HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Summary: No theory is better than a wrong one.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 17:48:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.114125.11526@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>But since you have nothing to replace it with, no
>matter how much disparity you cast, it remains the best available
>theory.

I disagree.  Some time ago, people believed that light propogated as
waves in some kind of ether.  A couple people set out to measure the
Earth's velocity relative to this ether, but they found instead that
the speed of light was invariant no matter which direction the Earth
was moving.  This experiment (for all practical purposes) demolished
the ether theory, but the people doing it didn't propose a better
theory.  That had to wait for Einstein.  In fact, it is probably the
case that the need for a new theory was what motivated Einstein to
develop the theory of special relativity.  In summary, no theory at
all is better than a theory which is known to be wrong.

Mr. Johnson's problem isn't that he doesn't propose something better
(although that would be nice), but that he doesn't understand the
theory of evolution and the evidence which supports it well enough
to make meaningful criticisms of it.  In fact, I get the impression
he doesn't even understand the scientific method.  Overturning a
theory requires showing how some data doesn't fit with the theory.
I haven't yet even seen Mr. Johnson present any data.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Vitalism is dead (Grasse)    
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:28:38 GMT

    As I said, the person who first brought up the name of Grasse'
in this group does not seem willing to discuss his philosophy.  I've
spent a few hours with this book now
    Grasse', Pierre Paul  
               [minor bit of pedantry -- the "e" has an acute accent]
    Evolution of living organisms: evidence for a new theory of
            transformation.  Academic Press, 1977
            (translation, apparently by the author, of)
    L'evolution du vivant; materiaux pour une nouvelle theorie
            transformiste. Editions Albin Michel, 1973
and I have to say that Grasse''s philosophy is not very clearly
(to me) spelled out.  But here are a few quotes.

p. 164: "Vitalism is dead".  I don't know whether the humor in this
is intentional.  Anyway, the impression that some of us got from the
earlier posting, that Grasse' is a vitalist, is disavowed by him.
However, he does say
p. 2: "Any living being possesses an enormous amount of 
'intelligence,' very much more than is necessary to build the most
magnificent of cathedrals.  Today, this 'intelligence' is called
'information,' but it is still the same thing."
p. 1: "One of the radical differences between physical and biological
phenomena lies in the fact that the former must necessarily and
absolutely obey the laws of matter."  He goes on to cite flying as
an example of living things working against gravity, and says that
when the biological and physical laws conflict, there is death.

p. 166: "Let us not invoke God in realities in which He no longer has
to intervene.  The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
This is about the only reference to God or the Creation which I found
in this book.  Grasse' surely would be no friend to "creationists",
as he freely accepts evolution (only he does not accept mutation and
natural selection as the sole agents of evolution -- what other agent
he has, I cannot say) operating over hundreds of millions of years, 
with no apology.  In particular, he accepts the evolution of Homo 
sapiens from non-human ancestors.  And he has a long description of 
the origins of mammals from reptiles.  His dispute is only with what 
he calls "ultra-Darwinists".

    I have not found it easy to find a coherent philosophy in this
work, although admittedly I haven't spent a great deal of time on it.
Is there anyone at all interested in pursuing this, even by e-mail?

Keywords: 


-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Keywords: info requested
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:22:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Jan.21.21.49.24.1993.23599@remus.rutgers.edu>
     trott@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott) writes:

>Few of the claims that Gish makes are difficult to descredit because
>they are so absurd.  However, a few I've had difficulty locating
>information on in my home library.  ...

>CLAIM #1:  "According to evolutionists it would have taken 100 million
>years for a fish to have evolved from an invertebrate.  But there is absolutely
>no fossil evidence showing that this took place."

I don't think that you'll be able to find anything to directly refute
this, partly because the premise is so ludicrous.  I don't suppose
that Gish has a source for his "According to..." statement, hmmm?
Where on earth could you find someone who would make a claim like
that?  And would any old invertebrate do, or did he have one of them
in mind?

The fossil record leading to the vertebrate grade is pretty sparse,
but the fossil record is sparse for most invertebrates.  Is that
supposed to be a surprise?

>CLAIM #2:  "Darwin cited the giraffe as an outstanding example of
>natural selection.  Supposedly, as a result of extended droughts, the
>supply of green leaves could be obtained only at the top of the trees,
>and therefore the shorter necked giraffe died off.  And the giraffes
>which grew longer necks survived.  However, there is no evidence
>whatever in the fossil record or elsewhere that giraffes with short
>necks have ever existed.

If you ever meet Mr. Gish, please tell him to visit some zoos and look
for an animal called an okapi.  You don't need a fossil record when
the organism in question still exists.

> And what would have happened to young giraffes with relatively short
>necks?"

This sort of inanity comes from binary thinking.  Aside from lethal
mutations which penetrate prior to sexual maturity, selection is never
so strong as to delete all organisms that haven't reached a certain
state (it might be interesting to compare Darwin's description of
giraffe evolution with Gish's characterization of it.  Unfortunately I
don't have my copy of TOoS with me at the moment...  That is something
that you could do pretty easily on your library trip, however.).  His
question is analogous to "If vanilla ice cream is most often cited as
people's favorite ice cream flavor, then how come some people sell
chocolate ice cream?"

>Rich Trott
>trott@remus.rutgers.edu

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Date: 27 Jan 1993 00:17 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan26.114045.1@woods.ulowell.edu>,
 cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes...

[ an attempt to defend the Genesis flood story.  His strongest defenses
  and most telling arguments are represented by the following... ]
> 
>You're not going to like this answer.  What was the point of having Noah build
>the ark? Wasn't it to preserve man and the animals? So wouldn't it make sense
>if God made sure the ark was sea-worthy? 
> 
[ ... ]
> 
>The Bible takes precedence over any theory (Creationist or otherwise).
> 
[ ... ]
> 
>For the sake of allegory.  Jesus spoke of "the last days" as like the days
>before the flood.  Thus, since Jesus affirms the occurance of the flood, all
>Christians must believe it actually happens.  Otherwise Jesus is either
>ignorant or a liar.  
> 
[ ... ]
>--Ray Cote

Ray:
You have made it clear in this post that you do not hold to the flood
story (or presumably the 7-day Creation story) for scientific reasons;
your motivation is purely religious.  You do not even pretend that the
flood story is scientifically defensible or geologically useful, even
dismissing those (Whitcomb and Morris) who think it is.

Fair enough.

So do you really think Creationism should be taught in public school
science classes?  On what grounds?  Do you not agree that any attempt
to force the teaching of Creationism is in fact religious indoctrination?

Secondly, in regards to your beliefs themselves, do you give any credence
to science at all?  When, and by what criteria?  What is the point in
debating the scientific merits of evolutionary theory if in fact the
scientific evidence is irrelevant (or at least secondary to your
interpretation of the Bible)?  Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I seem
to vaguely remember you identifying yourself as a physics undergraduate.
Is the science of physics reliable?  If you are prepared to accept that
God might be intervening in the laws of nature at whim, why do you
think there is any point to science at all?  

I hope you can answer most or all of these questions;  they should be
easier for you than the Arkeological ones! :-)

Wayne.
**********************************************************************

Wayne J. Broughton                 Take the road less travelled by.  
waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu    

Caltech has no idea what my opinions are;  
they think I'm working right now...
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: He's baa-aack (Cotera).
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:13:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.130636.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
writes:
>Creationism relies on the assumption that God exists and was insrumental in
the
>origin of the universe and everything in it.  Evolution, on the other hand,
>relies on the assumption that He doesn't exist, or if He does, He doesn't
>interfere with the natural processes of the universe.  Neither of these
>assumptions have been proved to be valid.  Yet the assumption made is crucial
>to the interpretation of the data.  No one has disproved God's existence, so I
>see no reason to prefer one view over the other (from a scientific viewpoint
>that is).

   As has been said many, many, many^75, times evolution has the 
non-involvement of God as a conclusion not as an assumption.  There
is nothing that looks like divine intervention anywhere in the
evidence.  Not one book on or paper about evolution goes
"assume there is no God, it therefore follows that..."

   Cotera has been told this both politely and rudely in the past
and, in typically dishonest creationist fashion, has not taken 
cognizance.  I think the problem is that he views any work not
of the form "This follows from God because..." as having the
nonexistence of God as a hypothisis.

   Cotera, how can you stand to be a lying weasle faced ignoramus
so ugly that the clue fairy runs in terror at the first whiff of
your bilabial fricative logic?  

   Have you stopped beating your wife?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
(so I'm frustrated at his impenetrability.  Sue me.)
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: SWAA Lecture
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 20 Jan 93  04:02:00

Phillip Johnson:

 >      The points in dispute can only be settled by an unbiased
 > examination of the evidence.  Those who have confidence in their
 > evidence and their logic do not appeal to prejudice, nor do they
 > insist upon imposing rules of discourse that allow only one
 > position to receive serious consideration, nor do they use vague
 > and shifting terminology to distract attention from genuine
 > points of difficulty.  Still less do they heap abuse and
 > ridicule
 > upon persons who want to raise questions about the evidence and
 > the philosophical assumptions that underly a theory.  When an
 > educational establishment has to resort to tactics like that,
 > you can be sure that some people are getting desperate.

Agreed. Let us fairly examine all theories. You can do your part right now by 
stating the theory of creationism.


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Hussein: We made him, we |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| broke him, we'll build   | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| him up again if we want  | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| to, we're the US.        | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:24:53 GMT

isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:


>Is there other evidence of the Earth's rotation rate changing?  Yes.
>The Mayans, in addition to their 365-day astonomical calendar, had a
>260-day civil and ceremonial calendar.  Why else would they have a
>calendar of such a length if not as a holdover from days when the year
>really was 260 days long?  The Mayans also have a rich heritage of
>legends about an underground civilization in the earliest days of
>humanity.  It is no coincidence that their 260-day calendar is tied
>in with events from those legends.

The Balinese still use a 210-day year. Two hundred and ten, yes.
And the Chinese used to divide the day into 12 hours, not 24.

My Church of the Earlier Saints Days of Eight Hours is looking
better and better... every day and in every way too!       

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Population pinches (was Re: does the bible imply evolution?)
Summary: Reference to Ohta's "Nearly Neutral" article
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:18:54 GMT

In article <106244@netnews.upenn.edu> rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
[re heterozygosity measurements in different species]
>My source for these statements is:
>
>Ohta, T. (1992). "The Nearly Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution",
>   23:263-286. 

Just to complete this reference, the article is in _The Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics_.

I haven't read it yet, but Ohta's article is the first occurrence since
the premiere of Star Wars that I heard two rave reviews of something
from two completely independent sources in the same week that it came
out.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Date: 27 Jan 93 10:39:50 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org wrote:
: 
:  > From: philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson)
:  > Message-ID: <1jo29o$srt@agate.berkeley.edu>
: 
:  > I am not sure that it is possible to hold a discussion in this
:  > group, because the majority of participants seem to consider the
:  > neo-Darwinian theory to be so obviously true that doubt is not
:  > taken seriously.  On that basis, what is there to discuss?
: 
: It would help if you would state the theory of creationism. Why is this
: so difficult? We have cajoled, begged on our hands and knees, and even
: offered bribes, but no creationist has yet done so. If you would only
: do that we would : all be surprised and delighted, and definitely
: willing to discuss it.

Dammit will you *read* what Johnson is saying!

Mr Johnson is NOT a creationist. He is NOT proposing creationism as a
scientific theory. He has NOTHING to do with creationism.

How can you discuss anything if you don't even read what your opposition
is saying!

Actually there are a couple of people who have read Mr Johnson's material
and are addressing it specifically. I hope Mr Johnson will continue to
debate with these more substantial posters.

But it does seem important that an evolution supporter go on record
as observing that baiting such as the above is recognizable as
worthless.

Dr Pepper -- I am sorry that you have come under friendly fire here.
Your repeated challenge on the theory of creationism is amusing -- but
address it to the right people will you?

Best wishes -- Chris Ho-Stuart
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:20:43 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1993Jan25.144819.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <91710c3e@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> 
>> Now please state the theory of creationism.
>
>I think I've discovered why no one wants to put the theory of Creationism on
>t.o.  I keep seeing in the Creation Research Science Quarterly ads asking
>people to send money so that a model can be developed.  This is no small task. 
>CRS has only been around for 30 years or so, and they have to review all the
>scientific data.  
>
>However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God created the
>universe.
>--Ray Cote

Okay, Ray, I'll bite:  How does this ToC throw out evolution?  I'm not
even asking (though I am mentioning 8)) other obvious items, like:
  o  How can one test this theorey?
  o  What predictions does this theorey make?
  o  What explicit phenomena does this theorey attempt to explain (an
     easy one, no?)

As some one from 'just up the road' said, "I'm all ears."
jmt

-- 
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\  digi!jtisdel@uunet.uu.net
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\         jmtisdel@aol.com
                     Better living through workstations.
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:06:22 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <244@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> [stuff on 1/r^2 laws deleted]
>
>Put the earth in the center
>of two electromagnetic stars, a small binary such as Saturn/Jupiter in
>which the partners had unequal electromagnetic fields, and the earth might
>take up residence at the point at which all forces balanced, which I'd
>assume would be closer to one of the two stars than to the other.  The
>gravitational pull would certainly be uneven.

The problem with this is that any balancing among gravitational and
magnetic forces is inherently unstable.  Gravitational fields are
low-order and follow a 1/r^2 law, while magnetic fields are higher
order and follow a 1/r^3 law at large distances.  Any object balanced
perfectly among such competing forces would immediately fall out of
balance.

Have you ever tried to suspend a piece of iron underneath a magnet so
that it hangs by the magnetic field?  It immediatley is pulled to the
magnet or it falls down.  It's like balancing a pencil on its point.

A wonderful demonstration of this is given at MIT to electrical
engineering students taking the feedback theory course.  Professor
Jim Roberge, I believe, built an apparatus that uses op-amp circuits
to control an electromagnet to suspend a large ball bearing against
the pull of gravity.  The stability problem is very hard to solve
and the apparatus is very easy to defeat by tapping the ball bearing
so that it moves out of the sweet spot.

A similar problem is encountered in making a stable spot in the
Tokamaks used in nuclear fusion power research.  The magnetic fields
are notoriously hard to balance against the electric fields such that
a plasma is confined.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:34:46 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1993Jan22.020227.26701@galois.mit.edu>, tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:

^In article <C17xIv.1yJ@athena.cs.uga.edu> keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul) writes:
^<Unfortunately, Ted has never played with an electromagnet.  Say one is hanging
^<from your ceiling, and you stick a hunk of metal to it.  Pull the metal away
^<about an inch, let it go, and it will jump right back up, defeating gravity.
^<This might even work at a foot away.  But, get it a couple of feet away, and
^<it will fall.  Why?  Gravity is much stronger than any known force _at a
^<distance_!  For Ted's explanation to work, there would have to be an 
^<incredibly large "electro-magnetic" force at work, more powerful than any
^<now-known force.

^Gravity and electrostatic attraction both obey a 1/r^2 law, so to say that
^"Gravity is much stronger than any known force _at a distance_" is
^outrageously misleading, if not downright false.  What you really want to
^talk about is susceptibility/mass or charge/mass ratios of typical objects,
^because this is what decides whether gravitational or electromagnetic
^effects will dominate.
^
^The reason gravity dominates in astronomy is not because electromagnetic
^forces are "weaker" than gravity at large distances, but because most
^astronomical bodies have very little charge or magenetization compared to
^their mass.
^-- 

I assume that this may not have been the case prior to the flood and the
accompanying catastrophes.  It is known for instance that Etrurean pottery
often shows magnetism imparted from the earth's field which is far
greater than the earth's field could impart now.  Put the earth in the center
of two electromagnetic stars, a small binary such as Saturn/Jupiter in
which the partners had unequal electromagnetic fields, and the earth might
take up residence at the point at which all forces balanced, which I'd
assume would be closer to one of the two stars than to the other.  The
gravitational pull would certainly be uneven.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE