HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Score Card
Date: 14 Oct 92 07:13:14 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag: Scott H Mullins (smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu)
And: news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden)
And: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
 
TH> "I've no intention of wasting any more of my time 
TH> writing new responses to your bullshit. In the one 
TH> similar case on t.o, namely that of Meritt, I've 
TH> simply retained one or two standard posts which, 
TH> to any reasonable observer, CLEARLY show the guy 
TH> for what he is, and that is what I intend to do 
TH> with YOU."
 
SHM> "That's +12 for Peter. Way to go!"
 
Ted is just sore because he is not invited to the regular
weekly "t.o. regulars" orgy, where all those cute, cold-
on-the-outside-but-oh-so-seething-volcano-on-the-inside 
women geologists and biologist loose their inhibitions
and their car keys.
 
The last male creationist that was invited (wasn't Ted)
didn't have any fun, because he was suffering from Reduced 
Felt Effect of Potency.
 
SHM> Scott
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Running up the score on Colby (why pick on him? Salem's cool!)
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:41:23 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <69@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

And the winners of the Gut-Buster Awards are:

> Bruce B. Salem:
For general comments.
> Jim Merritt:
Also for general comments.

> R. Day:
for interesting word constructs
> 
>         In other words, we can just get Bales, the wonder doof, to quit
>           posting.

and > Chris Colby: for this gem:
>         Not content to be merely ignorant, Luis tries his hand at
>          stupidity and dishonesty...

> -- 
> Ted Holden
> HTE

Mr T Holden is penalised a triple loss for failing to see possible humour
in his own post.

-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
	+-----------------------------------------------------+
     ---|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |---
	+-----------------------------------------------------+
...and you're starin' at me, like I, like I need to be saved!.. Soundgarden
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:31:32 GMT

In article <1527@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.173948.15843@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
>klein@frith.egr.msu.edu (Jeffrey Klein) writes:
>>
>>Aha!  Another proponent of the Once-Hollow Earth Theory(tm)!
>>(Not to be confused with the Church of Last Wednesdayism.)
>
>Why does the Earth have to be hollow for it to be larger?

Yeah, it could just be less dense.  Let us take an example.  Take Ted
Holden.  If we made him bigger he would be less dense (i.e. smarter).
Of course then he would be too big to move (his Holden #) and wouldn't 
be able to post to the net.  Luckily he wouldn't want to because he 
would know that the number was bogus (being smarter and all).

>Mark

C Frog - getting his Expandotron (tm) ready.
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Date: 11 Oct 92 06:26:25 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <BRUCE.92Oct9114117@suprenum.uxb.liv.ac.uk>
bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:

>> On 8 Oct 92, amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) said:
>>
>> Right, but wrong.  Whilest the gravity at a distance n away from the center
>> of either sphere will be the same, because the big Earth has a larger
>> radius the *surface* gravity of the expanded Earth will be less than the
>> *surface* gravity of the normal Earth.
>
>> All we need is an Earth with twice the radius and the surface gravity
>> is only 25% of what it is now.  Are you listening Ted?
>
>Doesn't this idea make the Flood much more difficult?  After all, now
>we've got 4 times the surface area to cover.  If we can work out some
>Flood explanation (after all, we don't need to work out every little
>detail to make it a better theory than the normal Uniformitarian
>bulls**t)...

Yes, flooding is more difficult if the larger Earth is as mountainous
as the present Earth.  Of coarse, if the Earth were more smooth then
it would be much easier to cover with the current water supply.  A
colapsing Earth may not collapse uniformly thus creating some of the
geography of today.

Mark

-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Well, Holden?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:37:32 GMT

In article <74@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}In article <1992Oct13.162548.5783@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}*Subject: Re: Direct question for Holden
}*
}*In article <1992Sep30.161451.9854@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
}*}
}*}You claim to have a unique and totally accurate understanding of various
}*}astronomical, physical, biological, and chemical T/S "events" that differ
}*}from the accepted norm by a substantial degree.  Could you please specify
}*}how you acquired this raw data and your qualifications for evaluating the
}*}material?
}*
}*How many more weeks are needed for your response?
}
}I feel myself under no obligation TO respond to liars.

Very well.  You do not have a unique and totally accurate understanding of
various astronomical, physical, biological, and chemical T/S "events" that
differ from the accepted norm by a substantial degree.  Could you please
specify why you claim to anyway?

Better?

Xref: sparky talk.origins:13044 alt.atheism:19116
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A Theory of Creation (first draft)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 03:35:13 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
Keywords: creationist God LORD Darwin fish chips wood carpenter

bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:

>So where's the scientific theory?  A theory that merely states
>"We exist and God did it" does not count.  'Tain't scientific.
>There's got to be abundant evidence, falsifiability, predictions
>and verifiability.  I saw no evidence (most evidence contradicts
>creationism); falsifiability was tossed out the window in favor
>of absolutist religion; predictions were unlisted; and verifiability
>was hinged on faith.

>It's no wonder creationists are ridiculed when they try to emulate
>scientists.  "Massive funding" haha.

I believe that someone has entirely missed the point.

keith

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:56:52 GMT

In article <1588@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> |markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
> |> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> |> | Uh, can't happen.  If we assume the above then there is no
> |> |catastrophe.  How can we be known as catastrophists without a
> |> |catastrophe?
> |> 
> |> Why do you require a catastrophe?  Dinasaurs took many years evolve
> |> and could easily take many years to become extinct with a gradual
> |> increase in Earth density (causing the larger beasts to be less fit to
> |> continue).  This density increase (radius decrease) just needs to be
> |> faster than the dinasaurs can evolve to smaller creatures.
> |
> |  Is this -5 for failing to detect sarcasm?
> 
> Actually, I detected the sarcasm but decided to hide it because I
> would like a serious discussion.  I think its a -5 for failing to
> detect a hidden detected sarcasm :)

  Ah, so you really do want to question Ted's apparently deep set psychological
need for there to have been horrible catastrophies in the past.  Obviously it
has to do with his mother. :)

  In all seriousness, I think that Ted, like many of us, finds vast collisions
and enormous mechanations beyond human control rather facinating.  Most people
here are scientists (of some sort or another) and became such because of this
fascination.  The problem Ted is facing is that he can't accept that sometimes
the universe just isn't going to bow to his needs for grand-scale operations,
and rather than accept this he harps on an unsupportable claims to keep his
dreams of disaster alive.

  Of course, this is just a (mildly educated) guess.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller)
Subject: Re: Holden theory Q&A
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:31:24 GMT

In article <718507842@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
|> : From: bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour)
|> : Ted,
|> 
|> Well, I'm not Ted, but I've been an active Holden-watcher for years.
|> I'll present my understanding of what Ted has said in the past:
|> 
|> : What, precisely, is an "electromag star". 
|> 
|> A star that is hot because of electrical current instead
|> of hydrogen fusion.
|> 
|> : Is our Sun one of these? 
|> 
|> Yes.  (Though how they explain the solar neutrinos, I don't know.  Ted
|> never addressed that issue when I asked him.)

Come on, now, Wayne. The explanation is simple: Neutrinos are a bullshit
fiction of those cnspiratorial balckguard physicists like that weasel
Merritt. Everyone know that!

-- 
Dave Waller
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Archaeological Evidence in the Pentateuch  (was: Questions ...)
Summary: This is sounding more like Ted Holden's specialty.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 17:05:10 GMT

Of course, if archaeological evidence from the Bible is used as
evidence of its reliability on the subject of origins, then we must
give equal time to _The Iliad_ and _The Odyssey_ and to what they
have to say on the subject.  If your creation theory doesn't mention
cyclopses, people who are vulnerable to injury only on the ankle,
and the possibility of turning men into pigs (literally), then it
is incomplete.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Further Clarification
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:25:24 GMT

>|> 
>|> Why hasn't life evolved many times on earth? ( maybe it has, but there is no
>|> evidence supporting it as I know of.)
>
>One answer is that the existing forms of life would compete
>with it, or even use it as food.
>
>[Mind you, it doesn't take 108 lines to say that]
>
>jon.

You got the idea, only that this was not my main point. I was defending my
earlier statement that life is tending towards greater complexity.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Clarification on Microevolution and Macroevolution
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:40:45 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct13.114147.5056@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>
> >What Mr Aam appears to have done here is to recognize the 
> >difficulty with the usual claim of Creationists that there 
> >are 'limits" to evolution.  As we know, whenever they are
> >asked to show evidence of such limits, or to explain how
> >they are implemented, they back off and fall silent.
>
> A suggestion for all of you who find my explanations on dynamic 
> systems insufficient: use a year or two of your life to study
>  Nonlinear-,Chaotic-,Complex- and Dynamical systems. Then come 
> back and discuss with me. Certain comments indicates that certain 
> people knows NOTHING about the topics I mentioned.

What Mr Aan has done here is a piece of clever editing.   The 
paragraph from me that he quotes here without attribution 
was a comment on the *usual* claims that there are built-in 
limits to change.     I then added a paragraph saying why I 
thought his proposal was different to the usual claims, and 
asking a number of questions about it.

What he has done here is to delete my questions without
answering them, and then to say I don't know about Dynamical
Systems.

But several of us, including me, specifically asked Mr Aan
to explain what he thought Dynamic Range was, and why he 
thought it applied to mutational change.   He didn't do 
that.    Instead, he continued to use the phrase Dynamic 
Range as though he *had* defined it, and proceeded to 
repeat most of the material from his original posting.
  
He also added a new claim:

     "I was asked to come up with the PHYSICAL mechanism
     behind micro/macroevolution, and so I did."

In fact he didn't.   He tossed out a few buzz-words and
then ploughed on as though he had explained what he means
by them, and how they relate to mutation.

I'd like to see Mr Aan stop claiming that a change in the
number of genes is necessary for macro-evolution to take 
place, and instead, explain why that is so.    I would 
also like him to explain what he thinks Dynamic Range
is, and why he thinks it is relevant.

And no, a casual reference to a popular book most of us
have already read is not an explanation.

jon.
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Holden and 350 lb goats
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:15:31 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <63@fedfil.UUCP>
: A number of the t.o geniuses are still claiming that a sauropod
: dinosaur the size of a 200,000 version of Bill Kazmaier would be 
: far more efficient due to some intrinsic difference between weak, 
: slovenly, corrupt humans, and the noble lower animals.

Ted makes two fundamental errors in this paragraph.

First, I've see NOBODY claim that sauropods are more efficient lifters
because of "some intrinsic difference".  Certainly I have explained many
times exactly how any why differences of shape can and do affect
efficiency.  The difference isn't "intrinsic", but due to the
configuration of muscles, joints and tendons. 

Second, there is definitely NOBODY who is contending that sauropods were
viable because they were "noble", nor that humans are "weak, slovenly,
corrupt".  This is a fantasy of Ted's own invention.

Discussions with Ted would be more meaningful if Ted would stick 
to the facts of the matter instead of making up and posting these
fantasies of his. 

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <63@fedfil.UUCP>
: If so, then they should be able to demonstrate some similar quadruped,
: roughly the same weight as Kaz, say around 350 lbs., whose weight, like
: that of the sauropods, is mostly digestive system, which can lift considerably
: more than the 1000 lbs which Kaz has shown himself able to either deadlift
: or squat.  

Why should they?  I suspect there are no such animals.  There are no
such animals, because such a small animal doesn't need muscles, joints,
and tendons configured to lift so much weight, it needs them configured
to run fast from predators.  And in the absense of the square-cube
disadvantages of the sauropods, they all *are* so configured.

Why does Ted have so much trouble understanding that humans and other
animals of this size just aren't configured to handle the forces which
are necessary to the sauropods?  They don't need to be.  Sauropods did.
And were.

( Also, "weight mostly digestive system" probably isn't quite so.  
  Bones alone would be 30% or more of the larger sauropod's mass, and 
  when muscles and the other viscera are added in, there isn't
  really enough left over to make the digestive system more than
  30% of weight, let alone more than 50%.  (The 30% weight figure
  for bones I got from the section on sauropods in _The_Dinosauria_,
  where they gave an allometric scaling factor for bone mass.)

  Anybody having more accurate (yet specific) information about
  relative weights of various sauropod viscera than those in
  _The_Dinosauria_, I'd be happy to hear about it. _The_Dinosauria_
  list many references, but the number is prohibitive to pursue. )
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: t.o., the home game
Date: 12 Oct 1992 22:31:32 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct12.171837.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
|> In article <Bvv0tx.J19@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
|> > 
|> > 	Mesoamericans have different definitions, I am told.
|> 
|>    That's -25 for not seeing humor with a smiley.

Wait a minute.   Mr Nicoll is away North of here, so
the felt effect of a smiley is probably a lot less.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:56:23 GMT

In article <70@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>3.  Visually, Kaz and Anderson are stockier than the saurs.  Leverage would
>favor them.

Ted, I have to ask, is this intentional or unintentional humor?

Guessing leverage by how stocky somebody looks is sort of like saying
"Look how big his muscles are. He must have really big teeth."

>5.  We've had a number of the t.o regulars claiming that a squat thrust
>is somehow a very inefficient way to come up with weight, i.e. that animals
>have some magical way of coming up/standing up with is far  more efficient.
>They ought to take their insight to the American Olympic weightlifting
>team.  Those guys have been looking for more efficient ways to get weight
>up for decades, and haven't found one.

It's not magic, Ted, it's called "standing up". It's not as easy as an
Olympic event, but who said an Olympic event was the easiest way to do
something? It's a lot easier to walk 20 feet than to broadjump it, but
that doesn't mean there's some magic trick the American Olympic team
can use.

-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
From: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse B
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:04:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 

In article <1992Oct8.224327.20383#u.washington.edu> sieferme@carson.u.
washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
-> In article <1992Oct8.210149.5703#newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.c
-> m (Dave Weaver) writes:
-> >We had this pi=3 discussion on t.r.m a while back. My reply...
-> >
-> >From 1 Kings 7:23...
-> >The given diameter is 10, which has ONE significant digit.
-> >The given circumference is 30, which has ONE significant digit.
-> 
-> Looks like TWO significant digits to me.

No, it's one alright.  Remember your high school Chem textbook?  "Following
zeroes count as significant figures only if there is a decimal point..."
Thus, 10 and 30 have one sigfig.  10. and 30. would have two.

-> >Divide two numbers of one sig digit, and how many digits can you
-> >keep in the result?  pi=3 is correct to ONE significant digit.
-> >Where is the error? 
-> >Are Biblical authors not allowed to round off measurements?
-> 
-> The problem is not with the authors (whoever they were).
-> The problem is with the people who want to believe that
-> the book containing these questionable translations of
-> ancient writings is absolutely and literally true,
-> and should be used as an infallible guide for all
-> questions of life, including (gasp!) science.

Agreed.

--
Jani Patokallio                  |  "Ignorance is the soil in which belief
acc1bbs!jani.patokallio@ssr.com  |   in miracles grows."  -Anon.

---
 . AME 1.07 . 
                                                                                           
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:21:18 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>golden, or antediluvian age, when the earth was VERY egg-shaped, and then
>the classical age of Cronos, or golden age, during which time the earth was
>still egg-shaped, the felt effect of gravity still attenuated, but not
>so greatly...  i.e. he figures the original conformation of the earth
>collapsed in at least two discernable stages.

Yes, but he also figures that the size of the bulge would have broken
the earth into little pieces. In at least this, he is in full agreement
with most of the other people who comment on your "theories".


	"Danby's formula [for tidal distortion -prl] gives about
	61000km for the distance needed for an eccentricity of 0.6 [the
	size of the antediluvian hump -prl] and about 73000km for an
	eccentricity of 0.36 [the size of the "golden age" hump -prl].
	Both of these distances are considerably _less_ than the Roche
	limit."[1] p21.

The Roche limit is the smallest orbit that a body can have without
tidal stresses destroying it. Ted has often been told on t.o that his
schemes which gryate the Earth around Saturn producing huge humps
would tear the earth apart; here he has it affirmed by his own sources.


>  A big part of the problem is
>that human memory in any form whatsoever goes no further back than a 
>thousand years or so prior to the flood.  Given catastrophist hypotheses,
>you assume that it gets harder to know much about earth history beyond
>each catastrophe.  Rose's general hypothesis makes sense to me logically,

Including the bits where Rose says that the tidal stress produced would
tear the earth apart?

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:12:57 GMT

gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne) writes:

>In article 833@trl.oz.au, jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
>> 
>> Pi is not defined as the ratio of circumference to diameter. If it were,
>> a great deal of physical laws where it enters would be false. Nice try,
>> Morgan, but pull the other one.

>*Drop* the other one, please.  Enlighten us ignorant heathens.  If pi is not
>defined by the ratio of circumference to diameter, by what is it defined?
>(Note that this is a sincere question, since I have for many years been under
>the delusion that pi is defined by the ratio of circumference to diameter
>of a Euclidian circle.)

You've just answered your question: "the ratio of circumference to diameter
of a *Euclidean* circle". The original poster (I tried to retrieve the
message, but it was expired) had written that pi<3.1416 in a NON-Euclidean
space (he'd used the surface of the earth, I think). I was certain he must
have had his tongue in his cheek and was just trying to see if he could
start a wonderful red herring, up the garden path etc. So I put my tongue
in the same place, too. But perhaps he was being serious. You get all
kinds here. Perhaps he did believe that, because that Biblical vessel
was on the earth, and the earth is spherical, the ratio of its circumference
to its diameter could be 3?