HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: winner@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu
Subject: Re: Elephants CAN'T gallop, damn it!!!
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:51:34 GMT

In article <2836@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Jul24.153110.6618@tcom.stc.co.uk>, bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:
>> >In article <1992Jul21.183247.3020@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> >> Ted, you have been told on numerous occasions that elephants can't gallop due
>> >> to their conformation.  
>> >Face it, Sue...  you and your cohorts aren't really bright enough to be telling
>> >me ANYTHING.
>> Insult is the last refuge of the incompetent.
> I totally agree.  That Sue Bishop is incompetant is clearly seen in her 
> continuing use of the insulting phrase "you have been repeatedly told..."
> which one would normally use with a small child.
> That you can see the insult in my response and not see the original insult
> indicates a sort of selective blindness on your part.  
> Jesus once tried to clear that sort of misconception up for some people
> (I think he referred to them as "hypocrites" or some such).
> Try reading Luke 6:41.  It's all there.
> Ted Holden


Excuse me Ted, but...
You are spending time replying to what you feel are insults and complaining
that these people are not addressing your points.  Well, I posted a response
to your elephant discussion.  In it I addressed a number of points dealing
with the definition of "gallop" which you are trying to use.  In relation to
the definition I assume you are using I asked for clairification on whether
or not other, lighter animals (such as cats, dogs, and 4 legged reptiles) 
are able to gallop.  If these organisms are not able to gallop due to their
body structure (since weight would not be in issue) then I would feel that
it would be your responsibility to show that an elephants body structure
would permit it to gallop given proper gravity (thus showing that they 
cannot gallop due to weight rather than body structure limitations.)  For
example, if an elephant was subjected to the Moon's gravity, would it be
able to gallop?  (An analogous argument would be that elephants cannot fly.
While it may be true that they are too heavy to fly, more importantly they
do not have a body structure designed for flight, and putting them in lower
gravity would not give them the ability.)

So far you are addressing the insults, and ignoring the questions which are
not done insultingly.  If you are unwilling to even attempt to address my
points then I feel the right to assume that you can't.

If you are only willing to answer messages that insult you, I'll add at least
one...
Put up or shut up!!  You want to be viewed as knowledgable than stop acting 
like a baby and give a reasoned answer to the points people make against
your claims.

-Jim Winner
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Elephants CAN'T gallop, damn it!!!
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:02:22 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Jul24.153110.6618@tcom.stc.co.uk>, bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:
 
 
> >In article <1992Jul21.183247.3020@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
 
> >> Ted, you have been told on numerous occasions that elephants can't gallop due
> >> to their conformation.  

> >Face it, Sue...  you and your cohorts aren't really bright enough to be telling
> >me ANYTHING.
 
> Insult is the last refuge of the incompetent.

I totally agree.  That Sue Bishop is incompetant is clearly seen in her 
continuing use of the insulting phrase "you have been repeatedly told..."
which one would normally use with a small child.

That you can see the insult in my response and not see the original insult
indicates a sort of selective blindness on your part.  

Jesus once tried to clear that sort of misconception up for some people
(I think he referred to them as "hypocrites" or some such).

Try reading Luke 6:41.  It's all there.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministery of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:11:08 GMT

In article <BrsxAp.DGt@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
> In <Brsrpo.Gny@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
(Andy Peters) writes:
> Below is an illustration of why a Christian should utterly reject evolution.
> It is also an example of how much of what is called science and or education
> is a crime against the family and taxpayers in general.
> 
> Andy Peters has relegated the holy institution of monogomaous  marriage to
some evolutionary
> happenchance, which may not be universal for humans, and is the subject of
some scientific
> debate as to why it came about in the first place.  Of course, Mr. Peters is
> certainly correct, if there were such a thing as evolution.  His assertions
> would certainly be valid.  

  Note one: I am a Christian

  Note two: I see absolutely no problem with what Andy wrote.  Why can't there
be an explanation?  Are you saying that everything instituted by God must have
no reason?  Where is he against monogamy?  Where does he make any value
judgments about marriage at all?  Why are you being such a thick-head?

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:11:24 GMT

In article <schinder.712073310@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov> schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
>Photons have no mass.  You can define an "effective mass" for a photon
>by m = E/c^2, but that's pretty pointless.  When a physicist says
>"mass" nowadays, he means exclusively rest mass, that mass that a
>particle would have in it's rest frame (if any).  

This idea is somewhat erroneous. Give me a sensitive enough scale,
a box made of perfect mirrors with light inside and I'll weigh the
light for you.
The fact that light in a box has inertia and weight can be derived
fairly easily.
1) Weight of light-
 The gravitational red shift results in the light hitting the top of
 the box having a lower frequency than light hitting the bottom, thus
 there is less force on the top of the box. If you work it out this
 weight is what you expect from the mass energy of the light.
2) Inertia of light-
 When accelerating the box that contains the light the back wall of
 the box will have accelerated in the time it took light to get from
 the front side, thus the light hitting the back is doppler shifted
 and exerts extra pressure.

(according to general relativity gravity and inertia are not
distinguishable)

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:30:57 GMT
Organization: Auburn University Engineering

In article <1992Jul30.042012.8151@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>The claim that creationists have made is that a system such as
>the earth must have increasing entropy. However a simple experment
>can demonstrate that a system which has no exchange of matter
>but does have an exchange of energy can lower its entropy. If you

With no exchange of matter, what is required is a net heat loss.  When you
put your water in the freezer, it has a net heat loss.  Can you prove that
the earth has a net heat loss?

Relevant equation:  dS > dQ/T

The sign on dS indicates whether entropy is increasing or decreasing
The sign on dQ indicates whether net heat is transfer in or out
T is absolute temperature   >= 0

The sign on dS is always the same as the sign on dQ

Interpretation:  To decrease system entropy, you have to have a *net* heat
loss.

>don't believe this put some water in an ice tray and put it in your
>freezer, ask yourself if the entropy of the system drops as the water
>cools.
>-- 
>>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
>Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
>in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
>       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Guiness on the tyrannosaur
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:39:04 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <2829@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|
|Every now and then you learn something new.  I've always heard a figure
|of something like 7 - 8 tons as max for a tyrannosaur.  The 91 edition
|of Guiness' Book of World Records, page 108, claims that the 7 - 8 ton
|individuals might actually have been juveniles, and that partial skulls
|have been found which indicate a length of 44', and a weight of more than
|13 tons.

Don't take Guiness too seriously here, its publishers are hardly trained
paleontologists.  First, the 7-8 ton estimate is probably an overestimate,
it is based on a 'fat' reconstruction of T. rex.  Other estimates come out
closer to 5-6 tons.  This makes the new, larger, specimens closer to 9 tons.

Second, I suspect that they got the 'juvenile' bit wrong as well.
The larger specimens may be just that, larger.  After all variation in
size is found in almost all species of animals.

|If you should ever be standing around a time machine, and have some moron
|ask you your preference between bringing back the 44' trex or one of the 6'
|carnosaurs, go for the 44-footer.  You'd be in no danger that way;  he'd
|collapse in a heap under our gravity.  The 6' carnosaur would probably
|kill you.
|
That's true anyway, the big one would probably say 'hmm, that little bit is
too small to bother catching'.  It is the six-footer that would say
'yum, a perfect meal'.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:26:52 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>  If you study those cultures you will probably find that they are ones where
>"polygamy is acceptable".  Actual polygamy would probably be restricted to a
>small social elite in almost all cases.

True.  And interestingly, it fits with some "natural" examples
of polygamy with one dominant male breeding with several females.
There are some apes like this.

But let me ask this:  Mormons are a polygamous culture, but do they
restrict it to an elite?


>> What is important to keep in mind is that humans are born practically
>> a blank slate.

>  Not quite true.  I am sure there are others, but a big one is that humans are
>preprogrammed to react to a woman screaming.

>>  Most other animals are born with a host of _instinctual_
>> behavior patterns, but humans acquire most of their behaviors
>> through *learning*.

>  Is fingernail-biting learned?  What about nose picking, or ear picking.  If
>anything these are discouraged, but they still happen.  There is also the
>rooting reflex in infants, and the sucking reflex.  The list goes on.

I didn't say there weren't any, but I was really talking about the 
"biggies".  A human has really no capacity to feed and shelter itself
( or find a mate) without considerable training.  If I remember my
grade-school biology correctly, a bird can build a nest without
ever having seen one, and migrate to the correct place without ever
having been there...etc.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, just pointing out
it's really just the scale of learning vs. instinct.  Many animals
have learned behaviors also.

--
 Michael James       mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 

      "Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
       mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand.  Paul Ehrenfest, carrying
       on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study
       statistical mechanics."  
                                  -David L. Goodman "States of Matter"
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Is creationism science?
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:09:47 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)

In article <1992Jul27.120022.11641@st-andrews.ac.uk>, mrl@st-andrews (  Michael Ladomery) writes:
>>			     Laudan and Quinn both take what is perhaps
>>the majority view among philosophers of science, that there is no
>>well-founded criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience
>>(followers of Karl Popper disagree).

>Perhaps philosophers take the view that there is no clear *demarcation*
>or *boundary* between science and pseudo-science; but surely *pseudo-science*
>exists as such: would you agree that astrology is a pseudo-science?

Your clarification is mostly correct.  Only Feyeraband and his more rabid
fans would go so far as to eradicate all such distinctions.

But trying to pin down "what is science?" to Popperian falsifiability or
Bayesian optimization or other such program--on the one side is REAL
SCIENCE, and on the other side is GENUINE NONSENSE--this has not been
a success, and that is what Jim Lippard was referring to.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The evolution of sexes
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:12:45 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <92156@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|In article <768@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|
|	Hey! This sounds interesting and relevant - what's it doing
|on t.o. 8-) Care to fill us in on some of the sordid details, Stan?

Well, for those few who really want to know:

I am of course talking about the process called conjugation in ciliates
(and no *not* like in verbs :-)).  This is where a pair of same-species
ciliates join up and trade nuclear material just before going through
a double division (hmm sounds alot like meiosis - maybe ciliates are
normally haploid). [Note, in a 'mature' cilate there is a compound 
nucleus called a macronucleus - made of many little nuclei].

Normally conjugation can only occur between individuals of different
mating types (as they are called). In a few species there are as many
as a dozen mating types, though 2 or 3 is the norm.

(There is also some bizarre stuff, like a 'killer mating type' in one
of the members of the Paramecium aurelia complex).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bob and DNA
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:43:44 GMT


Sue Bishop writes:

>And why doesn't Bob address a *few* of the topics he has sidestepped in the
>past?  Here he comes, tons of postings, none of which are on the topics
>he promised to discuss ages ago.

Wrong.  The threads I'm pursuing now developed from individual points in
broader postings dealing with such topics as the liklihood of theories and the
status of _Archaeopteryx_ as a transitional fossil. *These are all topics that
have come up before and on which I have been questioned.*

Many topics come up in the discussion of evolution and the age of the earth.  I
can't discuss them all in one posting.  I choose not to try many simultaneous
threads on many topics for two reasons: I can't do all the necessary responses
at once and having too many topics probably inhibits the discussion of the
details on any one.

I discuss 'A' and people complain that I don't discuss 'B.'  Were I to discuss
'B,' people could complain that I don't discuss 'A.'

>Surely does continue to destroy credibility and heighten irritation.

Matt Brinkman and I are having a discussion on probabilities as applied to
creation and evolution.  Max Webb and I are having a discussion on the
supposed transition from featers to scales.  (Others, or course, are welcome
to participate and are participating.)  Just how does posting articles on
the topics of ongoing discussions destroy credibility and heighten irritation?

What logical reason would there be for me to drop ongoing, current discussions
to discuss other old topics?  If I did so, I would fully expect to see
something such as the following:

     "Ever notice how Bob jumps around?  He brings up a topic and then
      immediaste drops it as soon as someone throws a few facts in his
      direction. He then changes to something else in the hope that we
      won't notice that he has no answers."

The postings that Sue objects to contained answers to current questions.  I am
berated for answering these questions.  Yet if I had not, they would no doubt
become in a short time "old" questions which I would then be berated for
"sidestepping."

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:46:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Jul28.061748.3122@desire.wright.edu>, by sbishop@desire.wright.edu:
> In article <1992Jul27.215932.1953@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
>> From article <1992Jul23.115606.202088@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, by fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za:
>>> As a born-again Christian, I subscribe to the theory of a young earth
>>>  (6000 to 10000 years old).
>>> 
>>> Does anyone have scientific evidence to support this?
>>> (Stuff on dating methods, dynamic vs. atomic time, etc.)
>>> Please e-mail or post.
>>> 
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Anthony Faull.
>> 
>> Try the Bible, starting from Genesis 1:1.  There are, apparently,
>> many people who believe that the Bible contains the ultimate truth
>> that transcend human knowledge, reasoning, or scientific evidence.  
> 
> You are describing a 'belief'.  This is not evidence.

I agree.

>> Since so many people from all over the world are turning to the 
>> Bible to seek the truth, the book has been published in hundreds
>> of translations.  Some people say that a mathematical computation
>> of numbers from the Bible indicates that the earth was created 
>> 6000 years ago or so.  Since this time frame just happens to 
>> coincide with the above mentioned theory, the Bible would be the 
>> right place to look for supporting arguments.  If you have any 
>> questions, keep reading the Bible, or else, re-examine how firmly
>> you believe in the Bible.
> 
> Please explain how the Bible fits the scientific requirement of evidence.
> 
> Sue

My question is this:  Why do some Christians (e.g., Anthony Faull who
posted the original question) try to find physical evidence to support 
their beliefs, when they already believe in the Bible?  After all, 
they say that the Bible is the "Word of God" and "the truth".  If they
already believe that they know the truth, then why do they need to
seek physical evidence which is incomplete given our limited 
measurements?  Perhaps they have some doubts, and/or they just need 
some reassurance?

Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Felt Gravity (was: Tyrannosaurus Rex and Triceratops)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<1992Jul20.040432.22588@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Jul20.115541.24845@rhrk.uni-kl.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 16:13:58 GMT

kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:

>>Now let's add in any rotation you like around the radial axis.  The
>>"real" rotation of the satellite will be the *sum* of what are now two
>>components of rotation, one around the radial axis and other around the
>>axis perpendicular to the plane of the orbit.  I find that I am able to
>>visualize this configuration without much difficulty.  (It accords with
>>the diagram above.)  The component of angular momentum around the
>>perpendicular to the orbit remains the same as above,

>OK, the component perpendicular to the orbit is conserved.
>But the component parallel to it is not.  Therefore angular momentum is not
>conserved.

Yes, it just occurred to me a couple of hours ago that the two
components of angular momentum are not independent of each other, so
the axis of rotation would come out somewhere between the two.  So
that answers my question.

>BTW, why is that second rotation necessary?  As I see it, Velikovsky or 
>Talbott
>or whoever invented this thing didn't understand elementary physics (wasn't
>aware of conservation of angular momentum) and proposed this "North pole
>always pointing to Saturn" where a Moon-style motion without that second
>rotation would have done just fine what should be accomplished: one side
>always pointed in direction of Saturn.

I think that would solve the specific problem of conservation of
angular momentum.  That doesn't keep the whole idea from being a
phantasmagoria, of course.


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:28:33 GMT
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center

In <henley.920728113314@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:

>I took down my Berry, Rice and Ross, out of curiousity, to see how they
>defined closed and isolated systems.  Just to make sure that the other
>PChem book was not an anomoly.

>  "A closed system, which does not exchange matter, may still be able to
>   exchange energy with its surroundings."

>_Physical_Chemistry_, Stephen Berry, Stuart Rice, John Ross,  John Wiley
>& Sons publishers,  1980, page 490.


>By my count, that makes 5 references with the same definition as mine,
>and 0 references with the same definition as the majority of the 
>evolutionists on this newsgroup.  

>*NOW* who is doing science?  You?  Or Me?

Appeals to authority about a definition is not science.  See, for
example, Callen's book "Thermodynamics", which defines "closed" as
what you've call isolated in your FAQ.  The other thermo and stat mech
books I've checked (Fermi, Huang; not all of the ones I own, but I'm
tired of messing around with this) define isolated systems as you
have, but, as I suspected, don't bother with a concept as useless as a
closed system.  As we discussed in e-mail, to me the only important
distinction for thermodynamics purposes is whether a system is
isolated (or closed in the definition that most people here seem to
use, i.e. unable to exchange mass-energy with the universe) or not.
In one case the entropy always increases (or remains constant), in the
other, you have to work to find out what's happening, and it's no
shock if the entropy of a closed (in the "no mass exchange but maybe
energy exchange" sense) decreases.

>James P. Henley Jr.
>Chemical Engineering Dept
>Auburn University

--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins