HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: False C O R R E L L A T I O N S, a couple of better examples
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 10:37:56 GMT

In article <2727@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
[..]
>the gist of what is being said is that the interpretations being given
>to ice core data, data from ocean-floor core samples etc. tend to correlate
>or corroberate one another in their interpretation of uniform conditions on
>earth within the last several thousand years.  Obviously this rules out
>Velikovsky and his theories of recent catastrophism.
>
>I would expect these kinds of data to hang together or corroberate themselves;
>these interpretations are all based on the axiom of uniformity, which has
>permiated the natural sciences for almost 200 years now, and the only way one
>such result might conflict with the others is if somebody did his arithmetic
>wrong.

OK, if one assumes this "uniformity", the data corroborate each other.
That shows that "uniformity" is a good theory.
If we accept Velikovsky, all those data go down the river: we have no
explanation for them.  Of course, the whole body of physics will have to be
changed too.  On the other hand, the Bible will be corroborated.

If you ask me, "uniformity" is still *MUCH* better than catastrophism.
Come back when you have a BETTER theory than the now accepted ones,
not a WORSE one.

-- 
-Caddy--(thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany)-----
The question of whether the electron is a wave or a particle
has a clear and definite answer:  No.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:24:37 GMT
Organization: HTE

> > So could African Elephants occupy cold regions? Did they like a number of
> > African species formerly occupy Europe?
> > Andrew Taylor

> I'm not sure where he got his elephants, but don't forget that Hannibal
> crossed the Alps with them.
 
> Sue

You read lots of history, don't you, Sue?  All but a small handful of those
elephants died due to the hardwhips of being hauled and winched through
those mountains, and that handful died shortly thereafter.  Hannibal's 
strengths were his Spainish and Numidean cavalry groups;  the elephants were
a total non-factor.

Ted Holden

-- 
HTE
bear
Xref: sparky talk.origins:4417 talk.religion.misc:7393
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:41:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

If you consider a multiple universes theory then most of your
assumptions go out the window.

Eric

In article <1992Apr16.203138.23810@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.195319.25688@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> kjp@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (karl.j.pfaff..jr) writes:
>>I read this group occasionally and notice that most of the questioning of 
>>belief is directed toward the creationist side of the table. Does anyone
>>have a thought (I'm sure you do) on what the effect on this group would be
>>if creation was found to be true? 
>>
>>I'm curious, because the idea of religion vs science seems to be an additional
>>division of subgroups within the main evolution/creation elements.  But if God
>>does exist, then His existence would be fact and would have to be incorporated 
>>into our consideration of science.  
>>
>>A lot of "what if's" seem to be exchanged on this net, so lets try this one.
>
>Indeed, without His existence we would not exist.  Independantly of how you
>want to define "shapeless void", we know that such was once the state of our
>universe before life on earth.  All that we know was swirling superheated
>matter that _somehow_ came to be as it is today.  There is a _BIG_ problem
>with this happening by chance: 1) the universe naturally tends to disorder
>(increasing entropy) and there would therefore be a near infinitely small
>chance that, say, a protein would "happen". 2) Even if it did, the
>probability that it would survive, and in fact flourish in seeming mockery of
>chaos theory, approaches NULL.  Therefore I am very, very confident in saying
>that, at the very least, some outside ordering energy must be responsible for
>the amazing diversity and complexity, and yet unity of everything we know.
>"Ordering" is the key... Energy of itself does not tend to get put to good
>work - the natural tendency is to dissipate in the least interesting fashion
>possible.  "Ordering" implies - even demands - intelligence, so all of a
>sudden you have God in the picture.  Especially when one considers the
>immensity of what science has discovered, and has yet to discover, about how
>it all works.
>
>Another interesting twist is that there does not seem to be enough matter in
>the universe (dark or otherwise) for the universe to be cyclic.  Thus what
>happened the split second before the "big bang" is still a mystery.  Of
>course I think God did it, so I don't really have a problem with it :-)
>
>More to come, for sure....
>
>John M.


--
*  Eric Marsh   ---   email: emarsh@sun.com / standard disclaimers apply  *
*  DoD # 1332                                    dragbike pilot for hire  *
*  986cc Ninja street scooter   ----   GS1260 Suzuki Pro-Stock drag bike  *
From: rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: But is it possible?
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:49:09 GMT
Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA

In article <72775@netnews.upenn.edu>, rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:

> >>> But why would it [advantage of 4-chambered heart]
> >>> have been such a big deal, considering that some lizards can be 
> >>> quite active little guys with their three-chambered heart?

> Really?  I'm actually quite surprised that Richard Harter let you get
> away with this for so long (Richard, do you remember the review of
> McGowan's book that I forgot about last summer :-)  Lizards are not
> "quite active little guys" for the simple reason that most of their
> episodes of extreme exertion are completely anaerobic.  Because their
> legs are splayed out to the sides of their bodies, they compress
> alternate lungs with each step, so when they run they must hold their
> breaths.  What the heck difference does it make if blood from the body
> and lungs are mixed when the lungs aren't adding to the supply of
> oxygen during these critical times?

Quite right, and I happened to be reading McGowan the other day.
Anent crocodilians, I disremember where I read it, but someone was
mentioning the thesis crocodiles are, so to speak, evolutionary back
sliders.  The proposition is that they discarded endothermy and the
upright posture as an adaptation to the acquatic carnivore niche.  If
I happen upon said thesis again I will post a reference.

And for Dinosaur fans, two new books, Kings of Creation by Jessum (sp?)
which is mostly about modern dinosaur hunters and what they've been
doing.  Tis a very good book.  Also new on Dinosaurs is Tracking Dinosaurs
which is really about interpreting dinosaur tracks.  This be on the dry
side.  However it is a good look at how Paleontologists actually reconstruct
information.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: hyde@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ted's case is judged by the arguments he makes.
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:24:11 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <2714@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> 
> 
> They say a man is judged by the company he keeps, and I use the word
> "man" in the old-fashioned, non-politically-correct manner here so as to
> include Sue Bishop and possibly even her gravitationally challenged
> horse in the discussion.
> 
> Bishop and Hyde and a few others continue to claim that when history and
> theory (her ice-core interpretations) conflict, you toss the history and
> not the theory, and I have in mind to show them the company in which
> they place themselves in so doing.


	What history, Ted?  Historians themselves reject
	Velikovsky's interpretations.  Ice core and sea floor
	(and rock and tree and loess) observations are just that,
	observations - repeatable events.  Your "history" is indeed
	interpretation, and not a favoured interpretation at all.
> 
> If you really want to adopt the view that theory overrides history, then
> you don't need to go back to 1500 BC for a starting point;  you can
> start 50 years ago or thereabouts.
> 
> Consider the company which Bishop and Hyde keep in this theory overrides
> history game.
> 
> Consider the case of Ralph Winston, who typically posts on the
> talk.politics group, and mostly posts articles to the effect that the
> halocaust of WWII is a bogus notion and never really took place:


	Wonderful ad hominem attack, oh teddish one.  Compare
	your opponents to nazis - that's bound to win the argument.

	I am a little disappointed, though.  This is the *second*
	time you've compared me to a nazi.  Can't you be more
	original?  Couldn't I be a stalinist for a change?

	I am still pleased to see that you can't muster any
	arguments against my case.  If you could, you wouldn't
	need to indulge in this sort of thing.  I mean really,
	four posts today and the best you can do is repost
	your easily demolished venus arguments from last
	year, once again exposing poor Ginenthal for the
	ignoramus he is.  


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Human lifespan - update
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:51:02 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <72774@netnews.upenn.edu> rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu
(Mickey Rowe) writes:
>In short, aging can be defined as the increase (with age) in the
>probability that an organism will die after having reached that age.
>In humans that probability is pretty much 1 at 120, and medicine
>hasn't touched that.  The probability of dying at younger ages has
>gone down somewhat over the past couple of hundred years, and this
>means that the *average* life expectancy (which Lionel presumably
>wouldn't care about) is higher.

I have an idea that a respectable average might be around 75.

>The subject of why medicine hasn't touched the maximum life expectency
>can actually be tied back into evolutionary theory, because Austad has
>the best available theory on why organisms age, and it's based on
>evolutionary biology.  If anyone is interested in hearing more, I
>recommend a group of articles on aging in the 2/92 issue of Natural
>History--the main article is written by Austad.

So are you saying that the information given in Genesis 6:3, that the
upper limit is 120 years rather than say 110 or 130, is correct?

>Mickey Rowe    (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)

Lionel Tun

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Great paper
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:09:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.6cwjm+f
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

Well, I have just finished reading
	Variations in the Earth's Orbit:  Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
	Hays, Imbrie, Shackleton
	Science, V194, No. 4270, p1121
I don't recall who recommended this one to me, but THANKS!

This is a *kick* *ass* paper!  And easy to read too!  90% of it is
basic Signal Processing: *Cake*!  Talk about completely independent
subjects (Sea core data and Astronomical calculations) confirming
each other's findings!  Great stuff.

I did find a gross flaw in the argument, however.  They say:
	The coherence of these results across different variables
	measured in two cores we regard as very powerful support for
	the theory. ... a result that is independent of absolute age
	specifications and depends only on the assumption of constant
	accumulation rates.                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jumps right out at you, doesn't it?  Uniformitarianism rearing its ugly
head once again!  Oooooo Nooooooo!

I have looked for all the various dinosaur/Ice Age books people recommended
(including Mr. Holden's), and (predictably) they are not here: I will have
get them on loan.  Futuyma's book should be arriving soon, though.
Thanks again for the recommendations.

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: biologic diversity since the Cambrian
Summary: basically a non-answer kind of answer
Keywords: scientific creationism
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:35:11 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

In article <1992Apr6.124012.1268@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:

>At least since Cambrian times (please correct me if I am 
>wrong here, this is just a layman's opinion) there has been no 
>overall increase in the complexity of life on earth.

	I don't think there is really a consensus on this. Clearly
diversity changes with time both within and between lineages. For
example, diversity (as measured by number of families) has gone
steadily up in gastropods and bivalves. Diversity has gone straight
down to zero (after an initial explosion) in trilobites. In bony
fish (osteichthyes) diversity has increased geometrically since
their origins to recent times. Other lineages such as cephalopods
and polychaetes have retained a steady level of diversity throughout
their tenure on this planet. 

	Likewise, the taxonomic distribution of organisms inhabiting the
earth has changed numerous times. In order to determine if diversity
or complexity has increased, a yardstick for measuring it must be
developed. Let me explain; let's say a chunck of niches were filled
by X (pick any number, it doesn't matter) families (or any taxonomic
level, it doesn't matter) of snipes. Now, the snipes go extict and the
niches eventually get filled by Y families of purple snorkelwackers.
Now if Y>X, can we say diversity has increased? No, because who is
to say that the differences between families in one group of organisms
is the same as the differences between families in another group of
organisms? Some objective criteria must be set up before this question
can be answered. 

	In Futuyma's book (where I got the info about diversity in
the first paragraph), he says diversity has probably increased 
since the Cambrian. It's hard to tell because the farther back
you go, the less fossils there are simply due to chance destruction;
so you can't just count the number of fossil families or orders over
time because we know there will be a systematic sampling error.
But, it appears (to him at least) that after each mass extinction,
life comes back bigger than the time before. On the other hand,
if you believe Gould, there was more diversity in the Cambrian
than now because several unique phyla went extinct (and I don't
think any new phyla have evolved since then -- but I could be
wrong). Current diversity may just be variations on a few themes;
there may have been many more themes in the past. Then again,
maybe not. 

	So there you have it; I have just stretched "I don't 
know" into three big paragraphs. Hey, at least I didn't digress.

>Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
>Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
>University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA

Chris Colby	email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu
"And will our voices be heard/Or will they break like the wind"
-Spinal Tap
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:33:28 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>In article <351C02Wfc9LU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>If Sunderland's claims are true, we'll see in the original transcripts
>>that some evolutionary scientists speak differently behind closed doors. 

>Pardon?  Someone has already posted quotes, by the scientists,
>saying that Sunderland has misquoted them. A transcript doesn't
>increase Sunderland's credence. The tape that the transcript was
>made from, might.

I went to a library during lunch to print the transcripts off
microfiche. The library directed me to a local state university where
I was able to obtain hardcopies of the transcripts. An hour and a 
half later, minus $23.25, I left with what I was after. Unfortunately,
the microfiche didn't print too well. I couldn't focus on the top and
bottom of the page at the same time, which forced me to make 2 prints
per page, and still it didn't print very well. 

I don't know who typed the transcripts off tape, as the book states,
"all but Patterson made editorial corrections before they (the 
transcripts) were published for use by educators in various states." 
Either Sunderland misquoted the others, or they didn't want the
information to go public, since Sunderland passed away, we can't
ask him. In my opinion, you wouldn't believe Sunderland even if the 
tape supports his claims, you're going to believe what you want. I
have a video tape of some of these scientists saying exactly what
Sunderland communicates in his book. If you want a copy of the tape,
call the ICR (I don't have their number here) and request the video
"The Evolution Conspiracy." Your comment "The tape that the transcript
was made from, might" gives me the impression you won't believe 
the original tape, or a very similar video. 

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Relevance of 'The Historical Jesus' to T.O.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:48:23 GMT

platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:

>The theological problem of the historical Jesus hits to the core of the
>issue of biblical exegesis, even if it does not touch on the details of
>Babylonian creation myths.


	One of the criticisms I have voiced, based on the writings of
Joeseph Campbell, is that Christians are overly concerned with the
historical accuracy or vindication of Scripture as part of seeing it
as a source of authority, none of which ought to be questioned, rather
than as symbolism of spiritual truths, where its roots are also to
be found in connection with other religious currents. So, the use
of this thread, having no direct relation to Creationism, or to
the creation myths used in the Bible, is part of the larger argument
by authority for the use of Scripture. As this use of Scripture is
suspect, so is this thread, or at least its basis in relationship
to the subject in this group, is suspect.

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
From: kjp@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (karl.j.pfaff..jr)
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:53:19 GMT

I read this group occasionally and notice that most of the questioning of 
belief is directed toward the creationist side of the table. Does anyone
have a thought (I'm sure you do) on what the effect on this group would be
if creation was found to be true? 

I'm curious, because the idea of religion vs science seems to be an additional
division of subgroups within the main evolution/creation elements.  But if God
does exist, then His existence would be fact and would have to be incorporated 
into our consideration of science.  

A lot of "what if's" seem to be exchanged on this net, so lets try this one.

Karl J. Pfaff, Jr.
att!linc!kjp
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Myth Of Morality-- and Christian Judgment
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:38:04 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <1992Apr15.190839.13256@reed.edu> bcushman@envy.Reed.Edu (Ben Cushman) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.124129.952@desire.wright.edu>  
>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
:: With this woman I am not going on past transgressions but continuing and
:: ongoing ones.  Her out of wedlock children are ages 10 and 5, she had an
:: abortion between them, she is currently on welfare, has been on it for  
:as
:: long as I have known her (ten years), all the while turning down free 
:: job training.  As for her current position, she is living with a guy who
:: is an habitual drug user, who just got out of prison for being a drug 
:: pusher.  She has recently stated she wants another child, especially  
:since
:: her youngest is now in school.  (In this state, your welfare is cut when
:: your youngest child is in school... the rationale is that now you can  
:get
:: your tail out and get a job since you are not as needed at home.)
:: Oh, yes, wonderful Christian!
:: 
:
:	I'm sorry, but this kind of discussion of someone's character  
:turns my stomach.  What ever happened to "do not judge, lest ye be  
:judged"; "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and "take the  
:log from your eye".

	But that is passing judgment on Ms. Bishop. She was simply
criticizing this Welfare Queen (I guess here is a real one :-) for
being such a low-life while maintaining that one cannot be a virtuous
person if one does not believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

:	I'm not perfect, the woman you describe is not perfect-- and I  
:would be simply amazed, Mr.(?) Bishop, if you turned out to be perfect.   
:Wouldn't that be something.  The Second Coming already!

	"Not perfect"? Does this low-life Welfare Queen have a right
to be a low-life Welfare Queen?

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.origins