HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Kazmaier and standing up at 200,000 lbs:  why it can't happen
Date: 4 Oct 92 12:38:46 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <BvK74J.C8z@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss) writes:

*Maybe "often," but not very well.  Your best response to the inquiries
*of others is to insult them. 

I reply to these people the way they reply to me and to others.  Since these
t.o pissing contests are usually at something like 50 - 1 odds, it may appear
that I am an asshole because I'm insulting ten or twenty different people
while each of them is being a great deal more reasonable in only insulting
me.

Think about it.


The evidence you present for your theories
*could just as easily explained by "We came to this world from another
*planet.  This explains blah blah blah..."

If your "we" includes sauropod dinosaurs, the other planet would have 
to be one of far less gravity, or at least far less felt effect of
gravity.  Somebody capable of hauling sauropod dinosaurs across galactic
distances would have to know what would become of them were they to be
simply dropped into a world with the perceived gravity which we have.

*I wonder that since the animals on the Saturn side of the earth were
*very large because of the lessened felt effect of gravity, why 1)
*weren't people roughly the same size?  

There's no law which I know of which would REQUIRE every species of animal
to have attained sauropod sizes, given lesser perceived gravity.  There
is, as I understand it, however, something in the fossil record called
gigantopithicus.  Perhaps somebody could run that one by.  And there is
another consideration:  all primates, apes, monkeys etc. are probably 
thought to be recently derived from arboreal creatures.  I can't picture
anything the size of a gorilla or a gigantopithicus living in trees very
easily.

Did they evolve into larger sizes after deciding that trees were bad
for their health, or did they simply survive the changeover in perceived
gravity and then learn they could no longer climb?

2) were the animals on the
*southern hemisphere considerably smaller than they are now?

There were no animals on the southern hemisphere.  I mean, why live in
darkness when you could live in light.
*
*>Is that a little bit easier to comprehend?
*
*You are an insulting fool.
*
That's GOOD.  Sort of like calling somebody a foul-mouthed mother-____er,
right?  Again, the attitude problem here comes from years of abuse from 
the t.o regular crew.
*
*Thanks for all the blank lines at the bottom of your article.
*
Free of charge.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Darwinism is dead !
Summary: Creationism is dead !
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 20:20:49 GMT

In article <n0abet@ofa123.fidonet.org> Laurence.Vanhelsuwe@f8.n252.z2.fidonet.org writes:
[re a new book attacking evolution]
>For example: there's no evidence WHATSOEVER when analysing DNA sequences that 
>any species is more or less "evolved" or primitive than another one.

It is Creationism, not evolution, which says that some species are more
advanced than others.

>Another argument which he uses is to reject the idea that a RANDOM process
>(mutation of genes) could produce any length of DNA which produces anything as 
>intricate and complex (and working!) as even a simple bacterium...

Chance, otherwise known as divine intervention, is the driving force of
Creationism, not of evolution.

It sounds like the author of your book was so ignorant of evolution that
he ended up disproving Creationism instead.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:32:15 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <19920924.141504.179@almaden.ibm.com> mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>Robert E. McGrath writes:
>>I might also add a comment based on remarks made by my sister the
>>anthropologist:  Of course evolution (sic) occurs, kids are genetically
>>different from their parents.  Explain that away, creationists!
>
>What is there to explain?  Creations accept that what you term as
>micro-evolution occurs.
>
>What Creationists don't accept is the extrapolation that since
>micro-evolution has (and does) occurred, then certainly macro-evolution
>must have occurred.

As has been asked before, what do the C. propose is the boundary between
what you call macro and microevolution, and how do you propose the
micro to be prevented into accumulating into macro over millions 
of years?

>The first is observed and proven.  The second is speculated.

The second is speculated because having occurred over millions of
years, it cannot be proven; however, due to many independent lines
of evidence including DNA sequencing today, what you call the
macroevolution can be deduced. The fact that we do not have time 
machines to travel to the Devonian to photograph giant reptiles
(to satisfy eg your scepticism) doesn't bother me at all.

>People are still people.  Dogs are still dogs.  Fish are still fish.
>Etc.  One kind has not changed into another.

No; there's no suggestion in evolution that people should have
changed into dogs (the werewolf syndrome, or whatever permutation
you alluded to). 

>Notice we still observe (present tense) micro-evolution.
>
>I ask again for observations of macro-evolution happening.

Then ask God for a time-travel machine.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 19:17:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.133637.23744@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>Can you explain *what* the book has considered up to this point that
>>allows the author to conclude that Genesis is scientifically sound?
>
>	Quite many. For instance the order life was created on earth. 

First, the writers of _Life, How Did It Get Here?_ lie when they say that
the probability of order of events in Genesis matching accepted science is
1 in 10!.  That assumes the events are independent, which they aren't.
For example, "a beginning" would obviously come first, and land must come
before land animals.  The real probability should be 1 in 12.  Hardly
impressive.

Second, they really have to stretch to get the fit they do, contradicting
the Bible in the process.  They say the sun shone on the Earth long before
the 4th day (or whatever day Genesis says), but that doesn't matter because
it wasn't visible from the surface until then (as if there was someone
around then to look).

Third, they got it wrong anyway.  Fruiting plants did not appear before
sea life.
-- 
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: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Words to Think by
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:50:22 GMT

In article <BvGIzD.F0H@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
> In the same chapter (or maybe the second), Burke tells about St.
> Augustine (I think), who made a list of things even God couldn't
> do.  Among them was, "make the interior angles of a triangle sum to 
> other than 180 degrees."  I liked that.

  Hmm, even I can do that.  Draw a triangle on a sphere.

  If you wan't to stick with "planar" triangles it can sill be done.  Put a
black hole in the center of the triangle.  The "streight" lines will bend
through space due to gravitational distortions.  Depending on how you define
"streight" the angles will be greater than or less than 180 degrees.

  BTW, this is true even with a weak gravity source like the earth, though it
isn't as noticable.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Antti dodges reality (take two)
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:47:23 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Oct1.132806.23399@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>They do not interbreed (as it says in my FAQ that you supposedly read). 
>>Why don't you look up the reference? They are not defined by morphology.
>>The real world doesn't go away just becuase you ignore it, Antti.

>	No, I was told that they're defined just by morphology. 

Then you were told wrong. They do not interbreed, the two new species
(one of which arose three independent times!) have different numbers of
chromosomes and do not produce fertile offspring. Once again, you
are only proving how astoundingly ignorant you are and the lengths
you will go to avoid learning anything about biology.

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

PS Got those "wedge leading birds suffer higher mortality" references
dug up yet? It's only been weeks since you've made the claim.

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"
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Genesis (was Deja vu all over again)
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:05:29 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University

In <90850@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50) writes:

>In article <emc.717533486@ro> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>>In <1126@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>>>Now, from this position there is no particular reason to believe that
>>>a non-literal Genesis casts doubt on any of the spiritual truths in the
>>>Bible.

>>Please no more of this crap.  What gives you the right to dissect 
>>the texts in this manner?

>I could make the same observation about your (presumably "literal")
>interpretation of the Scriptures. 

The polarization of the reading of Genesis into the literalist and
"intended-spiritual-meaning-ist" camps is utterly simplistic.  If I
am not the latter, than I am naturally (according to you) the former.
We are not discussing a modern word of fiction.  Genesis, it is clear,
from textual and linguistic analysis is a book composed from several
oral and written traditions.  It is not out of context to the available
genre of the day.  It is similar to other sources from which it derives
its material.  Gen. 1 is written in different language and with a 
different point of view than Gen.2.  The Hebrew is different.  The
story is different. The use of God (Elohim) in one vs. Lord God (YHVH
Elohim) in the other is different.  There are other parts of Genesis
that have Middle Hebrew overlaying Old Hebrew.  This is a cause for
many anachronisms.  Are you sure that you know the inteded meaning 
of each author in each case, including the later editings?

>Is that really what God is telling us about in 
>Genesis? 

If God spoke to you personally, then let us know.  Otherwise,
I think you are in the same boat as all of us.  You have to study,
the languages, history, context, etc. of the texts to slowly begin
to see what the writer is saying.  People spend entire lifetimes at
this and sometimes still don't have enough information.

>>How do you discern this "spiritual" truth from the "historical" truth?  
>>Are the former marked in red letters?

>You have just a few chapters which describe how God created the 
>heavens and the earth. That's not enough even to describe even 
>the creationists' creation scenario in detail.
Biblical writers had no knowledge of modern science or evolutionary 
biology.  So what? 

>Spiritual truth is what the Holy Spirit teaches me from the 
>scriptures about the attributes of God, How I relate to Him, 
>and what He requires of me.  Spiritual truth convicts me that I 
>am a sinner and need the Savior, and that His death
>on the cross is the *only* thing that makes me acceptable before God. 

Then you don't need a Bible.  You have already established the truth
before reading it.

>Bill Hamilton
>GM Research and Environmental Staff
>hamilton@gmr.com
--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics
Carleton University	
emc@doe.carleton.ca	
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:13:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.120024.15852@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>
>>[Someone else asks:]
>># Can you explain *what* the book has considered up to this point that
>># allows the author to conclude that Genesis is scientifically sound?
>
>>Antti Siivonen writes:
>>> Quite many. For instance the order life was created on earth. 
>
>>False.  Land plants ("day three") don't predate the Sun ("day four")
>>or fish ("day five").  Try again.
>
>	No, actually those refer to the visibility of sun. 

Good point, Antti, but it could you explain to me how land plants
and fish could have survived without the warmth of the sun's
rays?  Surely decreased visibility would have affected the
earth's biota to some extent, right?  After all, plants need
sunlight to photosynthesize so the fish can eat them, right?

>-- 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
>	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !


-- 
corey@sdf.lonestar.org  214-296-0458   Corey Carroll
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: sgi
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:17:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.195145.19351@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
|> In article <qe5e904@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep28.123356.25628@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> >> There are numerous examples of withered arms and legs being grown back
|> >> or re-created by God. Check out one of these maybe.
|> 
|> >If there are "numerous" cases, then it should be easy to 
|> >give us a reference to a few of them.
|> 
|> Of possible interest:
|> 
|> Fishman, Steve. (1992). "Hunting for a miracle," _Health_ 6:1
|> (Feb/Mar 92), 48-59.
|> An article about the miracles at Lourdes.  It's interesting that the
|> miracles have become less frequent now that people are examining them more.
|> 
|> Hall, Stephen S. (1992). "Cheating fate," _Health_ 6:2 (Apr/May 92), 38-46.
|> About the mystery of spontaneous remission.
|> 
|> I don't think either of these is the kind of thing Lionel has in mind, though.

I agree.   I picked up a book last year which described in some
detail six cases of spontaneous remission from cancer.

I found myself thinking: Ah, this is a doctor writing, so she
calls these spontaneous remissions.   If a TV evangelist were
talking about the same cases, they would call them miracles.

So what exactly is the difference?   Is a miracle just a matter
of who's telling you?   Some proof of the existence of God.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:38:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.032701.18027@athena.mit.edu>, lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren
King) writes:
>   I remember Bertrand Russell wrote a brief tirade against
> this sort of reasoning, pointing out that, if I get a taxi,
> say #10923, and there are, I dunno, 20,000 cabs in the city,
> that's a pretty improbable event.  However I don't think
> anything of it.  Not a new story, and the analogy doesn't
> quite hold, but it points out the weakness of the religious
> mind-set: these people can't quite deal with contingency,
> gratuitous being.  Religion always needs to posit a purpose ...
> "what are the chances of ... isn't it too coincidental that ...
> what about design? ..." and so on.

  Sort of like the "psychic" trick of saying "Does the number 27 mean anything
to you?" If it does everybody is so impressed, but just think about it for a
moment.

  What 2 digit numbers would mean something to you: your age, the year you were
born, the day of the month you were born, the month/day or day/month of your
birth/aniversary/etc.  A house number, the last 2 digits of your SS#, two
numbers on your license plate, etc.  It would hardly be suprising if 2/3 of all
two digit numbers had some meaning to you.  If done in a room full of people it
would be more suprising if the number didn't mean something to somebody.

