HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:07:21 GMT
Organization: HTE


In brief, the doctrine of uniformity is forcing natural scientists into
a tighter and tighter intellectual corner.  Amongst other problems, they are
continually forced to ascribe giant effects to piss-ant causes.

For instance, the assumption that the 900 F surface temperature on Venus
is caused by the tiny to non-existant modicum of solar energy which reaches
the surface as uv and then, supposedly, cannot escape as ir, despite there
being no lid on Venus' atmosphere at any level.

For instance, assuming that the < 1 degree change in the earth's axial tilt
over the last 10,000 years due to precession allowed the existance of lush
pastures in regions above 75 degrees N latitude, where we now find huge piles
of bones of former herds of giant creatures which positively require constant
and immense supplies of greenage.

A little kid once did an emperor a favor by telling him that he was naked, so
that he would realize his predicament.  The emperor had cause to be angry at
the swindlers who had caused his predicament, rather than at the little kid.

Likewise, Hyde and others, you have cause to be angry at whoever had sold
you this doctrine of uniformity, but not at me.  Like the little kid, I've
ultimately done you a favor.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:03:34 GMT

Daniel A Ashlock (danwell@IASTATE.EDU) wrote:

: > 	Why  is the  contribution to this thread so lacking  in  commentary
: > from intelligent replicating  patterns  not possible  under  the present
: > set  of  physical laws?
: > 
: > 							James Nicoll
: 
:    Very high potential barriers in the way and lack of an internet 
: connection, obviously.  More seriously I thought that the question
: of other universes with their own physical laws was wide open and
: pretty worthless (for lack of observations). 
: 
: Dan
: Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

	Ask Alan Guth, who has proposed a way of making one.  Requires
a lot of energy, though.
	Also, Asimov's novel "The Gods Themselves" is a real good
take-off on this idea.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability / Attrition
Date: 18 Dec 1992 05:27:11 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <8007@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>The idea that creationists are somehow "attacking" science is one of the big-
>gest pieces of false propaganda on the origins issue.

	I have come to the conclusion that you are a Seventh Day Adventist,
and that it is a matter of record that Creationists individuals and
organizations have affinities with religious sects that advocate a dogma
that it staunchly anit-evolution, having nothing to do with science. If
you could show me that you have no such affiliations and that others who
argue for Creationisn have no such obvious religious bias, then I might
accept your questions more on face value. But as your criticism of evolution
is wholely negative, and that includes isotope dating methods, and you are
not offering anything constructive for science, I conclude that you are
arguing from prejudice deeply rooted in religious convictions which are
not the subject for discussion by yourself here. You are the same person
who said "The Bible is True", and who argued for several weeks at the end
of 1988 for faith healing. I cannot accept any idea that you would do any-
thing else than bugger science for the sake of your religion, and so would
every Creationist.

>  Science is a certain
>way way of looking at the world, of processing data and of forming theories.
>*Science is NOT one particular theory.*  Claiming that those who say that one
>particular theory does not meet scientific standards are attacking science
>is the same as claiming that those who say that copper braclets do not cure
>arthritis are attacking medicine.

	But YOU don't have anything useful to offer, and you are not leading
us toward decidable issues. Everything you do makes findings moot, makes
the focus vague, and the reason is clear, you are a religionist hiding
behind the facade of objectivity as a scientist, but you are only an
engineer with no sound grounding in the life and earth sciences you
criticize. So go on and debate using these braod generalities, you are
no scientist as far as I can tell.

>[I am also aware that people have posted articles claiming that specifc
>creationists do not have scientific credentials.  I have not investigated
>these claims.  But if true, they brand only those involved -- no one else,
>and certainly not creationists in general -- as non-scientists.]

	Alot of them are in professions far removed from the sciences
that deal with origins. But more significant is the religious affiliations,
admited or implied. You still havn't told me what church you attend and
what its stand on evolution is.

Bruce Salem
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Permission denied.
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:45:28 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <728gVB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>To all the people who were too lazy or cheap to get hold of the
>book Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, here's some news: Dr.
>Richard Thompson will not give permission to copy the chapter on
>information theory.

>If you want the book, you'll have to buy it or borrow it.

Oh boy.  Hey Kooko: why don't you write a book too and sell your chants
and other doodoo for big bucks, and then refuse to post to USENET also?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Axial Tilt
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:01:46 GMT

Could someone explain how *one* passing planet could exert a coupled force
(therefore a torque) on the planet Earth. Am I missing something?

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Reply-To: milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:13:40 GMT

jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes) writes:

>What irks me so much about this style of Creationist argument,
>the "Whitcomb and Morris speculate" handwaving, is the incredible
>arrogance demonstrated.

This was posted by someone on t.o sometime ago:

Arrogance comes in a variety of forms.  The arrogance of great
wealth, the arrogance of great power, the arrogance of great
beauty, and the arrogance of a great master are bearable because
they rest on an acknowledged and measurable base.  The arrogance
of ignorance, however, is unbearable because it is rooted in
smug satisfaction with being isolated from the facts of the case.

-- Milind Saraph
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:20:09 GMT

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"

   Let's see.  Kurt looked at the spot in the library where the evidence
for creation was supposed to be and found:



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
   You, a well known lying weasle, found one book that you claim impeaches
several hundered thousand pages of evidence that is in the libray.

   Why do you feel it is proper to equate these?

>   ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
Gutless, brain dead, repetative, unoriginal, jerk.
>  / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
> /___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
> \___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
Lionel, if you don't stop posting this worthless shit and
start supporting you views in an honest and timely manner, 
I'm going to have a friend of mine who happens to be a priest
tell on you.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: chris@xerox.com (Chris Heiny 73186 - SETA)
Subject: Re: Next?
Reply-To: chris@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:07:32 GMT

In article 6071@linus.mitre.org, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>
>I have basically the same question, but it can be expressed three different ways slanted
>to each of the newsgroups this is cross-posted to:
>
>What is next?
>
>talk.origins:  On the evolutionary side, homo sapiens is seen as merely the most recent
>step in a series of rungs in a ladder.  What do you see as the "next rung"? 

'Does not compute.'  Evolution does not result in a "ladder", nor does it have some
specific goal (known or unknown to us).  There is no 'next rung'.

							Chris
From: folta@cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:12:33 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

"" Thus, what looks like "forest killed by volcano, tens of thousands of years
"" until new forest, which is killed by volcano, ..." could have actually been
"" entirely been deposited in rapid succession from a forest at another
"" location. In fact, I think they presented (at their seminar) information
"" that one of their group had gotten a Master's Thesis out of looking into the
"" different forest's tree rings and finding that the many layers were from the
"" same forest (tree rings corresponded).
"
"In other words, I'm sure we are dealing with a very intelligent
"flood that is sentient and knows how to reorder tree deposits in 
"a chronological order.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ummm... how does this follow? I did not mean that one flood deposited all of
the trees. We are talking "flood" or "tsunami" not "Flood" here. While this
was in the Flood FAQ, it is actually an anti-Young-Earth argument and was
addressed as such.

-- 


Wayne Folta          (folta@cs.umd.edu  128.8.128.8)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Doesn't it seem logical?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:14:36 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Dec16.204839.37771@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>,
jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON) wrote:
> 
> I am new to this whole conversation here, but I think that it seems rather odd
> that people can make comments about man being created from mud when if you
> look at the theory of evolution, we all just evolved from some "primordial"
> soup.  It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!  What does it take
> to believe in evolution?  The fact that we might have evolved from some lower
> creatures wouldn't give me a heck of a lot of self-confidence.  I guess the
> fact that I was brought up in a church has a lot to do with why I think the
> way that I do, but I have seen both sides of the issue and it still seems so
> illogical that anyone could believe in such a crazy theory!

I think the difference is that science tries to map the steps between
mud and the human being, while religion boldly states that God breathed
the breath of life into a mud clump, and voila a human was created.

It also seems that for some the human ancestory background is ugly
indeed, and that's the case. 98% of our genes are common with the
chimpanzee,
and I don't personally have any grudges against these cute biological
relatives.

In other words, I would rather place my skeptical faith on 100.000
people that are together working on solving the puzzle of life on
Earth, than blindly believe in an ancient doctrine just because
my family believed in it. And if we have the everything mapped out,
and we will find out that we originated from a pool of sludge, I don't
see that as an issue. Or that most of our chemicals and atoms in
our bodies are from ancient novas. Sure, for medieval people the
notion that Earth is not in the middle and the planets and the sun
are not spinning around it sounded like a wild and crazy idea.

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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:01:00 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Dec17.140135.28343@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> >Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
> >whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
 
> Hahahahaha!

I assume you think that we live in a universe originally not suitable for 
us to be alive in and God made sure that the universe was cleaned
up??? That would be fun, indeed.

Actually, the biggest problem a creationist has is that he/she
can never close the gap for the possibility that life has appeared
in a random manner. How small the propability is, *IT IS STILL THERE*.

In other words, a professional creator would have deliberately plugged
that hole to make sure sentient beings would understand that they
were actually created.

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
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:26:14 GMT

In article <8003@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}Michael Simon recently wrote a fairly lengthy article arguing against one of
}my postings.  I'm going to address these issues, but I'd like to make some
}general comments first.  

Is anyone suprised?  I have no doubt that we shall see the "general comments
first", but I doubt that you will ever address realistically any issue.

}I've seen it written often in this group that my
}arguments are frequently demolished and complaining that I continue to put
}forth these "demolished" arguments. 

Does anyone disagree with this evaluation?



Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:23:13 GMT

In article <178@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}In article <724484088@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
}
}Wayne Throop provides viewers with more than sufficient evidence for regarding
}him as an idiot.  There is the little matter of supposing a sauropod dinosaur
}the same size as Bill Kazmaier to be magically capable of lifting more than
}Kazmaier, the most powerful creature ever created by modern science at his
}size of 340 lbs.

Interesting.  I did not realize that "modern science" had nothing to
do with "creating" the "creature" known as a mini-life (small forklift)...
Guess I'm just not as good at exaggeration and misdirection as those who have
studied the Master.

Oh well.  As long as human-power flight is also impossible (in spite of
direct observation to the contrary) guess we can't include levers, either...
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 03:01:11 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

> To make a very long story very very short:  the primates were here
> before us, and they created us in their image.  

No. Biologically, humans are primates, so the statement that primates
were here before humans is logically invalid.

> Yep, the simplest explanation of a phenomena wins.  Note that
> the explanation didn't last but one solitary sentence.

No. The most comprehensive explanation wins, not the simplest.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Evolution/Creationism Seminar at Caltech
Date: 14 Dec 1992 17:11 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

First, I apologize for the shameless plug of one of our local Skeptics
Society's activities.  If you don't like advertising, think of it as 
a public service announcement.

Secondly, I apologize for distributing this to people far, far away from 
Caltech.  But I wasn't sure if perhaps people even outside of California
would be interested in attending it (yeah, right, don't be daft, Wayne),
and besides I thought people might just be interested in hearing that it
will occur at all (think: public service announcement).

The scoop: 
	Who: Skeptics Society (based in Altadena, near here)
	When: Saturday, February 13, 1993,  9:00am-5:30pm
	Where: Baxter Lecture Hall, Caltech, Pasadena, California
	Cost(!!): $25 for members, $30 for nonmembers
	
Program:
	Part I: Darwin and his Theories
		 -who he was, what he did, how he did it
	Part II: The Creationists' Arguments
		  -Scopes trial, Arkansas and Louisiana trials, 
		   "flaws" in evolutionary theory
	Part III: The Evolutionists Respond
		   -answers to Creationist attacks, modern science of 
		    evolution
	Part IV: From the Big Bang to the Big Brain
		  -cosmic evolution to human evolution

Also included: photocopy package of "Science Defended, Science Defined:
The Louisiana Creationism Case" by Michael Shermer (director of Skeptics
Society).

My comments:  from a look at the program and their brochure, I doubt 
that there will be anything new for seasoned debaters on this topic,
but for anyone with limited background who wants to know what arguments
underlie the debate and their scientific validity, it should be useful.
Creationists are explicitly welcome to attend to discover why evolution
is sound.  The seminar is not intended to undermine anyone's faith nor
to attack Creationism; it is simply a defence of evolution on scientific
grounds.  It based on a course taught at Occidental College by Michael
Shermer, who is also Adjunct Professor of History of Science.

If you want more information, please email me at the address below (though
I probably won't be able to respond until January), or better yet call
the Skeptics Society at (818) 794-3119.

Wayne.

**********************************************************************

Wayne J. Broughton                 Take the road less travelled by.  
waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu    

Caltech has no idea what my opinions are;  
they think I'm working right now...
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:08:14 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec14.153942.25398@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|> 
|> Could you please tell us what this "doctrine of uniformity" that you keep
|> talking about is, and give a few specific examples of who uses it as you
|> describe?

Well, I do seem to remember a few geologist who used it once upon a time.
About a century ago.  The version of 'uniformitarianism' that Ted is using is
the outmoded version championed by Sir Charles Lyell, the famous British
geologist of the early 19th century.  Eventually even most of Lyell's students
were forced to abandon his extreme formulation though, and no currently practicing
scientist would even think of using it.

[And even back then Lyell's approach was scarcely universal, there were also
catastrophists like the French anatomist/geologist, Cuvier].

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:34:42 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec18.051937.5940@panix.com>, mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
|> In article <8001@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
|> writes:
|> 
|> >Michael Siemon writes:
|> 
|> >>Bales has in the past advertized in his .signature that he helps Tektronix
|> >>make its instruments.  Now, the point he has NEVER addressed in ANY way,
|> >>whatsoever, is the mutual confirmation of independent measurements of the
|> >>same thing.
|> 
|> >If I can avoid it, I don't want to get into a second discussion of posting
|> >quotes to prove what I've said.  But we did discuss this for a while, probably
|> >several years ago.
|> 
|> I do not recall any susbtantive discussion (as opposed to noise) addressing
|> this issue in the 5 years I have been following talk.origins.  You *also*
|> fail to address it below.  Jon Livesey has also pointed this out, quite
|> forcefully.  WHAT ARGUMENT DO YOU HAVE (none has appeared!) against the
|> mutual confirmation of datings that depend on different methodologies?

I basically agree with the rest of what Michael Siemon wrote.

I'll add that when I got sick of hearing Bob Bales going on about how
this and that process, or contamination, or whatever, could make a 
single radiodating incorrect, I gave him a challenge.

I asked him to come up with a model with these processes.   That is,
explain what it is that he thinks is happening, show the mathematics
behind it.   In particular, show how a sample could be contaminated
in such a way that it could consistently falsify isochron methods.

As far as I can tell, what Bob did this time is what he always does.
He's on a FUD campaign.    He pulls out quotations from here and there
in which respectable scientists warn one another of possible pitfalls 
in the method, and then uses them to sow Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt,
hoping to impeach the method without ever coming to grips with it.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Mr Bales either does not
know what a model is, or can't come up with one that expresses his
idea.   Until he does, I see not reason to pay much attention.

jon.