HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 13 Sep 92 05:13:31 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <6@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|
|The conception described above is straight from lalaland.  Let me explain.
| ...
|Were a sauropod's neck and tail to be permanently help up and supported
|by such a system, then he would die of thirst within one more day than
|as many days as he could go without water;  he would not be able to lower 
|his neck to drink.

Grrk.    Maybe you should read some texts on biomechanics.

There are *two* factors that conuteract this 'limitation'.

First - the sort of tendons in question here are *elastic*, that is they
	can be *stretched*, and they will snap back to thier original
	length.  This allows the animal to pull the head and neck down
	by muscle action, and then let the elasticity of the tendons pull
	it back up.

Second - the system is double beamed.  Lowering the neck can be compensated
	for by raising the tail, and vice-versa; sort of like a teeter-
	totter.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:55:19 GMT

In article <79161@ut-emx.uucp>, bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
writes:
> To give the proof in detail: Grab yer Bible (KJV, Natch!).
> Turn to Psalm 46. Count 46 words from the beginning of
> the psalm. You will find the word 'shake.' Count 46 words
> from the end of the psalm. You will find the word 'spear.'
> William Shakespeare was 46 years old on January 1, 1611
> (the year the KJV was published). ERGO, he was the author
> of the Bible.

  By the way, that probably was done on purpose (though more likely by a fan
then by Shakespeare himself).  This is pretty clear when one looks at the
liberties taken with translation to move the words to the correct positions
(most obvious is the translating of "Let its waters foam" as "though the waters
thereof roar and be troubled" giving an extra three words just with the
extension of "foam") and that spear is in the plural in hebrew, and is unlikely
to have been translated in the singular for no reason.

  Yes, I am aware I am about to get jumped on by the King James literalists.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:04:18 GMT

In article <18nmahINN50r@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>You can say `fearfully and wonderfully created', but what does it mean?
>At best, it strikes me as groveling syncophancy, due to a vision of god
>born of Roman and feudal times.  God is not limited to human manners of
>governance and behavior: treating him as a king is probably due to antique
>cultural biases.  Treating him as chairman of the board is similarly
>unjustifiable.  You are guilty of making your god too small.

How about submissive displays toward a super-dominant individual?  Consider
that acts of worship typically include some form of body lowering and the
offering of various goods.  The gods are super-dominant by virtue of the
fact that they elicit this response even though they remain unseen.

Don't gods function as super-parents?  They dispense rewards and punishments
and are often addressed in parental terms.  Could this be due to human
neoteny?  Since we retain juvenile traits into adulthood, why not the need
for a super-parent to maintain discipline?

-- Herb Huston
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti's word
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:12:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep4.110648.27448@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> 	"Juoksutututtaa" => To make someone to make someone to run. How do you
> 	translate with one word ?

What has one word to do with many words? We are still expressing
the same idea, one word or eight words? I'm sure there are
things in English that we could express in one word, where we
need many in Finnish. But I still don't see the logic.

Anyway, what has all this to do with evolution or creation anyway,
did God created Finnish for just Finns, and gave the rest of the
human population far worse languages? Why is Finnish so different
to the rest of the European languages, maybe it has something to
do with tribes in Asia, or what? And nothing at all with Biblical
events.

Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tyre@selkirk.sfu.ca (Richard Tyre)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Evolution
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:49:08 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>Here's another theory of the evolution of homosexuality.

>1. Humans or some human ancestor evolved a harem form of sexuality.
>A dominant male ruled the females.  The surplus males went off
>into the bush.  Harem societies are common in animals in which
>the male is substantially larger than the female.

>2. As intelligence advanced, or maybe just arms capable of carrying
>food to a camp, it became possible for females to stay in one place
>while males foraged.  This permitted larger families than those in
>which the female has to carry the young till they can keep up.

>3. This made the labor of the excess males useful, and what evolved
>was their feminization and sexual domination by the dominant male.
>If this is correct, the primary form of homsexuality is the
>domination of adolescents by adult males.

>4. Tribes of this kind would be defeated by tribes in which every
>male was a warrior.  Homosexuality was then biologically suppressed
>but only incompletely.

>Could this theory be tested?  Perhaps if there were enough
>catastrophes killing whole families and fossils could be obtained,
>the age and sex distribution would tell the tale.

Good luck on that one. I think that a cross cultural analysis would be more
likely to work. I also think that the answer to this problem is more likely
to lie in the realm of psychology rather than evolutionary biology. It is
an oversimplification of the problem to assume that a significant 
proportion of homosexual behaviour is genetically determined. It is a complex
behaviour by an *extremely* complex animal, in a complex social environment.
Plenty of opportunities for otherwise adaptive behaviour (reproductive activity)
to be expressed in non-adaptive ways. I use non-adaptive here in the 
restricted sense that homosexual behaviour fails to transfer ones genes to the
next generation. This only pushes the question back into the realm of nature
or nuture, and my opinion is that many human behaviours have a large component
of "nuture" in them. Not all, certainly, but some.

Drew Tyre
Behavioural Ecology Research Group
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, BC
tyre@sfu.ca
   

 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:43:29 GMT

In article <25912@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <9qhn+lf.alc@netcom.com>, alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen) writes...
>>believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>>> How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
>>> Pagan teaching from our schools?  [...]
>> 
>>Welcome, Brave Christian Warrior to the fight against the
>>logic of man.  I recommend three steps to join the battle:
>> 
>>1. Contact the Institute for Creation Research (I can supply the address...
>>2. Contact the Tychonian Society (I can supply the address if you want...
>>3. Contact the Flat Earth Society (I don't have the address handy, but...
>
>4. Vote Bush/Quayle '92.

What role, if any, did Bill Clinton play in the events leading up to the
Arkansas trial?

-- Herb Huston
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:59:49 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Sep8.164007@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.142406.24207@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
>writes:
>> In article <1992Sep2.130157.3954@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
>writes:
>> }In article <dkristof.715431601@hq> dkristof@Pt.hq.af.mil (Capt Dave Kristof)
>writes:
>> }>For you Creationists out there, a simple question:
>> }>
>> }>What is the purpose of mankind?  
>> }
>> }To worship God.
>> 
>> Why?
>
>	More to the point, what is this omnipotent/omniscient being that he
>needs something like me to worship him?  Is the THAT insecure?

It is the evolutionary philosophy which conditions you into saying
`something like me'. You, yes _you_ are made in God's image - can
I say `fearfully and wonderfully created'? Anyhow, God has decided
that He wishes us to relate to Him in a personal way - to love Him
and worship him. If you want to question this, ask Him yourself.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:26:12 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <2895@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|
|Not for any length of time.  Scientists are now claiming that sauropods
|carried their necks low, nearly horizontal, ALL the time, because they
|could not have gotten blood to their brains otherwise.

WRONG!  They are claiming that certain sauropods - mainly the diplodocids,
carried thier necks horizontally based on the *structure* of the *joints*!
In a diplodocid the neck vetebrae are articulated to the back in such a way
as to preclude raising the neck much above the back.

The vertebrae of brachiosaurids have *different* articulation, that makes
the vertical position the neutral one.

A combination of a four-chambered heart and arterial assists in the neck
(just like a giraffe) are quite sufficient, thank-you, to provide blood
to the head.

|Try holding a 20 lb weight horizontally out from your body for thirty
|seconds, either from the shoulder or from the hip with elbow bent, it 
|doesn't matter.  Picture holding that weight out like that for the rest
|of your life.

*We* need to use muscles to do this because we are not built for this
type of thing.   A sauropod with rigidly articulated vertebrae and, more
important, massive elastic tendons along the neck does *not* need to use
muscles to hold the head up, the tendons do this on thier own.  It would
take active muscle contraction to *lower* the neck to ground level.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:20:55 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  I would be interested in your explaining how this is a "specific argument that
>you think is impressive from that book".  Or are you doing the usual "that isn't
>the question you asked, but the question I chose to answer" game again.  Will
>you please give at least one _specific_ example of how the book disproves some
>_specific_ part of Evolution that is not a misquote, misrepresentation, or blank
>assertion.

	It doesn't have that approach - it doesn't get deeply to any questions,
	that is what I wanted to say. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Holden
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:18:15 GMT


Why the arguing?  The chance of changing Ted's mind on anything is so close to
zero as to be indistinguishable from it.  You just give him a chance to
exercise his skills of obscenity and insult.  Observable facts have had no
discernable impact.  Forget it.

Just post once the stuff that shows the humerous delusional nature of his
garbage to keep innocent and ignorant readers from being taken in by the
foolishness.  Q.E.D.



-- 
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
From: Cliff.Fleming@iphase.UUCP (Cliff Fleming)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Burden of proof
Date: 10 Sep 92  23:09:00 EST

Mr. Colby,
       It would seem your opponent in the good old creationism/evolution debate has gotten a little hot under the collar. How entertaining. However, a veteran of many such arguments, I would like to suggest a tactic really infuriate your theistic opponent. Shift the burden of proof to him.
       An erroneous presumption on the part of most theists is that they are exempt from being forced to prove their side of the argument. They simply look for potential flaws or shortcomings in the evolution argument and arbitrarily assume that their side is correct by default.
        It usually comes as a surprise when one challenges them to prove their side. In order to prove creationism, they must be able to prove the existance of their deity through the same rational format that they demand of their opponents. I have yet to find a Christian who can even offer a rational definition of his god.
      An excellent book for use in challenging the theistic arguments is:
       ATHEISM - THE CASE AGAINST GOD
       1979 by George H. Smith
       Prometheus Books.
       Library of Congress # 79-2726
                                         Hope You Enjoy,
                                         Cliff Fleming

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Request for book reviews
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:41:32 GMT

In <10SEP199215275767@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>In article <6914@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes...
>> 
>>Does anyone know of any reviews of the following books?
>> 
>>Six-day creationist:
>> 
>>    Phillip E. Johnson, _Darwin On Trial_, Regnery  Gate-
>>    way, Washington, DC, 1991.

>     _Nature_ 352(8 Aug 1991):485-486 and 354(14 Nov 1991):101
>     _NCSE Reports_ 11(Winter 1991):4-5 (a Johnson talk reviewed, not
>       the book)

>     I don't have references handy but I know both _Christianity Today_
>and _National Review_ gave it positive reviews.  (Reviewers for all of
>the above were David Hull for _Nature_, Jonathan Marks for _NCSE Reports_,
>J.P. Moreland (and others, I think) for _Christianity Today_, and Doug
>Bandow for _National Review_.)  I know Thomas Jukes has reviewed it
>somewhere (maybe in the NCSE Bookwatch publication) and _First Things_
>did a Philip Johnson symposium in the Oct and Nov 1990 issues (in which
>_First Things_ editor Matthew Berke gave a really terrible argument
>against naturalism/materialism/determinism).

For a negative review, see "Impeaching a self-appointed judge" by
Stephen J. Gould in Scientific American (July, 1992) Book Review.
Basically a condemnation of the author's knowledge (lack of) of
Biology.

--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics
Carleton University	
Ottawa, Ont., Canada	
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: samuel@cs.cornell.edu (S. Weber)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:43:30 GMT

In article <2895@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <Bu2AwE.1Cu@encore.com>, bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:
> 
>> I've been to the Zoo Ted. Giraffes are able to bend their heads down.
>> I've seen it! Wow!  
>
>Not for any length of time.  Scientists are now claiming that sauropods
>carried their necks low, nearly horizontal, ALL the time, because they
>could not have gotten blood to their brains otherwise.
>
>Try holding a 20 lb weight horizontally out from your body for thirty
>seconds, either from the shoulder or from the hip with elbow bent, it 
>doesn't matter.  Picture holding that weight out like that for the rest
>of your life.

Okay, Ted, try to walk on all fours, with your hands and feet on the ground
(not hands and knees).  Uncomfortable?  Try looking ahead when you are doing
so.  Finding it difficult?  Picture doing so for the rest of your life.

But, consider that dogs and cats do exactly that all their lives!
Incredible, but true!  Can you explain how they do this?   Is it because
   1) There is a reduced felt effect of gravity underneath all cats and
     dogs?
or 2) Dogs and cats are have their limbs constructed differently, so that
       they can do things that humans cannot?  Similarly, giraffes and
       dinosaurs can do things that we cannot because they are constructed
       differently.

Well, Ted?

>Ted Holden
>HTE

-- 
   -- Sam Weber                   "I never think of money,
                                   I think of milk and honey,
   samuel@cs.cornell.edu           Grinnin' like a cheshire cat!"
                                       --Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Re: Thank you, Antti, for discussing things.
Keywords: Antti, evolution, creation, holistic, Menem, Norrblad
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 19:10:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.101512.25753@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Yes, you have much sense. Science is your faith, and it used to be mine,
>	too. I found, however, most scientific talk idle and speculating. If 

	If you think science is faith, then you don't understand science.

>	In spite of doing hard research to find possible survival methods, 
>	scientists use their time to empty speculations. I don't say that ALL 

	In the realm of the future unknown, it is impossible to know what will
eventually help us and what will not.

>	I'm only scared of one thing in t.o : Speculative, scientific talk. I 
>	can do it myself, too, but I HATE it so much I don't want to talk like
>	that. 

	If you are not going to engage in 'speculative, scientific talk' then
I sincerely request that you leave this newsgroup. If you're not even going
to try and explain your specific (nonreligious) objections to evolution, then
please try other newsgroups.
	I don't care if you have *religious* objections to evolution, I'm only
concerned about those who think that evolution is not justified in its own
realm of science.

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

Rob Zuber
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:43:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.211611.4008@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <2900@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep8.061806.3949@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>  
>> Sue Bishop is either VERY stupid, or a liar, possibly both.  I have never
>> made ANY of the above statements.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ted Holden
>> HTE
>> 
>
>OK, group, did or did NOT Ted say that giraffes have high blood pressure?
>And Ted, you DID say that a new born horse cannot run.  Sorry I didn't save
>it but I'm sure someone else can verify it.  And you also said a year or
>two ago that anything over 125 pounds on a horse was a 'handicap', a mis-
>information about horse racing, actually.
>
>Sue

I remember all of these. 

-- 

Frank Doss 
The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions,
attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affilliated organizations.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:51:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.101721.25905@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>>Many of us on t.o have read this book.  We are not impressed.
>
>	Please, explain !

	I get it. Antti just has to name the title of a book and it's our
responsibility to spend time invalidating the whole thing.
	Just pick one specific argument that you think is impressive from
that book and we'll start from there.

Rob Zuber