HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: samuel@cs.cornell.edu (S. Weber)
Subject: Re: Talk.Origins Wrestling Federation
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:05:55 GMT

In article <watson.724733950@space.sce.carleton.ca> watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
>Considering we had Jim Merrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttt
>challenging Ted to hand-to-hand combat (or was it Ted challenged Jim?)
>'bout a year ago, this could be truer than you think.....

Just to keep the record straight, it was Ted Holden wanting to beat
people up.  To quote him,

In <1991May21.222429.11325@grebyn.com> ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) writes:
>I'm guessing that one option open to a faggot who gets the shit kicked
>out of him too many times for calling people liars at close distance is
>to move to some god-forsaken place like Manitoba and start calling
>people liars over usenet.  Kind of a shame, isn't it.

and

In <1991Oct2.224421.14500@grebyn.com> ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) writes:
>The invitation to Day and/or Meritt to call me a liar at close quarters,
>is still open.

Holden is a wonderful chap, isn't he?
-- 
   -- Sam Weber                   "I never think of money,
                                   I think of milk and honey,
   samuel@cs.cornell.edu           Grinnin' like a cheshire cat!"
                                       --Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule [sic] cause a
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:59:39 GMT

Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org wrote:
: OK, that's it. I'm getting sick of this whining about "uniformitarian
: bias" and people refusing to give catastrophism a serious hearing. I'm
: putting an end to it once and for all. Catastrophism, that is, i'm
: declaring it non existant.
: 
: How can i do that? Easy, i invoke timescaling.
: 

	While I agree overall with the point you're trying to make here,
I disagree in principle.  There are processes which are not uniformitarian,
which is slow change over time.  The previously-posted example of the
Lake Missoula floods, which made landscape alterations having the
appearance of millions of years of change yet which actually happened on
a time-scale of years, are a good counter-example.  I would, however,
say that most "catastrophes" are regional, and not global.  With the
exception discussed below:

: Course if you look far back enough you see that nasty asteroid
: smashing those poor dinos like a polish weightlifter dropping his
: barbells. Now that must be a catastrophe, right? Wrong. Watch the
: earth in 10 megayear increments and you've got asteroids coming down
: like pebbles.

	I would contend that impacts capable of causing major extinction
events should be classed as global catastrophes.  The K-T boundary event
and one earlier event (I should write this stuff down!) induced major
global effects.  Whereas over the 10 megayear increment there are
"asteroids coming down like pebbles", these two events  are   still
noteworthy   events,  due to their magnitude.

	What you are perfectly correct in saying, Dr. P, is that
catastrophism is not the number-one operative process on the globe,
in the Solar System, or in the Universe, which is what catastrophists
of the Velikovski-ilk are prone to believe.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Creation Evidences
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:08:36 GMT

  Like many libraries that use the LOC sorting method for books, the library
here sometimes puts jounals onto the same shelves as books.  In order to keep
the journals from getting damaged before they are bound, they are kept in small
boxes that maintain a rigid space on the shelves.

  As I was looking through the shelves yesterday I saw a box labeled "Creation
Evidences".  Curious I pulled out the box to take a look at the journals.

  I guess I shouldn't have been too suprised to find that it was empty.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden, Nietzsche, and evolution
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:31:12 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <724393944@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
|> 
|> Evolutionary theory models cooperation just as easily as competition,
|> dominance and "will to power", as anybody must realize if they know
|> anything about the evolutionary account of the nucleus or organelles in
|> cells, or anything about the evolutionary account of multicellular
|> organisms.

And food sharing amoung *unrelated* individuals in a particular species of
vampire bat.

And eusociality in insects, and ...

[I could go on for pages with examples like this].

So, not only are there mathematical models that predict the evolution of
cooperation under appropriate conditions, there are sufficient real life
examples to match the prediction.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: comparing theories
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:41:48 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Dec15.140325.4331@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> 
> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> >The fact of common descent and the
> >details of phylogeny are inferences, i.e. conclusions drawn from data.
> 
> Since when has common descent been established as a fact? It is merely
> a theory, and a poor one at that.

Why is it poor -- could you justify the statement, thanks? Is it
as poor as creating human beings using mud, maybe?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:18:35 GMT

Alan M Feuerbacher (alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM) wrote:

[ very interesting discussion of flood basalts deleted]


: Note that many of the canyons in Eastern Washington, includ-
: ing the Grand Coulee, were carved out or enlarged by a
: series of possibly forty gigantic floods (the Missoula
: floods) that occurred around 13,000 years ago as the
: Cordilleran ice sheet began to break up and Lake Missoula
: drained catastrophically as ice dams gave way.
:

	You know, I was going to bring this up myself (but couldn't
remember Lake Missoula).  Originally, the "channeled scablands" of
Washington State were ascribed to uniformitarian processes, and the
geologist who proposed the Lake Missoula catastrophic flood hypothesis
was viewed unfavorably by the community (they called him a crackpot,
among other things.   Wish I remembered his name!)  Undaunted, he went out
and kept collecting evidence until he had proven his hypothesis, which
was that a rapid, catastrophic flood caused all of the formations.

	The lesson is this:  if a global Noachian flood did actually
cause all present-day geological formations, it COULD
be proven scientifically.  Because this particular geologist
established an acceptable theory of a regional catastrophic flood,
and his evidence is on record.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Evolutionary Biology"
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:35:54 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec10.084953.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> 
|> He goes on to say that this is not true for the species classification.
|> 
|>      "Conceptually, individuals are members of the same species if their
|>       genes could descend through the generations to unite in the same
|>       individual under natural conditions."
|>                                            pg. 111
|> 
|> He also says that, generally, if two individuals can interbreed under natural
|> conditions they are of the same species.  This sounds very much like Gish's
|> definition of "kind."  But,

No, it is the biological species definition.

|>      "Very often, but not always, taxonomic species are equivalent to
|>       biological species."
|>                           pg. 219
|> 
|> I had considered "species" in the taxonomical sense when I said that species
|> and kind were not necessarily the same.  So were back to the question of
|> speciation.

Sigh, I think you misunderstand what he is saying here.  I do not know for certain,
since I have not read Futuyma's book, but based on my knowledge of biology I
would say Futuyma was trying to express something like:

	"In an ideal world taxonomic species and biological species would
	 always be equivvalent, and by and large they *are*, BUT for a variety
	 reasons, some good and some bad, this ideal is not always achieved"

A good example is the case of Paramecium, a genus of ciliate protozoans.
It has long been known that the two main morphotypes each consisted of several
reproductively isolated subtypes.  So there were technically several species
in each.  However, until very recently there has been *no* *way* to distinguish
these true species on morphological grounds, so the old classification into
only two species, P. aurelium and P. multimicronucleatum, was retained for lack
of a better alternative - a case of expedience overruling proper taxonomy.

Recently, through the use of multivariate statistics, it has been possible to
morphologically characterize these different species, so now we (finally)
have P. primaurelium, and so on.  [Though I suspect that most field guides
will continue to use the old classification, since there is still no good
way to key them out from living specimens].

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Evolution/creation controversy in the news
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:37:26 GMT

Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu) wrote:
: Summary:
: 
:   On December 16, ABC World News Tonight aired a piece on the recent
:   electoral victories of several fundamentalist Christians in local
:   schoolboard elections.  In Vista, California (a small suburb outside
:   of San Diego), enough fundamentalists were elected to the schoolboard
:   to give them a majority voice.  One of the new schoolboard members
:   is even a member of the ICR (John Tyndall).  According to the report,
:   the board will discuss at its next meeting whether to include
:   "scientific creationism" as part of its district's science
:   curriculum.  It is expected that some attempt to shoehorn creationism
:   into the classrooms will be made and will probably succeed.
: 
: This is one of the reasons why I can't accept arguments that
: creationism should not be attacked on the basis that it is not
: science.  I read the _Quarterly_Journal_of_Speech_ essay recommended
: by James Lippard, and I agree that creationism needs to be fought on
: the basis of its poor scientific results.  However, I disagree with
: the essay's thrust in that I think it is just as important to define
: why creationism is not science, and why it does not deserve a voice in
: public school classrooms.  Simply disproving creationists' claims is
: not enough to keep creationism out of the schools; they are a
: tenacious bunch, and will continually try to foist their "science"
: upon students until it becomes clearly evident how ascientific they
: are.
: --
: Brett J. Vickers
: bvickers@ics.uci.edu

