HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: blah, blah, blah (was: Re: Blah Blah)
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:17:25 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:

>In article <1992Jul29.192240.164705@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>>[stuff about driving forces and thermodynamics in responce to a post about
>>natural selection deleted]
>>
>>What the heck does thermo and such concepts as _useful_ work have to do with
>>natural selection and evolution?!  I don't see how you can make the
>>connection since they are based on completely different fundamentals.
>
>Woah there Nellie!  Are you saying that biological processes *DO NOT* 
>have to abide by the laws of Thermodynamics?

I'm not saying that the chemical processes in biology don't follow the
laws of thermo.

>Either they do, or they don't.  If they do, then those laws should be able
>to predict things in biological processes, including Natural Selection
>and Evolution.  If they don't, well...

No, no, no.  Thermo and evolution deal with two rather different
things.  Thermo deals matter and energy.  Evolution deals with
information.  The fact that the information is stored in matter is
irrelevant.  The information itself doesn't interact with the world
with the same basic laws that thermo uses.

Such thermo concepts such as "driving force" and "useful work" don't
hold here.  Just because some concepts hold for some things very well
doesn't mean they are applicable to absolutely everything.

>>| Seth Kroger
>
>James P. Henley Jr.

|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: oh rah...
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:48:41 GMT

In article <2842@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

	While I wouldn't want to get into the habit of it, for once I agree
completely with Ted.

...
 
> Here's the problem.  Most t.o readers don't have access to the various 
> binaries groups, and there's a further problem in that an article posted
> to one of them often takes a good deal longer to get out than the message
> on another group such as t.o which would tell anybody to expect it.
> 
> You thus wouldn't think that posting a small image file which had obvious
> pertinance to t.o, once in a very rare while, on t.o, would cause anybody
> any heartache.  

	Personally, I don't see any problem with the occaisional posting a small
uuencoded gif file to t.o  I think that Ted actually posting the damn 
thing would have taken less space then this silly discussion and threat/ 
counter-threat nonsense.
	Ted, why don't you mail a copy of it to me (I'd like to look at it
anyway) and I think I have the resources around here somewhere to jpeg it.
I also *might* be able to make it accessible via anonymous ftp (not sure about
this system), and I could also make it available to people with access to afs. 
That sound ok?

... more of the insult/flame war.  I'll stay clear, thank you.


Ben  


It takes as much effort to give a compliment as an insult.  And far less, I
might add, to simply keep one's mouth shut.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner          Department of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu             Iowa State University 
                            Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Closed vs. Isolated systems
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:16:24 GMT

In article <henley.920730113210@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>In article <schinder.712457467@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov> schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
>>
>>doing.  If it's not isolated, and I'm asked to compute the change in
>>entropy, I have to work to find out, and the answer may be either that
>>it increases or decreases.  In this sense, the definition of "closed"
>>that chemists use is not fundamentally useful, since I have to be
>>given specifics to find out what the entropy does.  It has *practical*
>>use in given problems.  But for example, if the "container" is
>>transparent and I send radiation into the container, I can change the
>>equilibrium state of the contents. I can't do that with an isolated
>>system; once it's contents are in equilibrium, they remain there.
>
>Herein lies the gist.  If a container is closed, but not isolated, then
>it can recieve and lose energy but not matter.  Heat is unique in that
>it depends on an external heat sink to leave, whereas work, be it chemical,
>electrical, mechanical, or otherwise can leave without a heat sink.  The
>problem is, that you have to have a heat sink that is cooler than some
>part of the system to get the heat to flow out.  Or, you have to have some
>point in a cycle in which the heat sink is cooler that system in order
>for heat transfer out (following the expansion in a Carnot Cycle).  The

WHOOPS!, That should have been "following the compression..."

>
>James P. Henley Jr.
>Chemical Engineering Dept.
>Auburn University
>
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Scientific Method
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:46:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul27.124651.27652@linus.mitre.org>, jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes...
> 
>To add my $.02 worth (with yet another unanswered question)
> 
> 
>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.
> 
>So, does creationism use the scientific method?

With this broad and vague a definition, there are certainly creationists
who use the scientific method.

>        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.

>                What observations support creationism?

See above.

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

See above.  The creationist could also respond by asking what experiments
are conducted in historical sciences such as paleontology or geology.
Observation of evolution would falsify creationism.

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

Some of the _Origins Research_ crowd have attempted to argue that natural
selection acts to *prevent* macroevolution, though they admit that they
need to do a lot of work.

My answers are not intended to defend creationism, nor even its status
as science.  (I think that there are creationist theories, e.g., hydrological
sorting, but there seems to be no theory *of* creationism.)  My point is
just that the claim "creationism isn't science because it doesn't use the
scientific method" requires support that hasn't been given (e.g., just what
is "the scientific method" that all real sciences use and creationism
doesn't).

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:03:35 GMT

In article <henley.920731101459@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu>, henley@eng.auburn.edu
(James Paul Henley) writes:
> In article <1992Jul31.070434.10557@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG
(Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> >
> >Basically it depends how you want to define mass, I believe
> >defining it by its inertial (and thus weight as well) is more
> >useful. I generally use rest mass to refer to what you are
> >refering to as mass. Although I guess it really doesn't matter
> >as long as people know which definition you are using.
> 
> Is there some way that I can define matter as meaning something with a 
> rest mass?  Or should I just talk about "forms of energy that have a 
> rest mass".  I would like to be as precise, *and* correct as possible.
> How about it Paul?  Would that be a clear enough distinction - one
> that we can both live with?  Bob?  Any other physicists out there who
> have problems with my distinctions?
> 
> Remember that we need something simple, for a wide audience.
 
	I don't think we need to be *too* worried about it.  The definitions
you are using are from classical physics, where there is a clear distinction
between energy and mass.  As long as we acknowledge that is what we are doing,
things should be ok.

	Now let me give you a pathological counter-example to your system.
Lets say I have a thermodynmically closed system, where closed = no mass flow.
Lets say this system consists of one (1) box of electrons, and one (1) box of
positrons (anti-electrons).  The system is closed, so electrons and positrons
can't leave.  Now we will let the the electrons and positrons run loose
WITHIN the system.  They go boom, or more like BOOOOOMMM!!, and release a flood
of 511keV gamma rays which (as energy) can leave the system.  It's silly
little things like this that one must be careful of that cause the trouble.

Ben
 
'Yabba dabba doo' -- Fred Flinstone

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner          Department of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu             Iowa State University 
                            Ames, IA 50011
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Nonsense Explained
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 25 Jul 92  10:13:24

Tag: James Paul Henley (henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley))
 
TPH> "I have maintained from the very beginning that *all*
TPH> means available should be used in determining how to
TPH> take accounts in the Bible."
 
Occult superstitions require only ONE "MEANS" of determining
their validity: does it contradict reality? Since a very great
number of "accounts in the Bible" contradict the very basis of
reality, they have no validity. And since they often contradict
THEMSELVES, where does that leave one? Or are there deeper,
more "spiritual" meanings in the contradictions that only
your cult are privy to?
 
Or was that your point?
 
TPH> "For one thing, other verses must be taken into account,
TPH> so how does this one apply: 'But do not forget one thing,
TPH> dear friends: With the Lord [sic] a day is like a thousand
TPH> years, and a thousand years is like a day.'"
 
Now tell me how THIS ONE applies:
 
  "If your boat was traveling down the railroad tracks and
  its pancakes had a blow-out, would your waffles be triangular?
  No, of course not! Why? Because rocks eat tofu and bannanas
  are THIS: => <= loud."
 
If your cult dictates that you must make some sense out of what
is without sense, tell me: are they doing you a service or a
disservice? Occult superstitions are a poor thing indeed for
one to base ones' life upon.
 
Uhm, to clear up your confusion on "day equals 1000 years of
lord-time" and later in your occult book "day equals a year
of prophet's time," that comes from a technique astrologers
used to predict future events, 2000+ years ago, Babalonian
in origin.
 
> henley@eng.auburn.edu
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 5'th Category of evidence / perceived gravity and continental drift
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:26:58 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <2agm+-b@lynx.unm.edu> rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:
|
|	Pangea was originally proposed by Alfred Wagener in 1928 but
|largely ignored because there was no known mechanism to move
|continents around.
|	The Tethys was originally recognized/proposed because of its
|distinctive fossils - _not_ the continental positions!
|Paleontologists talk of a "Tethyean" marine fauna versus a "Boreal"
|marine fauna.  The distinction appears to be because of an equatorial
|(Tethyean) versus polar (Boreal) environment - Tethyean faunas
|tend to be "warm-water", equatorial faunas (associated with coral
|reefs, for instance).

In fact the widespread occurance of marine sediments and marine fossils
(as opposed to terrestrial ones) in the Tethys region pretty well proves
the existance of a sea there, with or without continental drift.

|	It was no surprise to paleontologists when plate tectonics
|suggested a large equatorial ocean that no longer exists (unless you
|count the Caspian or Black Seas :-).

Yep, the Tethys Sea was indeed proposed, and named, well before modern
continental drift, solely on the basis of tropical marine sediments.
(hey, check out some of the older, pre-tectonic, maps, where they have to
squash most of the Mid-East under the ocean to make it work!)

|>3.  Given uniformitarian views, if we assume the system to be 7 B
|>years old, our earth should have been in equ[i]librium even 200 M
|>years ago.  If some force existed then to draw the continents
|>together into Pangeae, and if that force were terrestrial, then
|>clearly Pangeae should still exist.  The relatively minor
|>catastrophes which establishment science presently allows for as per
|>the case of the Alverez version of the dinosaur extinctions should
|>by no means have broken up Pangeae.
|
|Well, 7 billion is a bit off for Earth history.  More like 4.5
|billion. I think Ted kind of goofed on the numbers anyway:

Actually, I suppose he was using Lord Kelvin's calculations,
which if correct *would* imply the Earth reaching equilibrium *before*
200 million years ago (which is a reasonable way of interpreting Ted's
statement - not that Ted is necessarily reasonable mind you).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:48:56 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Jul24.192158.5801@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>:Let's put this into a different perspective.  The way I treat my wife is
>:with honor and respect.  Why?  Because that is what the Bible tells me
>:to do.  I submit, that's right, submit to my wife.  Why?  Because that's
>:what the Bible tells me to do.  I serve my wife, I mean like a servant.
>:Why?  Because that's what the Bible tells me to do.  
>
>	Is servility all that you can understand?
>
>	What about cooperation?

I don't think servility and cooperation are mutually exclusive.
Do you have an objection to husbands respecting, honouring and
_serving_ their wives?

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:17:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.194857.19939@techbook.com> mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb) writes:
>
>You remember those glass globes with a 4-vane rotator in the center?
>Each vane is painted black on one side, and white on the other. When
>the sun shines on it, it starts to rotate. That energy (the rotation)
>is now 'available energy'. So, since you are claiming that a system
>closed mass-wise cannot find it's entropy decreasing (available energy
>increasing), could you please explain this, O chemistry graduate
>student?

No no, an *isolated* system cannot find its entropy decreasing. Since you
obviously have radiation entering and leaving this is not isolated, but a
closed diabatic system.  You reduce entropy in a closed system by simply
allowing heat transfer out.  The white sides reflect heat out, and the
black sides radiate heat out.  If the globes have a vacuum, or close to it,
the only conductive heat transfer out will be through the axle of the vanes.

So, that is three means of reducing system entropy.  Actually, it is hard
to say that the reflected radiation out reduced system entropy, and here is
where we have to go to a microscopic thermodynamic analysis.  At the macroscopic
level, the reflected radiation was never part of the system energy, at the
microscopic level you might consider it to be.

Chemistry graduate student?  I have been called all sorts of names,
but never one so,  so,  so...uh, is that supposed to be good or bad?

>Yes I did. Did you even write it? Your special definition of closed
>is not to be found in any reference on thermo I have consulted. I
>believe that this is something that you have copied out of
>creationist literature.

If you want a source that is not an engineering text and is definitely not
creationist literature, try _Basic_Physical_Chemistry_ by Walter J. Moore,
Prentice Hall, page 7.  You will find the same definition.  By the way
what *are* those references that you consulted?  Surely you wouldn't mind
sharing them with us would you?


>Sadly, you are the one who is confused. Recall the reference to
>Prigogine's nobel prize earlier? Could you please interpret his work
>in terms of your peculiar definition of closed?

Is that your reference?

>Regards,
>	Max G. Webb
>-- 
>mongo@techbook.COM          ATT: 1-503-227-1284
>SNAIL: 1983 nw Flanders #205, Portland OR 97209

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Category 4 / Other large animal anomalies
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Jul20.023230.13942@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Jul20.171249@IASTATE.EDU>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 01:03:25 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>>      Elephants resolve much of the problem of supporting such a large
>>      body weight through their behavior.  They live unhurried lives
>>      and seldom do anything quickly.  They walk rather ponderously,
>>      keeping their legs relatively straight throughout, and although
>>                                                         ------------
>>      they can run at a fair pace, easily outrunning a man, their speed

>Not to mean anything against McGowan, but that doesn't seem right.  Top speed
>for an Elephant, according to my Almanac, is 25 mph, for man it is 27 mph.  Now
>granted that is for sprinting, but the Elephant speed is for charging.

27 mph sounds high.  That's 39.6 ft/sec: 7.58 sec for 100 yds, 16.67
for 220, 33.33 for 440.  Unfortunately the Olympics have metric
distances and I'm too lazy to convert, but my Almanac lists, for the
1988 games, 9.92 sec for 100m, 19.75 for 200m, 43.87 for 400m.  200m
is peak, because it takes time to get up to speed.  Those results, of
course, are for champion athletes.  I'd be surprised if most elephants
spend as much time in training as an Olympic gold-medal winner.  :-)


Keith
From: gecko@zooid.guild.org (GECKO)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Elaphants CAN'T gallop, ddamn it!!!  Nor mammoths!!!
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:50:00 GMT

 Famous Mr. Ted writes: 
 
>(griping at Sue and dancing around issue deleted) 
> 
>That was the whole point.  I have at least one picture of a big mammoth, 
>galloping. 
 
      A photograph?  Of a mammoth?  I don't believe it! 
 
      MAMMOTHS CANNOT SMEGGING GALLOP YOU PINHEAD! 
 
      Baby elephants ought to be light enough to gallop, but they can't 
      do it either because they aren't designed for that sort of 
      activity.  DO YOU UN-DER-STAND?  I wonder...  ;-) 
 
 
>Russians probably see more pictures of mammoths while coming up through 
>school (the Russians, not the mammoths), than we do, and I've asked a 
>number of them about this.  Several have claimed to have seen pictures 
>of mammoths galloping. 
 
      Is this supposed to remove all doubt from my mind?  It hasn't. 
 
 
>Again, this cannot happen in our world at present. 
 
      Yet again, it has NEVER happened.  Mammoths never galloped. 
 
                                - GECKO 
 
 
 
 
gecko@zooid.guild.org
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: blah, blah, blah (was: Re: Blah Blah)
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:59:26 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

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.

	Um, what is the point here? Mr. Rice was correct
in asserting that evolution isn't random. Evolution is a change in the
gene pool over time. One of the mechanisms that causes evolution is
natural selection. Natural selection is differential reproductive
success of genotypes and it occurs when fitness differences exist in
a gene pool. This is non-random.

	Also, the Mr. Rice was correct in saying a force is
not applied. Force equals mass times acceleration if my college
physics text isn't lying to me. There is no mass to a gene pool
and it is not accelerated. (I'm not what he meant by evolution
being chaotic, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here.)

	So again, what's the point? Also, do you really think
that your posting of a huge thermo FAQ is going to make anyone
forget that you still have not addressed a load of data dealing
with common descent?

>James P. Henley Jr.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 17:41:13 GMT

fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

>As a born-again Christian, I subscribe to the theory of a young earth
> (6000 to 10000 years old).

>Does anyone have scientific evidence to support this?
>(Stuff on dating methods, dynamic vs. atomic time, etc.)
>Please e-mail or post.

Do you normally decide first what you want to believe, and then look
for evidence to support it?  Wouldn't it be better to examine what the
evidence says, and *then* decide what to believe?

That's only a suggestion, of course.


Keith
From: buell@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Jim Buell)
Subject: Re: stars & carbon
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:59:04 GMT

cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson) writes:

>In article <buell.711752007@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu>, 
>buell@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Jim Buell) writes:
>|>
>|> There are two types of neutron capture reactions, the slow process and
>|> the rapid process. The slow process [...] accounts
>|> for the elements up through about atomic number 116 or so.
>|> The rapid process [...] accounts for elements above 116 or so.

>Did you mean "atomic weight" (= "mass number") there? Nuclei with an
>"atomic number" (Z, number of protons) greater than 116 woudn't remain
>around for long, even if formed!

>Chris Thompson
oops!!! sorry about that one.

>JANET:    cet1@uk.ac.cam.phx
>Internet: cet1@phx.cam.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins