HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Noah's ark incompatible...with Noah's ark?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministery of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:05:48 GMT

In article <36018@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
writes:
> It's more sophistry attempting to harmonize the verses.

  I disagree.  You seem to have confused "sophistry" with "analysis".  By
calling it sophistry you are saying it is fallicious.  If you could point out
the fallacy I would appreciate it.

>  Since none
> of us are creationinsts that are arguing (and arguing and arguing)
> this point, why don't we just agree on the widely accepted belief
> that Genesis 6 to 8 represent a conglomeration of two separate
> Flood myths.
[synopsis deleted]
> If someone wants to believe that this event (or something similar)
> actually ever HAPPENED is a whole different story.

  I agree.  The only point I was disagreeing on was what constitutes a
contradiction and whether this fits the criteria.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Biogenesis in the warm pool -- the next step
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:06:54 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <746@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>How about the nucleic acids by themselves beginning to self-replicate.
>This is the current main-line hypothesis, and has even got *some*
>experimental support (the existance of a relatively short self-replicating
>RNA chain, and the fact that RNA can have catalytic properties, thus
>eliminating the need for proteins at first).

It all sounds pretty dubious to me -- show me RNA catalyzing the production
of nucleotides and you have a case for RNA.  Otherwise:  Where do all those
nucleotides come from!!?  Not from Miller's Chicken Soup, I hope.


-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
From: schlegel@odin.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: stars & carbon
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:50:54 GMT

turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes:


>>In article <btd.711738938@pv7413.vincent.iastate.edu>, btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:

>>>In <1992Jul21.152437.3950@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>one should keep in mind that the sun orbits around the center of the milky way 
>galaxy.  i believe that the sun has made a half a dozen orbits around the 
>milky way.
^^^^Actually the sun's period around the Galaxy is closer to 250 million years
so with a 5 billion year age, the sun has gone around ~20 times.  After this 
number of rotations the origin point of the interstellar matter that formed
the solar system gets pretty meaningless.

>George Wm Turner		turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Internet)
>Astronomy/Indiana University	turnerg@iubacs			 (Bitnet)
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Elephants going bump in the nightREFRESH
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:02:17 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <84020@netnews.upenn.edu> rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
|Not that I'm backing Ted or anything, but at the Philadelphia zoo,
|there are many signs requesting that people *not* try to feed the
|elephants across the moats.  The reason is that one of our elephants
|died due to complications that resulted from falling into the mote and
|breaking her leg.

hardly surprising!  Those moats are deep enough to be dangerous to humans.
|
|>Also, elephants stampeed.  
|
|Do they really?  I don't know either, but...

Yep, they do.  In fact that is when they are most dangerous to humans.

|While I think Ted overstates the case even with elephants (and of
|course it's ludicrous to extend any firm conclusions to an animal with
|such a distinctly different shape--e.g. a Tyrannosaur), it does seem
|to be correct that elephants don't deal all that well with falls.

True, elephants are more prone to injury in falls than most other animals.

But it is also true that the Tedster greatly exagerates this.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:58:19 GMT

>>There is not, to my knowledge, ANY evidence that any copy of Tay
>>Sachs is good for anything. 

Sorry, but this is in error.  There is excellent (though somewhat 
circumstantial) evidence that Tay Sachs confers resisitance to
tuberculosis in the heterozygous state.  This corresponds well to the
population wherein Tay Sachs first seemed to reach high density,
namely medieval ghetto dwellers.  Tuberculosis was endemic in the
ghetto.

-- 
Seth J. Bradley
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 7'th Category of evidence / Greco-Roman myth and tradition
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:14:34 GMT
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA

In article <2833@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}Primative peoples (in our day and age) tend to worship whatever strikes them
}as most awesome, amazing, exciting etc. in life.  I can and will cite
}several examples:

Ted, you ARE an example.
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Christopher Peters
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 21 Jul 92  00:07:00

I just wanted to express my appreciation for your attitude. It is so
refreshingly different from what we have beciome used to.

10                    2
       DR PEPPER
                      4

---
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Beating a dead horse
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 27 Jul 92  18:24:58

Tag: Jim Meritt (jmeritt@retina.mitre.org (Jim Meritt))
 
JM> "Has anyone seen a change in the positions in the postings
JM> of either Bob Bales or Ted Holden over the years, regardless
JM> of the number of times that they have been demonstrated wrong?
JM> If yes, what and when? If no, why expect it now i.e. why argue
JM> with a rock?"
 
Talking to Ted Holden is like beating a dead horse's ass.
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:58:49 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <BrsxAp.DGt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
>
>In <Brsrpo.Gny@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>
>Below is an illustration of why a Christian should utterly reject evolution.

If a Christian must reject the truth to be a Christian...

>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.

Teaching the truth is a crime? You make Alice in wonderland sound sane.
I take it the essentials of "family values" must be lying to your
children?

>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.  

And since evolution is fact then Mr. Peters is correct...

-- 
>>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.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: Unified gravitation/electromagnetism (was: Re: Worlds in Collision/collusion/confusion)
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:58:07 GMT

In article <9207201922.AA04327@rod.mitre.org> jmeritt@ROD.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt) writes:
>}...Worlds in Collision, which claims only the effects to be expected
>}if a magnetic body like the earth should come very close to another magnetic
>}body
>} [page 297]
>
>You can't get a lot closer to the gas giants than the Voyager probes did
>without entering their atmosphere.  Their motions were unaffected by
>a mystical magnetic field.

As I have done a thourough study on the man's work, I can tell you exactly
what this is supposed to mean.  He was referring to the existence of a
heretofore unobserved gravitational-electromagnetic interation that occurs
in the simultaneous presence of both a large gravitation field and
electromagnetic field from two bodies.  It's a phenomenon that lies beyond
the current limits of observation and something that would only be taken
correctly into account by a UNIFIED theory of gravitation and electromagnetism.

This is, in fact, what initiated the collaboration between Velikovsky and
Einstein, because towards the end of his life Einstein was so desperately
seeking anything, any observation or theory, in order to unify these two fields

There was 2 ways to falsify claims of this nature:
(1) Bring two bodies with both large electromagnetic and gravitational fields
    together and see if anything unanticipated happens.

    Your comment on the satellite fails this test because the satellits is
    way too small to have an appreciable field of either type.

(2) Derive a physically consistent unified field theory and use it to refute
    the claims made.
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Attenuated perception of gravity prior to the flood
Keywords: Categories of Evidence
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:15:19 GMT

In <2818@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>Views
>other than the standard evolution/uniformitarian view of earth origins
>are usually just shouted down.  I have no further intention of engaging
>in "debate" with these individuals, either singly or en-mass;  I know
>what they think of me and they know what I think of them.

>I am composing a short compendium of the rationales for believing that
>earth and human origins are significantly different than what is
>commonly taught, and intend to simply post it at regular intervals,
>automatically, so as to reach the widest possible audience with it.  I
>regard this stuff as inportant for mankind to understand...

>Again, the weight of this entire body of evidence cannot be ignored.  It
>all points in the same direction.  Again, I will address each item
>mentioned here in separate articles, and I will repost them
>periodically, along with sources for those wishing further information.

>The regular t.o crew can scream all they want.  In all likelihood, I
>won't even be listening.

I have no objections to any posting.  I have no objections to people
who post that the earth is 6000 years old or that it was made yesterday
with all of our collective memories intact.  I don't even object if
someone posts that the Universe popped out of Cracker Jack box, giving
what he/she felt were the proper arguments.  If I have
the time, I would gladly debate the points.  I am sure I could learn 
something and hopefully others could as well.

What I find unscientific AND unethical is someone who finds it necessary
to force his/her view on others.
You posted:  fine.
Others replied: fine.
You replied back: fine.

But why is it necessary for you to clog up the network (at someone else's
expense) with your repeated posts?  What if 10,000 other people with
equally strongly felt views did that? Why not use your own resources to
publish a book.  Is it because the network is "free" that you want to abuse
it?  

Are you forgetting that you can "shout" others down as well?  Why does
a disagreement with your point of view constitute a "shout".  Did some
thugs come to your house and force you off the network?

By your unethical behaviour you have placed yourself in a cheap
arguing position.

>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE

--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
emc@doe.carleton.ca
Xref: sparky talk.origins:8561 sci.astro:8241
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
Subject: Age of the galaxy (was: stars & carbon)
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:49:53 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

I hope I have the attributions correct.

schlegel@odin.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) says:
> turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes:

>> I believe that the sun has made a half a dozen orbits around the milky way.

> Actually the sun's period around the Galaxy is closer to 250 million years
> so with a 5 billion year age, the sun has gone around ~20 times.  After this
> number of rotations the origin point of the interstellar matter that formed
> the solar system gets pretty meaningless.

This brings to my mind the question, how old is our galaxy?  I suppose that
it is older than the Sun, but how much older?  I realize that I ought to be
looking in an astronomy text, but posting is so much easier, as well as more
fun.  Are all galaxies remnants of the primordial density fluctuations, or
are there second and third generation ones?
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Biogenesis (+ an invitation to C. Menem)
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:13:02 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul23.135645.22992@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> mark@austin.ibm.com (Mark Einkauf) writes:
|  I have followed talk.origins for about two months. ...
|  The theory (as I understand it) claims  that not  only the specialization
|  of life (i.e.  species) can be explained by purely natural  forces acting
|  through time, but that the very genesis of life  occurred through natural
|  forces acting randomly on inorganic matter over time.

No, Mark, I'm afraid you're wrong.  Evolution says *nothing* about
abiogenesis.  That is a seperate area of study, one that is currently
mostly speculative, with little in the way of definitive results.

It is *science* which assumes that all observable phenomena have naturalistic
causes.  If they do not, then they are beyond the ability of science to
study.  Now it is possible that abiogenesis cannot occur purely naturally,
but if so it cannot be studied by science, so, for now, it is more useful
to assume that it is studyable, and thus naturalistic.  That way we have
some hope of eventually arriving at a description of how it occured.

| I find  this claim
|  that  evolution   explains  biogenesis   to  be   preposterous,   and  in
|  disagreement with scientific evidence.   ...

