HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Conceit of t.o regulars
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:39:39 GMT
Organization: HTE

Any non-standard view of anything presented on t.o. is immediatly pounced
on by fifty odd people shrieking in unison, and essentially shouted down.

The second time the person involved attempts to present such views, he is,
in the view of the t.o regular crew, simply lying;  he has been told better
(by them), and hence ought to know better:





[Mr. Frog, I believe...]

Date: 21 Feb 92 04:45:59 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.

^.... gobs of stuff deleted to get the the good part ....

^^Again, we have the utter impossibility of the huge antediluvian life forms
^^given our present system, and again, a heavily attenuated felt effect of
^^gravity on our earth implies a different solar system order;  it implies
^^that earth-bound creatures felt the gravity of some other cosmic body or
^^bodies in opposition to the gravity of the earth.

^Ted.  You are lying.  I object to using that term when I believe that
^the individual in question is just repeating mis-information that they
^do not *know* to be false.  You are not doing this.  You are lying.
^We have shown, in rather tedious detail, why your felt effect of gravity
^theory is

^  a) Unnecessary and
^  b) Not supported by the evidence

^and you *still* persist in bringing it up.  Why?  Do you really want us
^to make a complete fool out of you again?  I can still remember the
^arguments we put forward about the depth of footprints, would you like
^me to dig them up?

^If you are just ignorant of physics, that is one thing.  If you have not
^had the relevant concepts explained to you, fine.  We have tried to
^explain to you why your ideas don't work.

^WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM?????????

...............................................................

See what I mean?  The infamous exchange between myself and Rufus Day of
Manitoba began with JWM calling somebody other than myself/Bales a liar
(i.e. somebody who wasn't used to it).  I posted a short note explaining
that such was simply the custom of t.o., and Day, knowing/caring nothing more
regarding the context involved, replied "If you don't like being called a liar,
quit lying!"

People defending a viable science, which evolution does not qualify as at this
point, do not normally behave like that.  They don't have to.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  minuscule cause and monstrous effect
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:16:38 GMT

In article <176@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}The same thinking should reveal that fireflies are impossible.  They aren't

So will you acknowledge, based upon this last statement, that there are
things which you (with no training) believe impossible which can, and do
occur?


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Compleat?
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:42:00 GMT

    May I say a few words about the response to the "compleat"
question.  To me, there is something excessive about the response.

     OK, it is a little amusing when someone corrects a spelling,
only to find out that the original was a mistake.  It is a little more
amusing when the person does it with a touch of arrogance about
it, and compounds it with a reference to Dan Quayle's miscorrection
of a correct spelling.

     The spelling "compleat" is missing from some reputable
dictionaries.  It seems to be used almost exclusively in the 20th
century as something between a facetious to -- dare I say --
affected variant, perhaps with allusions to Isaak Walton's "The
Compleat Angler".  It seems to be a quite minor faux pas for
someone not to realize that this spelling is acceptable.  Perhaps,
indeed, "lurkers" may see some of the posts as an example of 
intellectual bullying of (let's face it) a not very astute proponent 
of creationism, and on an irrelevant issue.  Let's remember that 
this is a person of such power that he could say:
    A science is somehow the worse off if it uses inference.
    Evolutionary science says that women were around before men.
    A logistic curve shows basically exponential growth.
    Scientists don't like to accept creation because it's not
scientific.
    Science has a serious flaw because it is a self-correcting
method.
    The morphologies of monkeys and men are strikingly different.

    I am fully aware that he has been rather obnoxious in some of 
his postings, one might even say that he seems deliberately
antagonistic.  But I think that one good purpose of talk.origins
would be to show the superiority of "evolutionists" over
"creationists".

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:22:04 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: No. The most comprehensive explanation wins, not the simplest.
: 
: Sincerely,
: Kalki Dasa

	In a post subsequent to this one, Ben Dehner agreed with this
statement, but in a discussion of Occam's Razor, I think the above
statement is inaccurate.  Try this out:

	"Given a set of competing theories, the best theory is the
simplest one which encompasses all the data."

	Note the following:

	1.  This statement is only a means by which to choose a theory
to test.  The "best" theory is not necessarily the "right" one!  In
investigating whether or not the theory is correct, new data may come to
light that are not encompassed by the theory under investigation.  As
an example, the original Wegener formulation of "continental drift"
was untenable, but plate tectonics, by covering all the available data,
became acceptable in the community.

	2.  Semantically, "most comprehensive" sounds like you've
got a bloated theory (this is a general statement, Kalki, not aimed
specifically at you).  I.e. the leaner the theory, the tougher it is.
Example:   Before Kepler, the Copernican system had more epicycles than
the supposedly poorer Earth-centered (Euclidean?) system it attempted
to replace.  But by making the orbits elliptical instead of circular,
Kepler made the Copernican system much simpler, and still covered all
the data.

	Over to you, Lippard.  That's all the philosophy of science I
can generate right now.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

(It's good to see you're still around, Kalki.  How's the weather in Aiken?)
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Men Evolved from Women
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 14 Dec 92  08:29:24

Who: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu (Ray Cote)
ID: <1992Dec10.121018.1@woods.ulowell.edu>
 
RC> "So what everybody's [sic] telling me is there's no proof
RC> of evolution. You're not telling me anything I didn't already
RC> know. Maybe you should tell it to Loren the Masterbat...er,
RC> that is the Master Blaster. She's the one that said that
RC> fossils and comparative anatomy prove evolution."
 
Name-calling aside (see above), you do not understand how the
word "proof" is being used. There is the "Strong" form and the
"weak" form. The "strong" form of proof requires every variable
to be immutable and absolute, while the "weak" form does not.
Evolution (macro and micro) is a proven fact: we're sorry about
that. Learn to live with it.
 
RC> Oh yeah, as far as these independent lines of evidence
RC> I keep hearing about, think about this. The DNA of man and
RC> monkeys are extremely close. Their morphologies on the other
RC> hand are strikingly different. So much for comparative DNA
RC> and comparitive morphology agreeing.
 
Only to your eyes, it seems. I look remarkably like a chimp
myself, and I suspect you look remarkably like a babboon.
What of it? Do -YOU- have a good explanation of why humans
(not just the men [see your sentence reproduced above]) look
so much like primates? Any explanation at all? Coincidence?
 
RC> You've probably noticed that I haven't been quoting other
RC> postings. My system keeps screwing up when I try, so I had
RC> to be sneaky by posting messages from outside the newsgroup.
RC> If someone knows how to get around this quoting problem
RC> please let me know. It's so much more fun when I can use
RC> your [sic] own words against you [sic].
 
Do what I do, perhaps. Reply off-line.
 
RC> One other thing before I go, if I'm an Evilutionist, so is
RC> Duane Gish because in "Evolution. The Fossils Say No!" he
RC> also recognizes that speciation occurs. As a matter of fact,
RC> I don't know any Creationist that denies microevolution. 
RC> BTW, you know how everyone was saying how stupid Dan Quayle
RC> was for misspelling potato. Well Andy misspelled "complete"
RC> 4 times. What does that make him? --Ray Cote"
 
Well, golly. Duane Gish is wrong. Imagine that. . . .
 
Dan Quayle isn't demonstrated stupid just because he did not spell
"potato" correctly. He habitually says mind-bogglingly stupid things.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Matters of Gravity
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:02:44 GMT

malc@pyramid.unr.edu (Malcolm L. Carlock) writes:

>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.

Possums (Australian marsupials, so only very remotely related to any
other flying or gliding mammal) also number among the animals which
have evolved gliding and wings in other than fully developed form. In
fact there is a gradation of gliding ability and size of the gliding
membranes in the possums:
	"Sugar Glider _Petarus_breviceps_ ... glide from tree to tree by
	means of their flight membranes. These are lateral extensions of
	the body skin which, when all four limbs are outstretched,
	extend tightly between front and back limbs. When the glider
	leaps from tree to tree it has the appearance of a rectangular
	parachute, at first falling almost vertically. As its velocity
	increases, .. the steep dive levels out, and [terminates] in an
	upward swoop to land"

	"Lemur-like Ringtail (possum) _Hemibelideus_lemuroides_ ...
	_Hemibelideus_ means `semi-glider' ... [it] makes bold downward
	leaps among the branches; it has a very slight beginning of a
	gliding membrane, s atrip of furry skin about two and a half
	centimetres wide along each flank"
		Morecombe, "An illustrated encyclopaedia of Australian
		   wildlife", Treasure Press, Melbourne, 1985
		   o
-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: DISCOVER EOY Hilites
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:20:54 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec14.202248.13704@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
|> 	#1 fun:  "If I Only Had Eight Hearts"  summarizes Daniel
|> Choy's musings on the possibility that _Barosaurus_ would lose
|> blood flow to the brain if he reared on his hind legs, as illustrated at
|> the American Museum of Natural History.  Great pic!  Ted, you've got
|> to see this one.
|> 	Choy said _Barosaurus_ needed eight hearts.  Dinosaur
|> specialists are skeptical.

Yep, so am I.  Auxilliary pumps in the neck is one thing, extra hearts is bizarre.

|> 	#2:  "The Killing Machine".  20-foot velociraptor named
|> _Utahraptor_.  Just like in the upcoming movie _Jurassic Park_.

Ouch!  Most dangerous dinosaur found!
[I think I have heard of this from other sources].

|> 	#3:  "The Blood of the Dinos".  Evidence for dinosaur
|> warm-bloodedness.

This has also been published in scientific journals.
Unless it turns out to be a case of faulty lab technique it is pretty
well conclusive.  [As always in science - reserve judgement until attempts
at replication have been made].

|> 	#7:  "Darwin's Atlas":  Linking of plate tectonics and
|> evolution.  Loved it!   Why?  Creationists don't like either one!

Sounds interesting.  I will have to get this issue.

|> 	#9-12:  "A Platypus in Patagonia"
|> 		"Little Bird, Big Find"  New first bird?

Is this the supposed Triassic bird?
If so, it is *extremely* questionable.

|> 		"In the Beginning was the Tooth"  Conodont source speculated.

I thought this was solved?

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:58:17 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <724484088@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:

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.

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"?

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




-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Article recommendation:  why does creationism still exist?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:26:51 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <16DEC199210313654@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
=Taylor argues that creationism continues to exist, in part, *because* of
=the way scientists have responded to it.  He argues that creationists
=hold on to their beliefs not primarily because of religious conviction,
=but because of a Baconian philosophy of science which says that scientific
=truths should be directly observable by *anyone*.  The way to persuade
=such people is not by telling them that creationism is not science, or
=is unfalsifiable, but by showing them concrete evidence which falsifies
=their specific claims.  (We see both tactics here in t.o, and I think
=the latter is vastly more effective.)

I see no evidence that it's more effective.  In particular, in those
discussions in t.o. that have wandered into sci.skeptic, we see the same bogus
assertions (no intermediate forms, speciation never observed, etc.) over and
over again, and frequently from the same creationists.  Showing a creationist
concrete evidence doesn't work.  Unless, perhaps, that "concrete evidence" is
a Biblical passage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:53:00 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Dec15.134757.3878@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> Hahahahaha! In that case you should look at the chapter entitled
> "List of scientific proofs for evolution" in the book "The Collapse
> of Evolution"

This 1983 book contains a discussion about virtually every topic that
has been thoroughly discussed and debunked on t.o.  It's such a
simple-minded treatment it's not worth bothering with.

How about stuff like meteoric dust, the decay of the earth's magnetic
field, Archaeopteryx is classed as bird, the recession of the moon, 
and other classic young-earth creationist drivel.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
From: lmh@iago.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: 19 Dec 1992 17:35 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: iago.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec18.222216.21552@nntpserver.chevron.com>, jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes...
>Salt buried under the surface of the earth is incompressible and upon
>compaction of the surrounding sediments will be much less dense.  The
>salt also has a low viscosity, and will flow give time.  The salt flows
>upward because of the density contrast.  The salt was not evaporated in
>place.  Petroleum geology has explained salt dome formation to the
>satisfaction of nearly 100,000 geologists, Christian and otherwise. No
>one sufficiently educated has a problem reconciling salt dome formation.

 Salt domes appear as low mounds in the marshes of southern Louisiana.
It was on one of these in New Iberia that the McIlhennys created Tabasco,
although some suggest it evolved from an earlier sauce.

larry henling  lmh@shakes.caltech.edu
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Speed of Light and Relativity
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:23:00 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec11.090340.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> Oh, before I go I want to contribute my two cents to this speed of light
|> thread.  There is a theory out there which postulates that the speed of light
|> is not constant.  This is not a Creationist theory either.  Also it is
|> completely theoretical.  

That's as may be, but my local Christian bookstore still shelves
"Jesus Lord of Time and Space" with its other Creationist stuff,
and that devotes an entire chapter to this dreck.

jon.
From: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Finnish Bible Translating
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:29:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 

In message <7907#tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M
Feuerbacher) said:
-> Would any Finnish speakers help me out with translating a
-> passage from two Finnish bibles?  The more responses the better.

Sure.  I hope you wanted us to reply publicly, since there was a Followup-To
line.
 
-> KR33:
->    Silla nain sanoo Herra: Vasta kun ne seitsemankymmenta
->    Baabelin vuotta ovat tayttyneet, mina katson teidan puoleenne
->    ja panen taytantoon teita kohtaan hyvan lupaukseni ja
->    palautan teidat tahan paikkaan.

Since the Lord says this: Only once those seventy years of Babel have filled,
I will look towards you and put into effect for you my good promise and
return you to this place.

-> KR92:
->    Nain sanoo Herra: Kun Babylonian seitsemankymmenta vuotta
->    ovat kuluneet, mina otan teidat jalleen huomaani.  Mina
->    taytan lupaukseni ja tuon teidat takaisin omaan maahanne.

Thus says the Lord: When the seventy years of Babylon have passed, I will
take you back under my wing*.  I will fulfill my promise and take you back
to your own land.

* This idiom is not quite what the Finnish version says, but I can't think
  of anything better.  Maybe "take you back into my care" would be better...

--
Jani Patokallio                  |  "Ignorance is the soil in which belief
acc1bbs!jani.patokallio@ssr.com  |   in miracles grows."  -R. G. Ingersoll

---
 . AME 1.07 .
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  minuscule cause and monstrous effect
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:18:54 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <justinf-141264033950@macintosh25.cco.caltech.edu>, justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:
 
^> It is exceedingly doubtful at present that ANY solar radiation reaches the
^> surface at all.  Probes indicated utter darkness going through the middle 
^> cloud layer, and then light becoming more intense as the descent was made to
^> the surface.  The light present at the surface is thus local, caused by
^> some combination of chemical reactions and/or heat.  I've pointed this
^> out before.  Soviet and American probes showed the same thing.

^Well, thanks for answering my first question... You seem to have
^misinterpreted the probe reports. Of COURSE a camera would show darkness
^going down -- there's nothing to see! 

My understanding is these were photo sensors.  Probes have consistently
shown a net ir flux going upwards from the surface, also something which
cannot be explained within the context of Sagan's SGH.  As I have noted
in previous posts, astronomers continue to devise explainations as to
why all of these probe responses were in "error", despite these being of
several different types, several different manufactures, several different
landing sites, and all saying essentially the same thing.


^(If there's nothing for light to
^scatter off, you won't see it... and Venus's atmosphere is almost
^completely composed of transparent CO2.) And yes, solar radiation in
^significant amounts does reach the surface...ask any planetary scientist.

Try asking Avduevsky and Marov (CIS astronomical experts connected with
the Venera 9 & 10 landings).  As per the 10/75 COSPAR meeting in Philly,
they thought all light at the surface of Venus was local.

Ask Lewis M. Greenberg.  He claims that radiometers detected only gloom in 
middle clous layer and then light INCREASING with the descent to the surface.
This only makes sense if all surface light is local.
^

^A bit of thought would reveal that your chemical/heat explanation is
^impossible. 

The same thinking should reveal that fireflies are impossible.  They aren't


^
^Finally, American probes couldn't have shown "the same thing" since no
^American probe ever landed on Venus. (They have orbited, and produced very
^accurate radio images, spectrographic analyses, and the like, though.
^Magellan is doing so now, in fact.)

Check ICARUS 52, 297-300 (1982) and 61 521-538 (1985)
^
 
^I'm going to be out of town for a few weeks, so Ted gets to be spared my
^pointing out all his errors.

^Standard disclaimer about my opinions and CalTech's. 

Caltech thanks you for obvious reasons.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE