HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: JW's claim of a "Water Canopy"
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:55:10 GMT

In article <6604@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
|> 
|> I've recently been reading a book called _The Waters Above_, by Joseph C.
|> Dillow, Moody Press, 1981.  It purports to give a "scientific view" of
|> the "earth's pre-flood vapor canopy."  
|> 
|> The basic thesis is that the above mentioned Water Canopy was actually
|> a "vapor canopy" containing the equivalent of about 40 feet of water,
|> held up by some sort of a massive temperature inversion.  The whole idea,
|> of course, goes against all the physics I ever learned.


	Even if it could stay up there it would probably have a climatic
	effect which would render earth uninhabitable.

	The radiative equilibrium temperature for earth, ignoring
	the current greenhouse effect, is 255 absolute.  The greenhouse
	effect, principally caused by the water in the atmosphere,
	raises that to 288.  The amount of water currently in
	the atmosphere is about one inch (global average, of course.
	The value is higher in the tropics and lower in the arctic, higher
	in summer and lower in winter etc.)

	Suppose that water vapour is responsible for half the current
	greenhouse effect.  Then we must pose the question,

	"If one inch equivalent of water vapour raises the earth's
	temperature 15 degrees C, how much would 480 inches
	raise it?"

	Well, definitely not 15*480, which would make the earth hotter
	than the sun.  A reasonably precise answer could not be obtained without
	(at least) running a radiative-convective model.  However,
	estimates with a simple radiative model gives a temperature well
	above the boiling point of water - far enough above that
	I don't think the crudeness of the model is a worry.
	Venus, anyone?


|> 
|> Does anyone know of any scholarly reviews of this book, or of any other
|> books or publications like it?

	Perhaps books on cult psychology might discuss this, but
	scientifically it's not worth the bother of publishing a
	refutation.



						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is creationism?
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:55:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug19.121726.27511@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes...
> 
>    It took me a while to figure out what is actually going on, and
>it's a mite more complicated than a simple defense of a moderately
>irrational belief.  If that were the case, it would be hard to see 
>why they would refuse suggestions for better rationalizations, why 
>they would regularly pick the worst possible argument to support their 
>belief, why, in fact, they refuse to give a statement of what their 
>belief is.  That puzzled me, as I tried to first think of them like
>ufologists or Elvis sighters, then as astrologers or alchemists.  I
>guess I didn't realize how close I was getting -- and "New Age"
>really didn't occur to me until I had got it straightened out.  (BTW, 
>I hasten to add that the following does not represent _my_ opinion, 
>rather my characterization of some others' opinions.)
> 
> [paragraph deleted]
>    Use of the evidence of the senses and reasoning cannot lead us to 
>knowledge, even if there were no forces of deception, but only belief.  
>We cannot know what is behind appearances, but only believe.
> 
>    Knowledge can only be gotten from its Source.  We should not rely
>upon our rational minds and senses, particularly as they are being
>used by the forces of evil to lead us away from knowledge.

I do not think that this correctly describes scientific creationists.
It does, however, accurately represent the views of an *opponent* of
scientific creationism, John W. Robbins of the Trinity Foundation, a
follower of the late Gordon H. Clark.  Clark believed (and Robbins
believes) that no empirical knowledge is possible on skeptical grounds,
but knowledge of the truth of the Bible is possible.  (It seems to me
that the former position undercuts the latter.)  In _The Trinity
Review_ #56, Robbins writes on "The Hoax of Scientific Creationism"
(available for $.35 from The Trinity Foundation, P.O. Box 700,
Jefferson, MD 21755).  This was an address to the 1987 convention of
the Boston Creation Fellowship in which he lambastes scientific
creationism as "anti-scriptural."

> [rest deleted]                                         

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Gish v. Ross on Focus on the Family
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:20:07 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

In article <133402@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> bertsche@llnl.gov (Kirk Bertsche) writes:
>In article <88513@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton 
>CS50 CS/50) writes:
>> The paradigm that a naturalistic explanation excludes God seems 
>> to be very firmly fixed in his mind.
>
>Yes, I have been convinced for a number of years that this is one of the 
>fundamental reasons why young-earth creationists reject much of modern 
>science.  The ICR guys do not seem to have a very well-developed 
>understanding of the biblical doctrine of God's providence.  Though they 
>would denounce deism as a heresy, they lean strongly toward it in their 
>own thinking.  This came out even more clearly in Gish's comments today 
>than I've heard it before.
>
Isn't deism the view that God does not interfere with the natural laws
governing the operation of the universe?  If that's correct, a deist would
strive for naturalistic explanations of all phenomena, and any attempt
to claim that God intervened would be anathema.  Gish on the other hand
appears to be saying that any naturalistic explanation at all leaves no
room for God. Now we know that Gish and other creationists have a
very pronounced "white man speak with forked tongue" syndrome - saying
one thing to one audience and something inconsistent to another.  In this 
forum Gish (almost certainly correctly) percieved that most of his audience
was Christians and took a strong interventionist position. In another
forum, such as one of the "debates" he likes to stage with scientists,
he might very well be accused of deism, since there the objective seems
to be to show that there are perfectly plausible (in his view) naturalistic
explanations which square with his interpretation of scripture.

In any case, this interview would provide some pretty effective
material for refuting his claim made in other forums that "Scientific"
Creationism is more plausible, purely on scientific grounds, than other
models. Here he pretty clearly says, "We need to destroy naturalistic
explanations so people can believe in God"

Comments?

Bill Hamilton
GM Research and Environment Staff

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kirk Bertsche    (bertsche@llnl.gov)    (510) 422-8139
>Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry
>Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>P.O. Box 808, L-397, Livermore, CA 94551
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:44:16 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Aug18.053325.17277@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
 
 
> To be honest, I never pay much attention to Holden's actual arguments

Ignorance is bliss...  lots of blissful people running around these days.


> If you want to look at how big an animal can be there are really two
> numbers that are meaningful -- the compression loading per unit area
> of the supporting limbs and the shear stress when the limbs are out of
> vertical alignment [for animals supported by their limbs].  


Wonderful.  These are two numbers which tell you a little bit about a 
creatures ability to bear weight once he's already got the weight up,
i.e. (here), once he's managed to stand in the first place.  You've
totally neglected the little problem of standing up in the first place.

Minor detail...

The Holden number gives you an idea as to the creatures ability to get that
weight up there in the first place.

Bones do not lift weight.  Muscle does.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Evolution is false
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:57:22 GMT

In <1992Aug13.133936@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>Step A> Evolution is false
>Step B>
>  .
>  .
>  .
>Step Z> Therefore creationism is true.

>  All you have to do is fill in Steps B through Y, you can even add more steps
>if you feel they are needed.  You are allowed to use the hypothesis that
>evolution is false to prove your case, but all other hypothesis are open to
>debate.

>  Any takers?

How about:
Step B> The Bible is the true Word of God
Step C> Therefore creationism is true.

Just playing the devil's advocate you understand.
The point is not that proof is the most important item to the
creationist world view.  It is an added extra to 
be benefited from but not absolutely necessary.  First premise
is that the Bible is true -- all else follows.  You can
never disprove an axiom.

In fact if something does not have proof, we can just wait long
enough and a scientist will surely discover it.  At some point
acheologists thought that Jericho was a myth and then when they 
discovered it, it was no surprise to Fundamentalists because they
already knew it to be true.

--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
emc@doe.carleton.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jerryg@ssd.intel.com (Jerry Gaiser)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division, Intel Corp.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:38:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.132442@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <2867@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>  And you've totally neglected the fact that there may be no need to stand up. 
>Can you give any evidence (snicker) that the seismosaur ever actually sat down? 
>Horses sleep on their feet, why not seismosaurs?

Just a nit. Horses do sleep standing up, but it is not R.E.M. sleep. They still need at
least one period of R.E.M. sleep and they get that by lying completely down. Though only
for short periods.

Now back to your regular programming...
-- 
Jerry Gaiser
         Usenet: jerryg@ssd.intel.com
        Fidonet: 1:105/380
           PBBS: n7pwf@n7pwf.or.usa.na
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:30:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.121440.24522@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>According to evolutionist thinking, whites and blacks can be
>considered two separate species.
 
Your statement is false.  All humans alive today are considered to be members
of one species.  Its name is _Homo sapiens_.

Try again.

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: JW's claim of a "Water Canopy"
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:10:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <6604@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes...
> 
>I've recently been reading a book called _The Waters Above_, by Joseph C.
>Dillow, Moody Press, 1981.  It purports to give a "scientific view" of
>the "earth's pre-flood vapor canopy."  
> 
>The basic thesis is that the above mentioned Water Canopy was actually
>a "vapor canopy" containing the equivalent of about 40 feet of water,
>held up by some sort of a massive temperature inversion.  The whole idea,
>of course, goes against all the physics I ever learned.
> 
>Does anyone know of any scholarly reviews of this book, or of any other
>books or publications like it?

Yes to the latter.  I have an article which is an example of a genuine
contribution to science published in a creationist publication.  It
is by Glenn R. Morton, titled "Can the Canopy Hold Water?", and appeared
in the _Creation Research Society Quarterly_, vol. 16, no. 3 (December
1979), pp. 164-169.  The abstract:

   Calculations of the surface temperature of the Earth with a water
   vapor canopy, under the assumption of radiative equilibrium, yield
   temperatures too high for life to exist.  Moreover, when the results
   about radiation are combined with the barometric law, only certain
   solutions to the physical description of the canopy are found to be
   possible for a given set of assumptions, and those solutions generally
   either lead to impossible environmental conditions or else do not
   fulfil the purpose for which the canopy was proposed.  It appears that
   some new thinking about the antediluvian climate, and the cause of the
   Flood, is due.

I bet your book doesn't cite this article.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Proving the existance of a deity (was Re: Mandatory negatives)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:40:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.133449.21750@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
}In article <1992Aug19.184353.776@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}    ...
}|> How about as particles of differing size are hydrostatically sorted
}|> into "bins" of their respective size/weight through hydraulic acton?
}|> 
}|> Are you so out of tune with reality that you've never looked at the sand on
}|> a beach?
}    ...
}   Sometimes (well, OK, often) I feel so stupid.  I've seen this point
}umpteen times, and it never clicked before.
}
}   The fossils were hydraulicly (or is it "hydrologically" -- could
}someone tell me?) sorted in the Flood.  So the creationists tell us.

}God could have performed a miracle to suspend the second
}law, and intervened in such a way as to sort them in an order which
}would give the impression that there was evolution.  Or maybe, he
}just allowed some intelligent malevolent force to intervene.

Right.  And he left this mysterious magic turned on even unto this day, and
it is so much of the background that nobody notices.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:54:26 GMT

In article <2864@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>Whoa!  Not quite. I've claimed that the squat is the closest thing in any
>sort of weight lifting event to the ordinary act of standing up, number one,
>and that the 27 Holden number for Kaz doing the 1000 lb squat is an upper
limit,
>more or less, for the world for creatures AS LARGE OR LARGER THAN Kaz.  
>
>Not for ANY creature.  Ants probably derive Holden numbers far above the 27
>I mention.  But you have to understand the manner in which every muscle in

  Ted, if you had read my post on the "vonRoeschlaub" number you would know that
the number is significantly lower for an ant than a human.  If we use an ant as
a stronger animal we actually get an upper limit of 275 lbs.

> And then there's the case for the ultrasaur.  Accepted weight figures are
> all around 360,000 lbs, Holden number of 71 or thereabouts.

  Could you give reference to one expert who has "accepted" this weight?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Felt effects of gravity
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:28:15 GMT

In article <weWSfqq00VAwM0ko1r@andrew.cmu.edu> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
}
}Question: what effect would the hypothetical lesser felt effect
}of gravity have on the flying creatures ?
}
}While the birds would have less weight, what would be the state of
}the atmosphere ? Would it be easier or more difficult for a bird of
}a given mass to fly ?

Fly?  Could the animals BREATH?  Would there be enough "felt gravity" to
hold the atmosphere long-term in the first place?


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Subject: Re: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:04:57 GMT

julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug4.065537.21319@sdf.lonestar.org> thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:
>>|In article <salem.712392603@pangea.Stanford.EDU> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
>>|
>
>>Unfortunately, there are no such aboslutes to be found, so they have to
>>clutch madly at thier imagined absolutes.
>>-- 
>>sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>>  or
>>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.co
>Hmmm, I am not sure what "no such" means but it is not obvious to me
>that there can be no absolutes in our unverse. Pi is a transcendental
>number seems a pretty absolute statement: or is it false for some
>other (arbitrarily different) life form somewhere.

Ahh, but do we know it exactly?

>The disucssion should be on whether calimed absolutes are such within 
>some realm of discussion. Certainly science does not claim to discover
>absolutes but the results of science might point to absolute quantities 
>in nature even if we only interact with them in some "relativistic" way.
>Within general relativity the interval between two events is an "absolute"
>quantity that is agreed upon by all observers. So here a scientific theory
>postulates the existence of an absolute.

Relativity states that the interval between two events is
NOT absolute.  It states that unless two observers are in the same frame of
reference, they will NEVER AGREE on exactly when two events happen.
>julian
>Talking about creation is like a dog walking on its hind legs:
>it is not so much that it does it badly as that it can be done at
>all.
>(Apologies to Johnson)


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Felt effects of gravity
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:31:29 GMT

In article <2862@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <weWSfqq00VAwM0ko1r@andrew.cmu.edu>, 
>  ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
>> 
>> Question: what effect would the hypothetical lesser felt effect
>> of gravity have on the flying creatures ?
>
>I'll repost my article on antediluvian flight shortly.  The effect was that
>300+ lb creatures flew in those days, including a 200 lb modern bird, in
>all likelihood a type of eagle (the Argentine teratorn).

Oh good.  I think what he might have been thinking is if the felt effect of
gravity was less then the air density would be less so birds would probably
have to be *lighter* to fly (or at any rate, have huge wings and little bodies).

>In the present age of the world, Mongols and other central asians have been
>trying to breed eagles (berkuts) for size and strength for at least 2000
>years, and cannot get them over a limit of around 25 lbs.  At that point
>they begin to experience difficulty taking off from flat ground, especially
>after a full meal.

People have been overeating for years.  Even after *centuries* of this,
few people have attained over 1000lbs of weight.  Those who did were
unable to move.  This is proff that *NO* *LIVING* *THING* can be heavier
than half a ton, reports about Elvis notwithstanding.

>Today, birds over 40 lbs have vestigial wings.

...and it would seem that some humans have vestigial brains.  Yes Ted, this is a
personal attack.  I *really* want to get into the hit list you post
every now and then.  How come dumb ol' Meritt is in there 50 bazillion
times and I ain't?  I'll sue!

>Ted Holden
>HTE
He Taunts Everyone

C "What about footprint depths?" Frog
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Date: 19 Aug 92 09:01:38 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <639l03ot62RF00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>>Which brings us right back to a question I asked you some time ago
>>(on three separate occasions in June), namely whether or not you
>>believe that the teaching of a `scientific' creation theory in school
>>science classes should be legally mandatory.
>
>Science should be taught in science class, but exactly, what is
>a comprehensive definition of science and what you can teach in
>school? From reading t.o, one would get the impression that 
>creationists never "do" science. I must and do disagree with this
>statement most vehemently. The "Creation ex nihilo Technical Journal"
>published in Australia and available through the ICR contains 
>articles of creation science, and the research performed. Now, 
>anyone can claim they aren't "doing" science, but making such a 
>claim in no way takes away from the fact that they are "doing"
>science.

Sigh.
You're ducking again. The issue wasn't whether creationists do science
(though I personnally would have to question that science, since it's
produced by somebody who obviously has a somewhat twisted sense of
observations, proof, and objectivity), but whether creationism (or 'the
theory of creationism' - ha!) should be taught in science classes.
So?

>
>>The only answer you would give back then was
>
>>> I haven't changed my mind at all.
>
>I still haven't.
>
>>but you declined to say from what position you hadn't changed it.
>
>It seems to me as time passes, we get further and further away from
>God in just about everything. Last weekend I had a spare ten minutes
>while I ate lunch and turned on the TV. I couldn't find much to 
>watch but ended up watching one of those Father Flanagan Boys Town
>movies with Mickey Roonie. I don't know when that movie was filmed,
>(in the 40s?), but it reminded me how different "religion" was
>perceived at that time. As time continues, it seems as though God
>is cut out of more and more, including science and the classroom

This implies "yes, creationism should be taught in science classes", but
it is still a bit ambiguous... care to clear this issue?
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: talk.origins