  So while picking a 2 the right 2 digit number is impressive, picking _a_ 2
digit number, and then allowing free association with it is wholly
unimpressive.

  Another good example: My mother (from NY) passed with 1 mile of her brother
(from CT) in Yellowstone National Park (2000 miles from eithers home) one day. 
She was all excited and asked me to calculate the odds.  After a bit of work, I
said the odds were about 1 in 20 she would pass withing a mile of a close
relative on a cross country trip.  She got all angry and said "Yes, but what
were the chances I would pass within a mile of HIM right THERE?"

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:41:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.233204.12968@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu
(trygve lode) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.155024.14018@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> >kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >>  Now math, is that Empirical or not?  None of the concepts expressed in
math
> >>allows any kind of direct observation until it is applied to the real world.
On
> >>the other hand, mathematics is probably the only field where one can prove
> >>things in the strictest sense of the word prove.
> >
> >	You answered your own question. If I have one apple and then another,
> >	that makes two apples, mathematically 1 + 1 = 2. The rest of math is
> >	just applications of this rule. Very empiric. 
> 
> Terrific!  Could you demonstrate empirically the truth or falsehood of
> the continuum hypothesis?  

  Don't be so greedy.  I'd settle for a proof of the Axiom of Choice (of course,
then it would be the Theorem of Choice).

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Egg-shaped antediluvian world
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:31:14 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>*|> Again, one of Rose's points is as follows:  evidence in support of this
>*|> notion of egg-shaped world is available right on any globe.  You only
>*|> have to go to the nearest world map;  it isn't that hard to find.
>*
>*	Lamb has quite clearly refuted Rose's "reasoning" on this
>*	point.  

>The point is irrefutable.  In our world as it presently stands, two land
>masses could not break away from eachother with clean lines, and not be
>rejoinable along those lines. The only other two possibilities are as
>follows:

You restrict yourself to two possibilities, and leave out the one that
is actually described in Bullard's paper (in the text, disregarding the
obvious typo that I mentioned in the post).

>1.  Africa and Arabia broke apart,  20 degrees worth of one edge of either
>the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aden eroded away or fell into the sea, and the 
>outline remained almost entirely as it had been originally;  the odds against
>this are overwhelming.

>2.  The inhabitants of one continent or the other dug one shore of either
>the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aden back with shovels, keeping the lines as
>they had been.

3. The Afar triangle is the junction of three rifts, the Red Sea, the
   Gulf of Aden and the Eastern African Rift. It is Rose's and your
   omission of the effect of the E. African Rift which causes you to
   think there is something unexplained.

Have you actually *read* Bullard's article[1]?
A clearer picture of exactly what's going on in that part of Africa is shown
in Bonatti[2], p77.

>To claim that Lamb has refuted any of this is bullshit.

Pray tell why you think this when you won't even address the theory
that is actually being expounded. Your 1. and 2. simply do not address
the theory of plate tectonics as it applies to the Afar triangle and its
associated rifts.

Rose claims to have tried to fit the three pieces together. He admits
that this is the usual explanation, but only after going on at great length
about the typo in Bullard's article. He says that he doesn't get a good fit.

If you follow the instructions in either Bullard[1] or my
paraphrase of it, you get an excellent coastline fit, superior
to Rose's. Would a few people out there actually try this and
note their success (or lack of it)? Does anyone end up with the supposed
20 degree gap in the Gulf of Aden after following either my or Bullard's
instructions? Have *you* actually tried it, Ted?

>I see nothing worth responding to in the remainder of your article, and
>will call it quits here.

Naturally without addressing any of the real points contained in the
rebuttal.



[1] E. Bullard, "The Origin of the Oceans", Scientific American,
        Sept 1969, pp66-75, Reprinted in "Continents Adrift",
        W.H. Freeman, 1972, pp 88-97.

[2] E. Bonatti, "The Rifting of Continents", Scientific American,
	July 1987, pp74-81.


-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Newsgroups: talk.origins