How life originated has nothing to do with how it changes now that it
does in fact exist.

|  The fact that biogenesis cannot occur  "naturally" is  a scientific fact,
|  and also,   I think,   self-evident.  It   is silly   to think   that the
|  complexity of our bodies  is the  result of  random forces.

Nobody I know of thinks this.  Abiogenesis would not form anything like
any currently living thing, but rather something *much* simpler.  We do
not at present know what this original life form was like, so little can
be said about its origin.  Certainly saying 'the biogenesis[sic] cannot
occur naturally is a scientific fact' is going beyond the evidence.  We
do not know enough abiut the minimal requirements for life to answer this
question with certainty either way.

|  As mentioned, I think that  the fact  that life  is too  complex to arise
|  spontaneously is  self-evident.

Yep, and as I mentioned, it did *not* arise in such a state, it *evolved*
into it *after* it arose.

|  I am familiar  with the  work of  Miller, Fox,  Oparin, Eigen, Prigogine,
|  Eden, Teilhard, Kenyon, Steinman, Monod, and  others.

Have you tried the work of Cairns-Smith?  It has rather a different
perspective on the matter.  (Its still speculative though).



Remember, abiogenesis is a seperate field from evolution, they have rather
little to do with one another.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: alanrw@cs.man.ac.uk (Alan R Williams)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 7'th Category of evidence / Greco-Roman myth and tradition
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:09:13 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: swf@teradata.com's message of 28 Jul 92 01:41:05 GMT

In article <764@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:

   If the Sun is king, then why isn't Sol the chief god later on?

Actually, there was a major god in later (imperial) Roman religion
known as Sol Invictus (the unconquered sun).  However, he (it?) was
essentially just an aspect of Jupiter, which would seem to suggest
that the identification of the god Jupiter with the planet Jupiter was
not too strong.

Of course Ted could claim that the replacement of Jupiter's
identification with the planet by the identification with the sun
arose from the change in Earth's orbit.  Watch this space...

Alan
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Williams, Room IT403, Department of Computer Science,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.
Tel: (061) 275 6289      Fax: (061) 275 6280
EMAIL: alanrw@cs.man.ac.uk or ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!alanrw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: maier@romulus (Chuck Maier)
Subject: Re: Scientific Method
Reply-To: cmaier@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:41:22 GMT

In <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 yes:
>                What data has been collected in support of creationism.
>                What observations support creationism?

"The heavens declare the glory of God and the earth sheweth forth his
handiwork."

"...HIs invisible attributes...his divine nature, his eternal power...
being understood through that which has been made."

A look out the window by any sane inidividual with reasonable eyesight
would qualify as a legitimate observation.

>                What experiments have been conducted (especially, what
>                        experiments have been done, or are possible,
>                        that can _FALSIFY_ creationism?

Have functional complexity arise without adding intelligence. 

>                What hypothesis has been formulated and how can it/they
>                be tested?

Molecular biologists might do more work in actually proving (i.e. via
directed mutagenesis) that it is possible for molecules to evolve through
genetic mistakes, occurring by pure chance.  Creationists hypothesize that
this is not possible for the same reason my note won't change into an 
pro-evolution diatribe by dancing my hands over the keys in subsequent
editions and followups to the note.  

Hypothesis:  a better understanding of gene regulation and developmental
controls will make today's naive posturings of evolutionism sound like
"the greatest deceit in the history of science."  [S. L0vtrup, 1987].

cm.
> 
>-- 
>James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Blah Blah
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:27:22 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <henley.920728104731@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>In article <n05fat@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>> 
>>Sorry to educate you, but evolution isn't random, nor was
>>a "force" applied. The process is chaotic, not random.
>
>Do you know the difference between microscopic and macroscopic
>properties?
>
>Force and chaos are macroscopic
>Random is microscopic.
>
>Force and chaos are macroscopic results of the probability of random events
>occurring at the microscopic level.
Bullshit.
Chaos exists quite happily in perfectly deterministic systems.

Look at the solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for an example.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
              Golden Anniversary: It's bad beer, but it's beer.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:42:36 GMT
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center

In <1992Jul30.042012.8151@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>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.

But any creationist worth his salt can answer this one: "The ice tray
is not a closed system, so of course the entropy can drop.  It's in
contact with the air.  Convection carries away heat, as does
evaporation.  There's mass transfer."

But we can easily fix this problem.  Take some water, seal it in a
transparent container (so the vapor pressure keeps it from
evaporating), and put it on the dark side of the moon.  It'll freeze.
Then when the sun rises, it'll boil.  Assuming the container is strong
enough to hold the vapor pressure, when the sun goes down it'll freeze
again.  And on and on...  strange how the entropy of a "closed" system
can either increase or decrease.  But then that's because it's not
isolated (== closed in physics-speak).

>-- 
>>>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.--          \/
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins