HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Waiting for Ted to Answer
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:24:23 GMT


   Since we seem to be experiencing a rather lengthy Holdenian infestation
this time, let me ask The Inimitable One one question that he has refused to
answer previously.  A question of utmost relevance to the life's work of Ted's
role model, Velikovsky.

   To put this question forward in its appropriate perspective, let us
look at one of the defining moments in the life of Velikovsky [1].

       "Velikovsky was driving in a stock car race one day against his
	dreaded arch-nemesis, Carl Sagan.  As they neared the final ten
	laps, Velikovsky had a comfortable lead, but his gas tank was
	nearly dry.  Pulling in for a quick pit stop, Velikovsky was met
	by his good pal and pit chief, Albert Einstein.  'Mushogim
	[literally my crazy little buddy--ed.],' Einstein said, 'Ach du
	lieber [literally, my liebers ache--ed.], I forgot to fill the pit
	tank with gas, and it's empty.  We can't fill you up.'

       "Velikovsky was noplussed and calmy turned to his lifelong
	bud.  'Have no fear, my tassle-haired friend.  Do you have any
	WonderBread (tm)?'

       "'But, of course,' replied Einstein.

       "Velikovsky commanded, 'Rip the WonderBread into itty-bitty bits,
	and shove it in my gas tank.'

       "Einstein stared dumbfounded and declared, 'Mushogim, that's not
	a bad idea.  The problem is that it's crazy [Einstein was always
	joshing with his good pal Velikovsky like this--ed.].  Stock cars
	don't run on WonderBread; they run on gasoline.'

       "To which Velikovsky replied, 'Hydrocarbons, carbohydrates--
	what's the difference?'"

   I guess my question to you, Inimitable One, is exactly the same
question Velikovsky was never able to get a handle on...

	"HYDROCARBONS, CARBOHYDRATES--What's the difference?"

Just curious.

[1] C. Ginenthal, _The Winston-Salem 500: Why Velikovsky (REALLY) Hates Sagan_,
    We Make It Up As We Go Along Press, PLC, London-Paris-Mu, 1965, pp. 176.

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:45:13 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <62899@mimsy.umd.edu> folta@cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes:
>>How about stuff like meteoric dust, the decay of the earth's magnetic
>>field, Archaeopteryx is classed as bird, the recession of the moon, 
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>and other classic young-earth creationist drivel.
>
>> [......]

Perhaps I should have explained this in more detail, but I think
I may have done too explaining already :-) .

What I meant is that _The Collapse of the Evolution Theory_ uses
the simple-minded argument that, because biologists class
Archaeopteryx as a bird, it cannot have been a transitional form.
This act of classification is supposed to somehow knock off
evolutionary arguments that the *structural* intermediacy of
Archaeopteryx also implies temporal intermediacy.

The creationist argument is ridiculous because biologists have to
put the thing into *some* class -- and the two closest classes
are birds and reptiles.  Given the two choices, which would
you choose?  Others have posted a list of the features common to
birds and reptiles, which should show you that the question is
nowhere as simple as most creationists would like you to believe.
The material you quoted from _Evolution: A Theory In Crisis_ and
_Darwin on Trial_ shows that Archaeopteryx *had* intermediate
structural features.  All that material shows is that there is no
proof in the *lawyerly* sense that structural intermediacy implies
a transitional form.  As you quote from _Darwin On Trial_:
>
>   Archaeopteryx is an impressive mosaic. The question is whether
>   it is proof of a reptile (dinosaur) to bird transition,
	  ^^^^^
The recent hooplah about Sankar Chatterjee's Protoavis shows
there are many questions left to be answered.

>So is disagreement on Archaeopteryx "drivel" or is it not as clear as the
>previous poster made it out to be?

The significance of Archaeopteryx is not universally agreed
upon, but it is drivel to claim that because it's classed as a
bird it has no significance at all.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Permission denied.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:37:02 GMT

In article <728gVB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>To all the people who were too lazy or cheap to get hold of the
>book Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, here's some news: Dr.
>Richard Thompson will not give permission to copy the chapter on
>information theory.

