HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:56:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.184330.19054@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
> >I propose a more basic quiz for Antti:  Accurately state the
> >theory of evolution by natural selection.  Briefly describe
> >at least four independent lines of evidence which support it.
>           --------------------------------------------------- 
> 	Ha ha ! How can I answer such question, when I claim that there are 
> 	no supporting lines of evidence at all !

  You missed the point.  You claim there is no supporting evidence, therefore
yopu must have seen what Evolutionary Biologists claim is evidence and found
errors in it.  Otherwise your claiming that there is no supporting evidence
would be like my claiming there is no evidence for birds with colored eggs when
I have never looked at any eggs but Chicken eggs.

  So, since you know that the evidence is false, you must know what that
evidence is.  He wasn't even asking you to point out where the mistakes were
made (which please do by all means) but just to list them.

  If you cannot list them then your claims the evidence is false are extremely
dishonest, one cannot find fault with an argument one has never seen.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: antti's file of "nonr
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:07:52 GMT

Ken.Stuckas@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Stuckas) writes:
>I am an aero engineer (Purdue '69).  I loved the last book I read best. It is a recent biography of Darwin from the point of view of a psychiatrist, John Bowlby, who died shortly after finishing the book at the age of eighty-something.

	I don't consider shrinks as scientists. 

>After reading all those books, it is really very hard for me to understand how anyone with any knowledge of science could possibly still believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis.  At what point does one give up the ghost (NPI) and see the truth?  Darwin, who was destined to become first a physician and then a clergyman struggled for years over the impact of what he had proposed and it's affect on the religious beliefs of the times.  He was very moderate in his proselitizing of evolution due to the


 



>natural selection of heritable traits.  I kept thinking what a pity that he never came across the work of his contemporary, Gregor Mendel.

	Perhaps you don't actually know what Genesis teaches. Young earth is 
	rubbish. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Yes, Virginia, Mutation is Enough (long!)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 12:15:46 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Keywords: artificial life, Tierra

In article <1992Sep27.114009.10651@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>In article <s9y-ZhB@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>> This is a repost of something I put up a while back. Since the notion

[etc.]

>Me thinks that Ray feels that I am arguing that selection and mutation
>cannot produce complexity or some such.  The artificial life project,
>while very interesting, is rather beside the point.  What we need here
>is a bit less computer science and a bit more biology.

[deletions]

>Eukaryotes are much more complex than prokaryotes...

[more deletions]

>The arguments I made against the efficacy of mutation really only apply
>to eukaryotes, and in particular to multi-cellular eukaryotes.
>-- 
>Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 

 So, what I gather you're arguing is, the more complex the lifeform, the
exponentially harder it is for a mutation to be beneficial? Something
like that?

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: a clarification from Ted?
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:55:03 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <55@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|> In article <pwcprwd@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:
|>  
|> > >There were no animals on the southern hemisphere.  I mean, why live  
|> > >in darkness when you could live in light [?]
|>  
|> > 	WHOA!  Hold on a second.  I can't see how else this could be  
|> > interpreted, but I'll give you the chance to clairify anyway: Are you  
|> > really saying there were no animals living in the southern hemisphere  
|> > during the time of "reduced felt effect of gravity" - the time of  
|> > dinosaurs and Pangea - i.e. the early Mesozoic (Triassic) in  
|> > conventional geology - because there was no light?  
|> 
|> No light, and no land to live on.  Think about it.  All the land was in
|> one place, Pangaea, anmd all the land was directly under whatever had
|> pulled it all into one place, the which location coincided with the
|> North magnetic pole, since the whole thing was electromagnetic.

	Volcanic rocks keep an imprint of the earth's magnetic
	field at the time that they form.  The rocks of Pangaea do not
	show the magnetic pole as being where you want it.


|> 
|> Only a fish with a love of darkness would have been living in the southern
|> hemisphere.

	Well, nothing would have lived in either hemisphere.  If the
	south pole had no light, ever, the temperature there would
	easily descend below the freezing temperature of carbon
	dioxide, since meridional heat transport is very inefficient,
	particularly if there are no obstacles to set off
	planetary waves.  In a short while there would be insufficient
	CO2 to support plant life, the plants would die, and then
	everything else would die.  Some golden age.


|> 
|> Naturally, given such conditions, magnetic and geological poles were
|> the same.

	Naturally, you are free to speculate about the location of
	the poles all you please.  However, there is evidence
	as to where they actually were, and it does not agree with
	your speculations at all.

						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:36:37 GMT

alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
>How about answering just one simple question about the book?  It requires
>no looking up of references.  All you have to do is think clearly about
>the book's argument.

>On page 35 _Life_ states:

>    From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges
>    as a scientifically sound document....

>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. 

>If you can't explain that, can you explain how you can put faith in the
>religious pronouncements of an organization that puts out a book that
>makes clearly erroneous conclusions, or at least, ones you can't explain?
>Remember, this book is being put out under the auspices of `God's channel
>of communication'.

	By the way, your reference to "Kingdom is at Hand!" was false - there
	were no such things as you claimed. (Did you think I don't have that
	old book to look references from ?)
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Egg-shaped antediluvian world
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 27 Sep 92 06:00:25 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

   I've become confused with all the discussion on this subject.
I went back and read the original post and became even more 
confused.  Ted, I assume that in talking about Pagaea you are 
accepting the common arrangement of the continents (since you 
have not mentioned otherwise) - if so, what is your objection
to the Tethys Sea?  It is not a gaping cleft in the middle of
a circular mass of continents, it's in the center of a crescent.
What makes this such an anomaly?

   BTW, according to the map in the book I'm looking at, the
reason India managed to "cross the Tethys Sea," as you put it,
is that Asia was moving down at the same time.

Karl
------
Satan for president - when you're sick of voting for the _lesser_ of two evils.
See David Rice for info on volunteering.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Holdenism
Summary: Does Ted ever look up in the sky? 
Organization: NRAO
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 05:36:10 GMT

In article <n0abct@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Tag: Ted Holden
> 
>TH> "Two of the least large, least impressive, least assuming,
>TH> inconspicuous, non-candidates for deity in the entire universe
>TH> today are the far-off planets Jupiter and Saturn.  An

Jupiter is very easy to see, almost always brighter than Mars,
often almost as bright as Venus.  Once it is pointed out,
Saturn is quite easy to see also.

>TH> overwhelming majority of people in the world couldn't
>TH> even find them or point them out. And yet, just 4000

I wonder if Ted can find them.  THEY ARE QUITE EASY TO FIND!

>TH> years ago, these two planets were the two chieftain

And of course there were many, many, many fewer people with
much, much, much darker skies just 4000 years ago.

>TH> Gods in every nation on earth, every religion on earth...
>TH> the two most feared entities in existence.  Given present
>TH> realities, this not only makes no sense, it is impossible."
> 
>A claim I have sucessfully refuted for you twice. Yet you still
>have not retracted said claim. That's very Holden of you.

-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 26 Sep 92 10:31:19 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <qa8a0cc@zola.esd.sgi.com>
livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>In article <1452@esl.ESL.COM>
markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>|> In article <1992Sep24.164701.8607@st-andrews.ac.uk>
>|> mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery) writes:

>|> >In article <1433@esl.ESL.COM>
>|> >>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>|> >>Circular arguments exist in science as well:

>|> >>"We know this because scientific writings tell us so, and we know that
>|> >>scientific writings are correct because the scientists tell us so
>|> >>through their writings."

>|> >But much scientific writing is filled with hypotheticals, not gospel
>|> >truths!  Words and phrases like "putative"; "it has been shown
>|> >before"; "at least in this system"; "it would seem likely to us" etc
>|> >etc are part of the accepted style (here I'm referring to journal
>|> >articles etc)

>|> >Could you find a specific example of a circular argument used in
>|> >science that you've come across? I'm sure there are examples.

>|> I'm not talking about those who do scientific research here.  I
>|> speaking of the majority of people who simply take what the scientist
>|> says on faith.  The general public does not do scientific research at
>|> all and never look at scientific journals.

>Well, I baffled.   First you say "Circular arguments exist in 
>science as well" and seem to say that we can only take Science 
>on the authroity of Scientists.

>Then, when someone asks for examples, you put forward a different 
>position which seems to be that some people *do* take science on 
>Faith.

Circular arguments do exist for a majority of people; I have not
contradicted myself or sidestepped the issue.  I've clarified my
position that many people have "faith" in science and the scientist
much like many people have faith in religious leaders.

>So which is it?  Can you see that there is a difference?    Do
>you realise that a good part of Science is in trying to make sure 
>that you don't have to take things on faith?

What world do you live in?  Look around at all the people who take
science on faith.  They have no understanding at all of the scientific
process and yet they believe what they are told by scientists.  This
is no different than most religions.  The key is to ground yourself
with basic principles of science or religion so that you don't have to
work off of blind faith.

Mark
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Request for yopur favorite creationist words
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:44:01 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)

In article <1992Sep30.190729@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  And especially, any short one line incredibly dumb claim.  (ie Evolution
>violates the second law of thermodynamics, evolution says we are all decended
>from abunch of ape men, etc.)

There was that unremembered brainless one who thought evolution violated
the _third_ law of thermodynamics.  Hard to believe there are folks even
less informed that Lionel, but they exist.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: alanrw@cs.man.ac.uk (Alan R Williams)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 10k Christians perform miracles ever so quietly
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:37:29 GMT
	<1992Sep30.120831.28903@city.cs>
	<1992Oct5.115613.22299@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
	<BRUCE.92Oct5222520@suprenum.uxb.liv.ac.uk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk's message of 5 Oct 92 22:26:47 GMT

In article <BRUCE.92Oct5222520@suprenum.uxb.liv.ac.uk> bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:

   > In article <1992Sep30.120831.28903@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
   >>
   >> At the Stoneleigh Bible Week in Stoneleigh, Coventry, England in
   >> August this year, there were numerous miracles. There were about
   >> 10,000 christians gathered for a week.

   > Sh*t, and I missed it. (Stoneleigh is a small quaintsy village only about
   > two miles from my office door. I have always been suspicious that weirdness
   > was afoot, what with there being NO PUBS OR BARS WHATEVER in Stoneleigh.)

   > Nevertheless, you'd expect 10kX (kiloChristians) witnessing miracles
   > constantly for a week to cause at least a ripple or two in the local
   > press and TV. Not a peep did I detect. Curious. Wouldn't having a TV
   > crew from Central TV around, and getting these miracles covered live
   > on prime-time TV have been an excellent way of spreading the news?

   I'm fairly sure I saw a TV program on it.  Possibly Everyman, BBC1
   Sunday evenings.  Something like that anyway.

The program was fairly horrific.  The "believers" threw a disabled man
out of his wheelchair and were generally maltreating him all because he
insisted that he still could not walk and they claimed that if he had
faith then he could!  In the end the police had to be called to rescue him.

   Bruce Stephens.  Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Liverpool Univ.
   Internet: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk     JANET: bruce@uk.ac.liv.uxb
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if stated otherwise, I only speak for myself :-)
Alan Williams, Room IT403, Department of Computer Science,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.
Tel: +44 61 275 6289      Fax: +44 61 275 6280
e-mail: alanrw@cs.man.ac.uk
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: huh?
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:43:56 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Oct6.113035.11819@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

>It is because micro- and macroevolution are independent drives. 

Uh, what are you talking about? Just curious.

>Onar.

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: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Holden
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 09:38:46 GMT

In article <n0adct@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>TH> "Velikovsky offered several possibilities as to causes for
>TH> humans observing a lengthened day; the one you mention is
>TH> not the one I regard as most likely."
> 
>Because Earth wobbles. That's why CUT is incremented or
>decremented a "leap second" every few years--- however, the
>average approaches zero over the decades that had reliable
>measures. I suspect that the very tiny lengthening of the
>day can be attributed to additional weight on the Earth due
>to material from space falling on it, among other things.
>Coral samples and shallow lake bed cores show that Earth
>has slowed down a very small amount over the last hundred
>thousand years.

Actually, there is a good reason for this:  the moon's tidal
interaction with the Earth.  This interaction causes some of the
Earth's rotational energy to be converted into heat energy, via the
friction between the oceans and the seabeds.  Hence the Earth is very
gradually slowing down.  One interesting consequence of this is that
the moon is gradually moving farther away from the Earth, so that the
total angular momentum of the system is conserved.  Eventually the
Earth will be in synchronous rotation with the moon (ie, the Earth
will always present the same face towards the moon; the moon is
already in synchronous rotation with the Earth, presenting the same
face to us).  Of course, this will probably take so long that the sun
will run out of hydrogen first.

Sincerely,

Steve
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwinism is dead !
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:19:22 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

>|  [....]
>| Sure, there are many species, including worms, flowers and amphibians that have
>| longer genomes than ourselves. But does any of them have more ACTIVE GENES? No, I
>| don't think so. Remember, (I have discussed this earlier a lot) more than 95% of
>| the genome in many "higher" species is junk-DNA. And that doesn't count when you
>| measure complexity. See my article just before this on complexity. Can anyone
>| come up with species with more active genes than humans? That would be very
>| interesting. If there are some, then some flowers, I think, would be a candidate.
>| They seem to duplicate the whole genome every now and then. But still these "new"
>| genes are inactive so they wouldn't count either, I think.
>
>For my information:  How do people actually determine what is junk-DNA?
>I have the impression from reading about fruit-fly experiments, where
>severely mutated strains of flys reverted to the original form, that at 
>least some of the DNA has some sort of error-correction function.  True
>or not?
>
>Alan Feuerbacher
>alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
>
True. But I don't know to what extent. Remember, fruitflies( or any specie for
that matter), when exposed to microevolutionary forces tends to remain within the 
specie. Either it dies because of the genetic degeneration, or it survives with
 minor changes. In any case the original specie is preserved since it is not
exposed to macroevolutionary forces. 


Onar.
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Holdenism
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:29:41 GMT

In article <n0abct@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> Tag: Ted Holden
>  
> TH> "Two of the least large, least impressive, least assuming,
> TH> inconspicuous, non-candidates for deity in the entire universe
> TH> today are the far-off planets Jupiter and Saturn.  An
> TH> overwhelming majority of people in the world couldn't
> TH> even find them or point them out. And yet, just 4000
> TH> years ago, these two planets were the two chieftain
> TH> Gods in every nation on earth, every religion on earth...
> TH> the two most feared entities in existence.  Given present
> TH> realities, this not only makes no sense, it is impossible."
>  
> A claim I have sucessfully refuted for you twice. Yet you still
> have not retracted said claim. That's very Holden of you.

  It just occurred to me.  I don't know why I forgot, but isn't Jupiter the
fourth brightest object in the sky?  If we eliminate the Sun and Moon as
candidates as gods (after all, they are both obviously disks, not a popular
shape for a god) we are left with Venus and Jupiter as the two brightest objects
in the sky.  Venus is incosistant (popping up and down over the horizon) since
it is closer to the sun.

  Thus, Jupiter is the brightest object in the sky whose shape is disputable (by
naked eye observations) and crosses the entire sky at night.  Seems like a
pretty good choice considering that.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation! NOT!!
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 3 Oct 1992 11:56 MST  
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Oct1.163545@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes...
> 
>   Okay, I'm a fool.  He WAS joking. (Wiping egg from face, 
>looking embarrased).

He was joking, but I bet he could get it published in the _Bible-Science
Newsletter_.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:30:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep24.201025.18334@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) wrote:
>> >	kygqdkcsgdADSKGAJDGSAGJHDSAJDJSDFASGJFgjhgjhadsfgjsadfghjsfgjhfsgjhasf
> >
> >	not
> >
> >	agrecdtkvbrfershiljhterdbojnfedxdjgfdds
> 
> This is relevant??????  Fergit apes, just assume you pick letters at
> random.

Actually, Dawkins used his small daughter to type on his Mac for the 
list of characters in the book. Which reminds me that according to Antti
there's an impossible chance that a baby will evolve into a mind capable
of writing books, or what?

Cheers,
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