	Sorry to repost the whole thing...  this is Pat Robertson's agenda,
and he's learned that if you can't do it from the top down, try from the
bottom up.   I'm not attempting to sound paranoid or anything, but as
the general education level of the populace decreases, this tactic will
become more and more successful.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:23:35 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Dec15.134757.3878@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>Hahahahaha! In that case you should look at the chapter entitled
>"List of scientific proofs for evolution" in the book "The Collapse
>of Evolution"
>
>--
>  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
> / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
>/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
>\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/

I'm getting tired of this.  If you guys want to be ignorant, that's
fine.  Why do you have to be so proud about this kind of stupidity, so
as to show it off in public.  The evidence is there if you think it's
okay with your God to think for yourself!
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Conceit of t.o regulars
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:43:43 GMT

In article <175@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> 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.

   That's wierd.  I always find myself asking "how did they find so many
different opposing points of view?" 
 
> 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:

   Yeah, that's a good summary.  It's sort of like this story I heard a
while back:

Aristotle, speaking to a symposium, says "We can reason from 
first principles to arrive at the truth".  

A student replies, "what if we're all just dreaming?"

Aristotle, undaunted, forges ahead: "We can reason from 
first principles.  In the event we cannot agree on first
principles, a whipping is in order."

   I mean, get a clue Ted.  If you deny well supported 
bodies of knowledge (e.g. Newtonian Physics) what do
you expect?  The only thing deserved is a whipping :)

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU   
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:19:21 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <Z2XuVB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
wrote:
> Judging from the theistic ideas of O'Keefe, Gingerich, and Dyson, many
> far-from-stupid scientists do believe in God and Darwinism. But in their
> efforts to combine truly incompatible ideas, they succumb to enormously
> muddled thinking. And so they commit scientific heresy in spite of
> themselves. If one is at all interested in knowledge of God, one should
> recognize that such knowledge is not compatible with mainstream science,
> and in particular not with Darwinism.

Wouldn't their problems be solved if they left out God from the equation?
Sometimes it's hard to see the trees in the forest. I still don't see
the need to mix in metaphysics and religion into mainstream science.
I do see the need of some religious sects to do this mix-in, mostly
to justify their beliefs, however. In other words we are dealing
with an *artificial* problem.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Ragnarok Is Nigh! Be Ware!
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:49:09 GMT

Onar Aam (onar@hsr.no) wrote:
: >Both Kalki(s) and Lionel Tun will be VERY surprised when Odin,
: >whom is the One True Creator, comes down and collects warriors
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >to help Him fight Ragnarok, and Kalki(s) and Lionel find out
: >they BOTH picked the wrong Gods!
:  
: 
: By Thor! How many times must I say that Onar, not Odin, created the universe. He 
: then retired and let Odin in charge. There is a place in Norway called Onarheim 
: and it is supposedly the place where Onar retired.
: 
: 
: Onar.

	You mean you could hire him as a consultant on this origins
thing?  See what his hourly rate is!

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: tkacik@hobbes.hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Prehistoric flying creatures and gravity
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:02:58 GMT
Reply-To: tkacik@hobbes.hobbes.cs.gmr.com
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article 1613@tdat.teradata.COM, swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen writes:
> 
> Thus, the Gossamer Pteranodon is best seen as a *minimal* model, showing that
> even a *less* *capable* form of that size and weight can fly, if just barely.
> Thus, it becomes a trivial inference that a *living* Pteranodon would be able
> to fly with ease. [Twitch that wing, ...]

I just remembered another interesting tidbit about it.  How it turned.
Pterasaurs had fingers about half way out the wing.  McReady noticed that
moving those fingers caused more drag to develop on that side.  It would
turn the direction of the flexed fingers.  It could not make very sharp
turns, but it worked.  Again, the real thing was probably much better at it.

--
Tom Tkacik
GM Research Labs
tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com
tkacik@kyzyl.mi.org
From: chris@eso.mc.xerox.com (Chris Heiny)
Subject: Re: Evilutionary Biology
Reply-To: chris@eso.mc.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 14:02:39 GMT

In article 1@woods.ulowell.edu, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
[stuff deleted]
>Oh yeah, as far as these independent lines of evidence I keep hearing about,
>think about this.  The DNA of man and monkeys are extremely close.  Their
>morphologies on the other hand are strikingly different.  So much for
>comparative DNA and comparitive morphology agreeing.
[more stuff, including irrelevant insults, deleted]

Ray, there is not a 1 to 1 relationship between morphology and genes.  That
is, not every genetic difference is reflected in an obvious morphological
difference.  Instead, genetic differences can show up in the biochemistry
of the animals in question, or the genetic differences may make no apparent
difference at all in the morphology or biochemistry of the animals in question.

						Chris
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:42:49 GMT
Organization: Chevron

>>>   How do you explain the formation of varves?  The Green River formation
>>> 	in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves,
>>> 	identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes.
>>> 	[From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)]
>>
>>They say that the 6 million years (to deposit) figure was based on Bradley's
>>estimates of an ancient drainage basin's size, slope, character,
>>erosibility, drainage characteristics, and the amount of water available.
>>They also say that the Green River formation has layers that are too thin
>>and too uniform over too wide an area to have been deposited in a normal
>>lake bed. That is, there are no signs of any stirring up of the sediments or
>>of any deposits that reflect flooding conditions where large amounts of
>>sediment would have been dumped into the lake and would have sorted out in
>>graded series.
>>
>>They have pictures of true lake deposits and of the Green River shales, and
>>the difference in appearance is dramatic. From this, it seems to me that the
>>Green River deposits are not what they claim... That a lake sould not have
>>been so still and undisturbed form six million years that there is no sign
>>in the formations.
>>
The Green River Lake was not like any "normal" lake today, because it
was anoxic on the bottom.  The large amount of unoxidized plant and
animal material (kerogen) that is present in the rocks today is evidence
of this.  The lack of oxygen prevented bioturbation (disturbance of the
fine layered bedding) following deposition.  There also were limited
floods, and they were localized where we see deltas preserved in the
rocks.
This is the type of creationist crap I can't stand.  Look at the
sentence:  "there are no signs of any stirring up of the sediments or
of any deposits that reflect flooding conditions where large amounts of
sediment would have been dumped into the lake and would have sorted out
in graded series."  A normal person would look at the fine layered
undisturbed bedding and interpret that there were no floods and
disruption.  A creationist knows there must have been floods (we get
them every year afterall) so since my preconceived notions don't match
the data, there must be a supernatural explanation.  
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Subject: Re: Speed of Light *NOT* Constant
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:57:45 GMT

In article <w28uVB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>Your local public library probably has a photograph of God.
>
I don't need to see a photograph; I already know God.  But I am interested
to know which section of the library you suggest I look in  to see God's
picture.

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Evilutionary Biology
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92  17:36:00

 > From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
 > Message-ID: <1992Dec10.121018.1@woods.ulowell.edu>

Nice post. Now could please state the theory of creationism?

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Clinton *can* be our     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| Santa Claus-- *if* we    | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| are willing to be the    | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| elves and the reindeer.  | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Bogus religious reasoning in Time 20
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92  14:02:00

 > Organization: City University, London
 > From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)

 > A good point to remember Bob Bales' excellent analogy:

 > If A = -2 then A*A = 4
 > Aha, A = 4
 > Therefore A = -2
 > QED

Say Lionel, could you please state the theory of creationism?

10                    2
       DR PEPPER
                      4

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins