HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Kazmaier at 200,000 lbs vs the 200,000 lb sauropod
Summary: Ted still doesn't understand limb leverage
Date: 09 Oct 92 03:21:03 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <60@fedfil.UUCP>
: Wayne Throop and others claim that the saurs derived far greater efficiency
: than a human was due to the leverage of their larger joints or some
: such mumbo jumbo.
: Look at a picture of Kazmaier, or any other super heavy competitive power
: lifter, and then look at a picture of a sauropod.  Kaz is built like a
: barrel;  the saur was lean, svelte, and graceful by comparison.  Leverage,
: to the extent that it favored anything, would favor Kaz.

From this, we see clearly that Ted doesn't understand how leverage
works in limbs.  It's "some such mumbo jumbo" to him.  So, instead
of learning how it works, he recommends we compare a photograph of
Kazmaier to an artist's reconstruction of a sauropod.  Now, doesn't
Kazmaier just LOOK like he has more leverage?  Why I never saw a
more leverageish boy than that Kazmaier fellow.

Well, my mother raised me to wash before meals, vote the straight
party ticket, and calculate leverages from dimensions rather
than just looking at pictures and making wild guesses.

: I honestly cannot think of any other possibility, other than for one.

I can think of dozens.  Though, granted, Ted's is unique in that it is
less likely to be true than any of them (except maybe the one about the
blue faeries from Arcturus tying myriads of helium balloons to the
sauropods). 
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: lophophore relationships
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:14:10 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)

In article <97817@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio (Chris Colby) writes:
>This is (IMHO) a cool book. The stuff about torted and untorted
>gastropods just screams to be included in any list great examples
>of "jury-rigged" design. 

Indeed.  I posted this particular example some months back.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: lophophore relationships
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:49:40 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <BvqD9D.HD4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>In article <97817@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>>echinoderms	lophophorates hemichordates	chordates
>>   *                 *              *               *
>>      *                 *              *        *
>>           *               *               *
>>                *                *      *
>>                    *                *
>>                         *        *
>>                             *  *
>>                               *
>>                         deuterostomes

>Chris - keep on reading.  If I recall correctly, B & B report at least
>2-3 other possible cladograms, all placing the loph split before
>echinoderms.

Yep, they also give a cladogram that shows the lophophores outside of
the echinoderms; it's based on the work of Jeffries. I included the
above one because it seem like they used more characters to
construct it, although, as I said before, some of the characters
seem sort of flaky. Stan (in another post) said that early
development differs in lophophores and Brusca and Brusca say that
the mouth develops from the blastopore (as in protostomes) but
they have radial, indeterminate cleavage and coelom formation is
enterocoelous (all three deuterostome conditions), so mouth
formation by itself would support lophophores as an outgroup.
(The other three would not be informative at this level.)

This question (indeed invert phylogeny in general) seems to be
crying out for a good "find 'em and grind 'em" DNA sequence study.
Why do detailed morphological studies which may be ambiguous when
you can just throw the critters in a blender? 8-)

>* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From

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: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Meritt Velikovsky FAQ:  best the t.o crew can manage?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:31:47 GMT

In article <44@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}I wouldn't bother to reply to Meritt's diatribes, other than for refusing to
}be defined by such a character.  Meritt appears to be on good behavior over at
}Mitre...  the only real insult I see in his recent version of the
}Velikovsky FAQ is the following:

Yawn.  Still nothing about the chemistry, physics, ballistics,...

Stating self-evident truths is not an insult - just an observation.
Velkikovsky demonstrates massive ignorance.  And you appear similar in
that regard.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:29:25 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct7.180348.203007@uctvax.uct.ac.za> watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
|
| a reply to rejecting the Genesis account because
|of Wellhausen's JEPD theory, a theory which became widely accepted because of
|archaeological support, which was later overruled. There is a double logic
|inconsistancy here. Firstly the basis for general acceptance of JEPD was later
|overturned.