Apparently, TANSTAAFL is an ancient Vedic principle.

>If you want the book, you'll have to buy it or borrow it.

All my hopes of enlightenment have been dashed.  Darn!

>Meanwhile, look for his new book Forbidden Archaeology, coming soon.

Available from Sue, your friendly Time-Life operator.

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hydrocarbon, carbohydrate   |
      |                           Hydrocarbon, carbohydrate   |
      |                           Hydrocarbon, hydrocarbon    |
      |                           Carbohydrate, carbohydrate  |
       -------------------------------------------------------


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: bell-peter@yale.edu (Peter Bell)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Powered flight
Date: 13 Dec 1992 14:47:04 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <5011@equinox.unr.edu> malc@pyramid.unr.edu (Malcolm L. Carlock) writes:
>In article <158@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>|> Take wings, for example.  A wing in anything other than its fully developed
>|> form would be a terrible disadaptation.

As we some people see it.  However, bees are unable to fly according to 
certain aerodynamic calculations.  Since the answer was obviously wrong, 
people thought about what they had missed.

Similarly with flying-- powered flight has arisen at least 5 times in the 
Metazoans.  In the insects, in teleost fish, in reptiles at least twice 
(pterosaurs and birds, possibly more depending on the diphyly/monophyly of 
some of these groups) and in mammals (once if bats are monophyletic, twice 
if the Megachiroptera are distinct from the Microchiroptera.  I tend to 
support monophyly on this, but there is a debate going on currently).  I am 
sure I have left off known examples.  

given that number of independent instances of flight, the scientific approach
to the data is to say, "we do not understand enough about the origin of 
flight and how wings can evolve relatively gradually" and then to begin 
reexamining the aerodynamics and ecology of wing-like structures that do not 
support flight.  this is being done.  

Or, we can say, "we *now* know so much about form and function that we can
definitively take the fact of powered flight as evidence for direct creation
of flighted forms, since we have faith in the creator."  That is lovely, 
but it is no way to do science.  We might as well just publish the last 
issue of all the biology, physics and chemistry journals now, each with 
one article reading "things work the way they do because they were created
that way.  We are abandoning the cultural elite and the old spelling of 
potatoe now, and are on our way to monasteries to meditate on the Glory of 
His Works.  Oh, and the doctors want to come with us--if you get sick, well,
pray you get well.  His will be done."



(yes, in the teleost fish--there is a fish, I forget the species now, which 
is capable of using its enlarged pectoral fins in a flapping manner for short
distances, on the order of 20 feet, as an augment to jumping out of the water.)
-- 
Peter					Deficit solution:  eat the rich,
bell@minerva.cis.yale.edu		seize their estates, repeat as needed
Is it conceivable that I could be speaking on behalf of Yale University?
Please, if you think so, send me 20 dollars.  I will be *your* spokesman too
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 17 Dec 1992 04:48:50 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <Z2XuVB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
> O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
> processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
> many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
> for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
> universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
> moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
> out of nothing.

Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.

jon.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:15583 comp.ai.philosophy:7084
From: chris@eso.mc.xerox.com (Chris Heiny)
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monst
Reply-To: chris@eso.mc.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:25:27 GMT

In article 178@fedfil.UUCP, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In one of Throop's recent massive disgorgings across t.o, we see:
>
>^Further, Ted (and Ginenthal) make much of how much heat energy is
>^consumed by raising the atmosphere, while ignoreing how much heat is
>^released when it falls back.  
>
>T.o regulars have taken me to task for using the colloqueal "heat rises", 
>rather than saying that heated air rises.  But "heat falls back"?
>
>See what I mean?  Sad, isn't it?

Ted, you put the phrase 'heat falls back' in double quotes.  However,
it is a paraphrase (and an inaccurate one at that), and does not appear
anywhere in the referenced article.

Throop's mistake is in using the 'it' pronoun.  Most people could recognize
that the 'it' referred to the atmosphere of the previous sentence, but some
folks have trouble with those semantics (or else wilfully misinterpret things
out of malice or fear), and think (or pretend) that the 'it' refers to the
heat of the current sentence.

A better construction of the paragraph, written without ambiguous pronouns,
would be:
	Further, Ted (and Ginenthal) make much of how much heat
	energy is consumed by raising the atmosphere, while 
	ignoring how much heat is released when the atmosphere 
	falls back.

This paragraph contains an additional ambiguity, which some people may
accidentally (or maliciously) misinterpret.  This is the reference to
'the atmosphere' when in reality the entire atmosphere does not rise/fall back,
but rather it is portions of the atmosphere that do the rising/falling, in
the well known and well described convective circulation.

Eliminating this ambiguity, we get:
	Further, Ted (and Ginenthal) make much of how much heat 
	energy is consumed as a mass of gasses within the 
	Venusian atmosphere rises, while ignoring how much heat 
	is released as that mass of atmospheric gasses 
	falls back toward the Venereal surface.

This should eliminate the saddening confusion that you suffered from as a
result of the Throop's original posting.

						Chris

PS Any luck with the Holden Wing Efficiency Coefficient?
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Message to Mickey Rowe
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:11:43 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

(I was going to mail this, but I've lost Mickey's address and his
articles have expired here.)

Cool articles on evolution of color vision. 

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: chris@xerox.com (Chris Heiny 73186 - SETA)
Subject: Re: "Evolutionary Biology"
Reply-To: chris@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 14:11:11 GMT

In article 1@woods.ulowell.edu, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>I'd like to thank Andy Peters for recommending the book "Evolutionary Biology"
>by Douglas J. Futuyma.  I skimmed through it and found some pretty good stuff. 

Skimming is probably the right word.  How about sitting down and READING it?

>Consider this:
>     "The most immediate impact of _The Origin of Species_ was to provide
>      a conceptual framework for the study of comparative morphology, 
>      descriptive embryology, paleontology, and biogeography, for the
>      'relationships' among organisms were now understood to mean common
>      ancestry rather than affinity in the scheme of creation (such as 
>      _Scala Naturae_)."
>                       pp. 8-9
>
>So what he's saying is that by assuming evolution, the above studies can be
>interpreted to support evolution.  This is a far cry from proving evolution.

I don't see the word proof in there.  Do you see the word proof in there?  What
he is saying is that TOoS provided a different basis for several fields of study,
founding them on the 'relationships' (based on common ancestry) between animals
rather than founding them on philosophical concepts like Scala Naturae.
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 00:37:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.130553.20138@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
>evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
>effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
>world and of themselves.

Yes, honesty isn't always pleasant and often takes a great deal of effort.

I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
universe coming together in such a way to create me.  Such an occurrance
seemed wildly improbable.  Then I realized that, had all circumstances
not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
probability are meaningless.  The probability of my existence, given that
I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption

>I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
>the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
>seek Him.

Nothing has ever motivated me to avoid the Creator as much as
Fundamentalist religion.  I still don't see how anyone could ever
have any respect for anyone or anything that killed people just
because they refused to worship him.  Feeling the hate coming from so
many so-called Christians doesn't help, either.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:54:40 GMT

In article <178@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <724484088@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
> In one of Throop's recent massive disgorgings across t.o, we see:
> 
> ^Further, Ted (and Ginenthal) make much of how much heat energy is
> ^consumed by raising the atmosphere, while ignoreing how much heat is
> ^released when it falls back.  
> 
> T.o regulars have taken me to task for using the colloqueal "heat rises", 
> rather than saying that heated air rises.  But "heat falls back"?

  Ted, please reread the paragraph.  The last "it" most likely referrs to the
atmosphere, not the heat.

> See what I mean?  Sad, isn't it?

  Quite so, when I think how much energy you waste here rather than spending it
on something actually usefull.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: comparing theories
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:25:25 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <1992Dec15.140325.4331@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> >The fact of common descent and the
> >details of phylogeny are inferences, i.e. conclusions drawn from data.
> 
> Since when has common descent been established as a fact? It is merely
> a theory, and a poor one at that.

   That does it.  I'm going to have my friend tell on you.  We sent you the
evidence.  Not only that, my friend and colleague Kurt vonRoeschlaub is going
to put that little gem into forTun.  What else can we do?  No, really, I'd
like a suggestion.

   While I was reading the story in the paper about 1100 people in India being
killed in religious rioting someone sent me e-mail taking me to task for
flaming Lionel because Lionel's God was the God of love:  after the nausea from
the irony faded it occured to me; we have to find a way of dealing with
Lionel's way of thinking or we may have this shit in the west too.

   It's not reliegion, it's human stupidity, and Lionel is a gonzo perfect test
case.
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: comparing theories
Date: 16 Dec 1992 02:11:54 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec15.140325.4331@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>The fact of common descent and the
>>details of phylogeny are inferences, i.e. conclusions drawn from data.
>
>Since when has common descent been established as a fact? It is merely
>a theory, and a poor one at that.

	Please read what Chris said, Lionel. He said that Common Descent
and Phylogeny are INFERENCES based on DATA, that is, reproducable
emperical observations, and a readily communicatable system of
biological description based on these data or facts. The idea that
Common Descent can be regarded as factual is due to the large correspondance
of the emperical facts with the inference to be drawn that the systematics
of biology suggest common descant, a structure of relationships that look
like common ancestory. This is quite different from the theory used to
explain the inference. Now, if you know any history of Biology, you would
know that there have been contendors for this explaination, other than
the one proposed by Darwin.

	Now, as you are want to make destinctions between facts, data,
theories, and proofs, I might observe that science does not offer proofs
of the type you might demand. It also doesn't deal with the personal
beliefs and emotions you would have mistakenly called "Data", as many
have done in this group, which come from reading the Bible, or from
a religiously directed life. If you wanted to offer something critical
you might offer an epistamology for your factual statements.

Bruce Salem
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Picture of God *NOT* (was Re: Speed of Light *NOT* Constant)
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:52:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <w28uVB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
   writes:

>Your local public library probably has a photograph of God.

Kalki, I still haven't checked in that book yet.  Would you care to
tell me what page it's on?  As I said before, the only photograph I've
seen in it is a photo of Bhaktivedanta.  Is he *your* God?

I resubmit my claim and offer.  I think that Kalki make the claim that
there is a photo of god as a ruse to get people to look at their
propaganda.  If one of you Kalki really think that there is a photo in
the book that you sent me to and that this photo is convincing
evidence of God's existance (as you claimed earlier) then tell me what
photo it is.  I think I can get it converted to GIF or JPEG relatively
easy around here (heck, xv was written right down the street from
me...)  So, Kalki, put up or shut up.

>Kalki Dasa

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Talk.Origins Wrestling Federation
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:59:10 GMT

Considering we had Jim Merrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttt
challenging Ted to hand-to-hand combat (or was it Ted challenged Jim?)
'bout a year ago, this could be truer than you think.....
--
==Steve Watson: watson@sce.carleton.ca===Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario==
| The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on   |
| this group for the past month.  Not only is it not Carleton's opinion, it's |
| not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions!   |
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ragnarok Is Nigh! Be Ware!
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92  18:53:00

 > I've given much thought on if I should join the side of the
 > Giants,
 > and live the life of a food animal for a year or so before they
 > eat me, or join the side of the Gods, and die by being hacked
 > into
 > tiny bits of bloody pieces. . . . Damned if yah do, damned if
 > yah don't.

 > What I want to know is, how does Loki manage to survive?!

He's the referee.

Actually the best way to enter asgardianism is to join the dwarves. Then you
stay out of the controversy and sell weapons to both sides :)


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Fight idolatry, burn a   |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| flag today.              | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
|                          | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
|                          | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins