which OUR heavy elements were fused known?  Where?

And given that some such event has too occur first, how old would the
universe (heavy in H, HE & a touuch of Li) have to be for a star to
form, age, zap, then a new reform from the waste (i.e. how long ago COULD
life-as-we-know-it form someplace?)

And did Lovecraft have an "in" on the answer?  ;-)


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
From: jgacker@NEPTUNE.GSFC.NASA.GOV (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Biogenesis in the warm seafloor spring -ch
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:52:20 GMT



	I just re-read my last post and realized I was too glib for
comprehension.
	
	Let's try again:

	STATEMENT:  Interaction with an intelligent force is required
for the creation of "life".

	Hypothesis:  Life may arise through natural processes without
interaction with an intelligent or guiding "force".

	To prove the hypothesis, all steps in the process must be
proven and demonstrably "natural".  If a step in the creation of life
is found to be ONLY possible due to the guidance of "intelligence", then
the hypothesis is proven false, and the original STATEMENT is considerably
strengthened (I'm not even claiming that such a discovery would prove
the initial STATEMENT incontrovertibly true).

	My feeling is that the hypothesis can be proven TRUE, and it is
unlikely that any step will REQUIRE the "touch" of an intelligent force.
What I am interested in doing in the "warm seafloor spring" model is
exploring how far natural and known processes go before encountering and
as-yet unexplained mechanistic step in the process.  As alluded to before,
self-replication or "reproduction" is an as-yet unexplained and necessary
step in the advent of living forms.


	I hope that makes more sense.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:20:12 GMT

In article <henley.920728113314@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>I took down my Berry, Rice and Ross, out of curiousity, to see how they
>defined closed and isolated systems.  Just to make sure that the other
>PChem book was not an anomoly.
>
>  "A closed system, which does not exchange matter, may still be able to
>   exchange energy with its surroundings."
>
>_Physical_Chemistry_, Stephen Berry, Stuart Rice, John Ross,  John Wiley
>& Sons publishers,  1980, page 490.
>
>
>By my count, that makes 5 references with the same definition as mine,
>and 0 references with the same definition as the majority of the 
>evolutionists on this newsgroup.  
>
>*NOW* who is doing science?  You?  Or Me?

This is worrying definitions not doing science. Why not just state
what is meant in a particular situation instead of saying closed
system which means different things to different people.

The claim that creationists have made is that a system such as
the earth must have increasing entropy. However a simple experment
can demonstrate that a system which has no exchange of matter
but does have an exchange of energy can lower its entropy. If you
don't believe this put some water in an ice tray and put it in your
freezer, ask yourself if the entropy of the system drops as the water
cools.
-- 
>>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.--          \/
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Flat Earth Error
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:41:46 GMT
Organization: Society to Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Roger Squires) writes:

>A thread that pops up periodically on t.o and probably elsewhere,
>involves the thesis that the Middle Ages were a time of total intellectual
>darkness, a darkness specifically caused by the advent of Christianity, 
>and only lightened by the rediscovery of Greek and Roman literature and
>the growth of the scientific method; the thesis being that if only
>civilisation hadn't been shackled by Christian dogma for a 1000 years,
>we would all be better off and more advanced today.

Very interesting bit. I think this goes along with other myths
that the dominant culture feeds its young: Paul Revere making
the ride, George Washington being the first president, the U.S.
as benevolent Papa in South America, etcetera.





Dano
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Scientific Method
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:02:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul27.184927.8706@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes...
>In article <27JUL199210461861@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>}In article <1992Jul27.124651.27652@linus.mitre.org>, jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes...
>}>IAW Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (didn't want to get esoteric!):
>}> 
>}>scientific method - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of
>}>knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the
>}>collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation
>}>and testing of hypothesis.
>}> 
>}>        If no, never mind because I don't think so.
>}> 
>}>        If yes:
>}>                What data has been collected in support of creationism.
>}
>}All the "young earth evidences," Barry Setterfield's collection of
>}measurements of the speed of light.
> 
>You've got to be kidding.  You have, of course, read the report on that.

No, I'm not kidding.  Setterfield collected real data from real measurements
made by real scientists.  His analysis of the data is a bit screwed up
(to say the least), but I don't see that that disqualifies it from meeting
the above requirements you specified.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:49:01 GMT

In article <henley.920723162744@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.193508.21907@bcrka451.bnr.ca> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:
>>In article <BrtM15.n2E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
>>>In <1992Jul20.104506.18345@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>>>
>>>[a description, which cm deleted, of a 10 month old baby being spanked for
>>"refusal" to use the toilet]
>>>
>>>>...be "beaten out of her", and the list goes on, and on, but my hands are 
>>>>starting to shake.
>>>
>>>I've seen people lose a child because of such controlling influences, so
>>>I can empathize.
>>
>>Let me get this straight.  You have seen people lose children to demonic 
>>influence and therefore condone the beating of a *10-MONTH-OLD BABY* for
>>-- 
>>Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
>>(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>>
>
>I didn't read it that way, Seanna.  Let's give him a chance to explain
>whether he means that they lost the child to:
>
>1: Being beaten
>2: Demonic influence
>
>I had the first interpretation, not the second.  I took it that he was
>empathizing with Rob Derrick for being horrified. 
>
>James P. Henley Jr.
>Chemical Engineering Dept.
>Auburn University
>

Well, here is what Rob originally wrote:
:to see her visciously spanking a 10 month old child who has not
:yet learned to use the potty, because her pastor told her that
:it is Satan that is in control of her baby, and that Satan has to
:be "beaten out of her", and the list goes on, and on, but my hands are 
:starting to shake.

Rob is obviously speaking of spanking a child to get rid of Satanic
control, therefore my assumption was that the "controlling influences"
that Chuck referred to were the Satanic influences.  If I have mis-
interpreted, I owe Chuck an apology.

And regardless of what Chuck meant, there are in fact fundamentalists
who do believe that babies should be spanked.  A few years ago, one
pastor here in Ottawa was spanking his 8-month-old with a wooden
spoon (for crying in the night), and telling the members of his church 
to do the same.  (One of the members of the church reported him to
the Children's Aid Society.)

[BTW, kids are normally toilet-trained at about 2 yrs.  Before that,
they do not have voluntary control of urination/defecation.  Of 
course, apostate that I am, I subscribe to the naturalistic theory
of toilet training, which explains a child's compliance in this 
area in terms of physical ability, instead of in terms of the
spiritual ability to overcome Satanic influences.]

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.


Xref: sparky talk.origins:8516 sci.astro:8194
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: The evolution of sexes
Organization: Biology, Indiana University - Bloomington
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:34:17 GMT

In article <Bs2E5n.6DC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

>Hurst, L. D.  1992.  Intergenomic conflict as an evolutionary force.
                      ^^^^^
>   Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 248.  135-140.

Oops.  Thats Intragenomic . . .

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: What they never told you about gyroscopes...
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:51:36 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee


   Actually, a spinning gyroscope will not keep a steady axis when it's set in
rotation about the Earth.  The axis will tend to rotate somewhat (just a
little bit) in the manner Ted is speaking of.

   In fact, this effect FOLLOWS from the conservation of amgular momentum.

(Why? How?  Well, that's your puzzle for the day).
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Category 4 / Other large animal anomalies
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:39:18 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <2828@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.122126.27223@rhrk.uni-kl.de*, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>  
> * Warren Vonroeschlaub:
> * *   You get my drift.  Would Ted be willing to post the ENTIRE paragraph that
> * * comes from?
>  
> * Ted Holden:
> * *No I wouldn't;  the sentence was simple enough, the intent simple enough.
> * *It's just this sort of bullshit which makes me unwilling to further engage
> * *in the debate of t.o.
> * 
> * Ted, leaving out things that don't suit you is called "falsifying evidence".
> * You know that term?
> 
> Yeah.  It seems popular amongst liars such as Meritt and yourself.  The ONLY 
> way I'd satisfy you would be to post the book on usenet.  I'd get writers' 
> cramp, and I'd get sued.
> 
> Claiming that I left anything meaningful out of that quote is bullshit.
> 
> The man simply said that falls can be fatal for elephants.
> 

So, what?  Falls can be fatal for horses, falls can be fatal for giraffes,
falls *can* be fatal for humans.  

Sheesh! 

Sue

> Can't stand it, can you?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ted Holden
> HTE
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Attenuated Nonsense (Lengthy!)
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:12:25 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Jul21.154124.7059@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
> In article <711696069.11784@zooid.guild.org> 
>   gecko@zooid.guild.org (GECKO) writes:
>> 
>> Ted "Thickie" Holden writes: 
>> 
>>>    Mammoths were as big and bigger than the largest 
>>>    elephants, however, and pliestocene art clearly shows them 
>>>    galloping around.  Over and over again, this same dilemma, things 
>>>    which can't happen in our world being the norm in the antediluvian 
>>>    world. 

Not only is Ted totaly wrong about elephants and galloping (they CAN'T
because they have four knees) but he is also wrong about Mammoths.  They
were a little SMALLER than elephants.


>> 
>>    Smegma!  Mammoths could not gallop any more than elephants can; 
>>    They're not built for it.  I'll warrant their are NO depictions 
>>    of mammoths with all four feet airborne simultaneously!  This is 
>>    not to suggest that ANY prehistoric paintings should be thought 
>>    of as scientifically accurate... 
> 
> Ya ever noticed that in all these old paintings there is no
> perspective?  I guess the world was two dimensional up until
> the Renaissance.
> 
> C Frog

Good point, froggy.  Well, Tedster, since you say that a picture is solid
evidence that mammoths can gallop, does this also mean that Mickey Mouse
is alive and well and living in Florida?

Sue
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Elephants CAN'T gallop, damn it!!!
Date: 25 Jul 92 10:19:37 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <2832@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.183247.3020@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>> Ted, you have been told on numerous occasions that elephants can't gallop due
>> to their conformation.  
>
>Face it, Sue...  you and your cohorts aren't really bright enough to be telling
>me ANYTHING.
>
>Your "You have been told" refrain isn't adding anything to the conversation.
>
>Elephants don't gallop because they're too fricking heavy.

Do you realize that your arrogance is not helping your cause one
little bit? Your unbelievable attitude, which condemns people
you don't even know as "not really bright enough" is childish,
counter-productive and ultimately immoral; the mind boggles
thinking of the $$$ your self-righteous drivel is costing the net.

>> In case you don't know what that word means, it 
>> means the way they are built.  Ostriches and kangaroos can't gallop either.

Aha! Is it that the can't gallop because they're too heavy?
* How heavy is a grey kangaroo? *
Why doesn't it gallop?

>Ostriches and kangaroos are essentially bipeds.  

I see now. Do mice gallop? They ARE quadrupeds, after all,
and not too heavy, dare I say.
Ah, but I'm not bright enough to argue with superior intellects.
Newsgroups: talk.origins