Whether the theory was originally proposed on the basis of archaeological
evidence or not, that is *not*, and was not, the basis for its widespread
acceptance.  *That* came about because of the *structure* of the *text*.
This evidence is *not* changed by changes in archaeological knowledge.

The JEPD theory is still supported by the textual evidence.

|In other words, raising the JEPD theory in the discussion of origins is
|invalid.

Only if you can come up with evidence that it false.  All you have done is
suggest that one of its sources was inadequate.  You have not addressed the
current evidence in its favor at all.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden, Jumbo, and the Fenykoevi elephant
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:34:24 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct6.055147.5665@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
|
|Point taken--though I still think our hypothetical creator should have
|lost some points for providing us with a spine that seems only partially
|adapted from one that would be used in a quadruped instead of one 
|designed optimally for an upright posture. 

Aah!  Now *there* you have a point!

Also, why did he stick us with that bolixy thing we call an appendix in the
same place he gave herbivores a caecum?
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Hydrological sorting" (was: "Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!")
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:45:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct7.181722.4614@desire.wright.edu>,
sbishop@desire.wright.edu wrote:
> A trip to the Canyon is an experience of a life time.  One of my fondest
> memories is the hike my family and I took to the bottom of the Canyon
> and back up again.  It is literally a _Trip through Time_......  
> 
> BTW, a good word of advice.  Don't ever take the hike with small children.
> It's too embarrassing!  They will out-hike and out walk you!  Mine were
> seven and ten.  On the last two miles out of the Canyon (a VERY steep
> and exhausting climb), they walked backwards in front of me, singing 
> Ford truck commercials, walking like a chicken, walking like a duck and
> encouraging their poor old exhausted mom......

Thanks for the comment, actually it would be a good trip for our whole
family this Christmas. I've always wanted to see this prime example
of a natural formation supporting the ideas of evolution, and I truly
hope that Creationists should take the time and effort to visit this
place, instead of speculating about intelligent hydraulic sorting systems.

Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: Home for Indigent Bit-Bashers
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:34:24 GMT

In article <2AD49F4D.20674@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>>kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:
>>>              Please answer these 9 questions and return.
>
>What really annoyed me about the survey was that it was not even
>relevant to talk.origins in the first place.  Keep that kind of
>stuff in talk.abortion and talk.politics.misc where it belongs.

Considering that this also showed up in alt.msdos.programmer, newsgroup
relevance does not appear to be one of the posting criteria he's using.

Also, is the 'distribution' field broken (as usual) or did he *really*
mean to post that outside the USA?

-- 
==Steve Watson: watson@sce.carleton.ca===Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario==
| The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on   |
| this group for the past month.  Not only is it not Carleton's opinion, it's |
| not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions!   |
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:28:20 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Oct13.115125.16426@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
matth@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Matthew Hannigan) writes:

> [...] talk of significant figures)
>I would guess you would have to use scientific notation.
>3e3 has 1 sig fig and 3.000e3 has 3 sig figs.
>
>Anyway, the whole idea of abscribing some confidence on
>the part of the person describing the tank or whatever it
>is a bit silly.  Don't ya wish God used sci notation!

I was under the impression that people wrote the Bible, not God.
Could someone clarify this for me?

Mark
-- 
   Physicists like to think that all you have to do is say, these are
the conditions, now what happens next.
   -- Richard Feynman
Xref: sparky talk.origins:13069 alt.atheism:19148 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted:6746
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted
Subject: Evolution Simulation Software
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:12:28 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins,alt.atheism,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted
Organization: AT&T


In his book, "The Blind Watchmaker", Richard Dawkins talks about
his PC software for simulating evolution.  Using its outputs, he
illustrates how large numbers of successive mutations can give 
rise to different species.  The book contains a form to order the 
software from the publisher for $10.95.  

Has anyone tried this or other similar software?  
I am wondering, since it has been about 6 years since the 
publication of the book, if there are any newer, more powerful 
software of this type.  If you know of such software and where I 
could obtain a copy, please reply or post a followup.

Thanks in advance for any information.

Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 00:36:52 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct15.163400.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
|> In article <18939.2add562f@levels.unisa.edu.au>, 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child) writes:
|> > 
|> > I'll bite:
|> >
|> >  [calculations deleted]
|> > 
|> > I don't know what to make of this result...    anybody spot an error?
|> 
|>    A blatant one.  Nothing except a perfectly calm ocean is 
|> going to conform perfectly to the curvature of the earth.
|> You could make a circle on almost any kind of surface going
|> at whatever angle and get very strange numbers for the
|> apparent pi.  A temple in particular would be built on a 
|> flat surface, which would negate any curvature calculation.

Ob. pedantry.   Greek temples were not exactly flat, nor
were their vertical columns exactly vertical, nor did they
have exactly straight or parallel sides.

On the other hand, Greeks were calculating extemely fine
values for entasis while the Hebrews still thought pi
was about 3.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Date: 14 Oct 92 07:15:21 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA


In article <1992Oct13.163458@IASTATE.EDU>
kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>
>In article <1558@esl.ESL.COM>
>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>> 
>> Why does a less dense Earth have to be so ridiculous?  Couldn't
>> the Earth have originally been formed as a less packed, larger
>> body that has since gradually become more packed or dense from
>> the forces of gravity?  In so doing, the forces of gravity at
>> the surface would increase with time.  In fact, wasn't the Earth
>> formed by gravitational collecting of "loose" matter?  If so,
>> then the Earth had extremely low density at one time!
>
> Uh, can't happen.  If we assume the above then there is no
>catastrophe.  How can we be known as catastrophists without a
>catastrophe?

Why do you require a catastrophe?  Dinasaurs took many years evolve
and could easily take many years to become extinct with a gradual
increase in Earth density (causing the larger beasts to be less fit to
continue).  This density increase (radius decrease) just needs to be
faster than the dinasaurs can evolve to smaller creatures.

As the Earth becomes more densely, some ares could "sink" faster than
others causing deep oceans to form.  I still seek someone who could
point out problems with this theory.

Mark
==
   I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity
of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues,
which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven,
thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.
   -- Tolstoy
-- 
   Physicists like to think that all you have to do is say, these are
the conditions, now what happens next.
   -- Richard Feynman
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Further Clarification
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:43:39 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)

In article <1992Oct14.174944.15397@hsr.no>, onar@hsr (Onar Aam) writes:
>Yet another question: Which topics in mathematics are best
>understood? I think that mathematicians would agree with me when I
>say that the most elementary subjects in mathematics are best
>understood.

I would call this meaningless gibberish.  Perhaps you should reread
your copy of Linderholm MATHEMATICS MADE DIFFICULT.  For all the humor
and parody, the book has some serious points about elementary subjects.
And check out the historical appendix in Reid UNDERGRADUATE ALGEBRAIC
GEOMETRY, reviewing the extremes of categorical fashion on "elementary
topics".  Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the topos mafia,
the message that is there is no forseeable end to the basics is clear.

>If we define mathematical complexity of a topic to be [...]

Since you're talking about mathematics, try giving precise definitions.
Define "topic" anyway you like, as a variety or theory, say.

>			        we see an obvious relation between the time of
>discovery and the complexity = the older the topic, the less complex.

I don't believe this.  Descartes discovered algebraic geometry centuries
ago, and this century has shown the topic to be endlessly complex.  In
contrast, some very modern topics, for example, the theory of pecking
orders, have turned out to be very trivial.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Antti fails to grasp basic evolutionary principle
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:28:17 GMT

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>grasp one of the fundamental tenets of evolution -- modern species
>share common ancestors; they are not linearly derived from one another.
>I would expect that the subspecies all share a common ancestor and
>each subspecies has evolved some morphological differences but not
>reproductive isolation.

	The graphics wasn't good, but the arrows pointed to two directions 
	to indicate this. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Race Memory  (was: Progressive Creationism Part 6)
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:30:48 GMT

Stanley Friesen (swf@teradata.com) wrote:

: Also, the refilling is *way* too early - it predates all known hominid
: fossils (though not hominoid).  So there was nobody around to *tell* the
: story.

	Thanks, Stan -- I can't find any references dating the Mediterranean
flood(s).  I figured it was "hominoid" era -- not Cro-Magnon, who probably
could have told each other stories.  That's why I said race memory, and
will say no more about it.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation!
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:50:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct8.014951.18461@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
> ......
>1 BC              104.6290321616            -0.0032258064
>1 AD              104.6225805488            -0.0064516128
>2 AD              104.6193547424            -0.0032258064
> .....
>However, the most striking thing about these results is their behavior
>at the time of the birth of Christ Our Savior.  The change in
>temperature between the years 1 BC and 1 AD is DOUBLE the change
>between any other pair of years!
>
>This can be nothing less than a sign from God!  Hallelujah!

Although I'm not able to pinpoint the problem, I suspect that your
calculations somehow miss the somewhat obscure point that there
was no `zero' year between 1 BC and 1 AD, i.e., that from 1 BC to 1 AD
was one year.

I point this out mainly because a rather well-known American religion
made this mistake for the first two thirds of its history, and in
correcting the problem, did it cleverly enough that its followers didn't
even notice that the problem was being corrected.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:39:09 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Oct5.195818.20021@spdc.ti.com>
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>
>In article <1453@esl.ESL.COM>
>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand your point.  I have done considerable
>>research in some areas of science.  But a majority of people have only
>>read *about* science and have no knowledge at all of what scientific
>>research is.  They must accept on faith what they are told by
>>scientists.  They are thus living with a circular argument in science.
>>I never said that a scientist must live by circular arguments and
>>neither does someone searching to understand God.
>
>Scientific knowledge is either indepently verifiable or it is
>rejected.  Most science classes I've attended, even at the high school
>level, had labs where the basic concepts could be demonstrated/proved.
>More advanced concepts may require more advanced techniques (more
>time/money) but you can bet they are checked out before being accepted
>as scientific fact.  How does one independently test the validity of a
>miracle that happened 2,000 years ago?

So you are not part of the "majority of people" I'm talking about
above.  Sure anyone can independently verify, but most people don't.
The only way to verify something that happened 2000 years ago is to
find a witness of the event.  For many things, the witness consists of
artifacts such as buildings, bones, cave paintings, and writings.  The
writings and paintings can certainly be questioned, as you are quick
to think already.  So God can verify those writings since God was
around at the time.  Of course, you must find out if God exists first.
This is where many people rely on the circular argument of, "I believe
God exists because the scriptures and religious leaders tell me he
exists and I believe the scriptures and religious leaders because God
exists and..."

Mark
-- 
   No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a
searching but at the same time with a steady eye.
   -- Winston Churchill
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:05:09 GMT
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas

In article <ksand-051092193949@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.181204.5855@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
>(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
>> 
>> corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
>> >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?
>> 
>> 	Right ! I think they survive in the cloudy days as well as cloudless.
>> 	(there wasn't obviously TOTAL DARKNESS on earth).     
>
>We need scientific evidence, and not wishful thinking, thanks. You
>are implying that the fish and plants had quite a radical different
>way of surviving during the first 3 days.

Also, to make things MORE absurd, keep in mind that the Jehovah's
Witlesses don't believe in 24-hour days.  They say that the "day"
could have been many millenia.  So we have fish and plants
surviving millenia under these sunless conditions...hmm....did
God keep them alive or what?  Why bother, when it would have been
just as easy to let the sun shine on the earth?!?  If you think
about it, it is just more evidence that the Bible writer thought
that God didn't actually CREATE the sun/moon until day X or
whatever.....Ridiculous.  There are too many holes in the JW's
interpretation of this account.

>. . . It sounds like fantasy
>for me. Then again creationism lives on peoples' wishes, and not 
>on facts.
>
>Kent
>	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
>Knowles
>-------------------
>Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
>DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.


-- 
corey@sdf.lonestar.org  214-296-0458   Corey Carroll