HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:59:23 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Oct7.143025.23135@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >I guess this is your problem, you can't see how small parts together
> >form a higher thinking entity. I guess you also wonder how transistors
> >can't think, but the computer thinks. You have a lot of problematic
> >cases, because this world is built upon single components forming
> >higher abstraction levels. What am I doing, I'm teaching a
> >biologist-wannabe
> >the basics of biology :-).
> 
> 	No, actually a creature is more than a sum of its parts. 

And the burden if to show how this works all together. We do have 
evolving theories about how complexity works by using simple building
blocks to create something more complex, in an ever growing spiral.
It's all actually in the mathematics. I'm afraid that even this
last hope of theists, where they want to show that humans have
more than body and mind, is slowly withering away due to lack of
evidence. 

I guess you also want to defend that ether exists :-).

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:04:03 GMT

In article <68@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> As to why what water there was did not sit on top of the people who were 
> themselves sitting under Saturn, I canl only say that I am not God or
> the sunshine superman;  I don't have all the answers.

  A red letter day indeed!  Ted admiting he doesn't have all the answers?  Now
if only he will admit he doesn't have any of the answers.

> We claim now to have bits and pieces of a puzzle, not the entire picture.
> From what we do have and have been able tpo piece together, part of a 
> picture does emerge, and it bears no resemblence to what is tought in our
> schools.

  Well, maybe if you can find an answer to the above question that doesn't
require the creation of yet another unkown force that has no reason to exist
other than as an explenation for the above, people will take you a little more
seriously.  I'm not holding my breath.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Holden and the problems of large animals
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:15:36 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <64@fedfil.UUCP>
: As far as I know, I am the first and only person who has tried to
: quantify the extent of the problem which large animals would face in our
: present gravitational system.

Don't be silly.  People have been trying to quantify the problems with
sauropod size since they were discovered.  It's just that none of the
professionals in the field would be so uninformed as to use direct
square-cube scaling inter-species without allometric corrections. 

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <64@fedfil.UUCP>
: Velikovsky never fully developed the Saturn model; David Talbott and
: Dwardu Cardona have done that. 

"Fully developed?" No calculations on the orbit, no accounting for the
angular momentum problems, or the tidal stress problems, or why the
tides didn't layer water on TOP of the world-mountain, or any of the
other problems.  Such as how .5g acceleration could be applied to the
earth as Ted suggests without ripping the crust apart.  (Specifically,
Ted says that Sauropods are too large to have stood forces under 1g
acceleration, but somehow supposes that the whole EARTH was small 
enough to have stood the forces implied by .5g acceleration.)

Not much of a "model", let alone "fully developed".


( A small calculation to quantify the above: Ted says that
  square-cube scaling accounts for the difference between bipeds and
  quadrupeds, so why not the differences between a sphere and a biped. 
  0.5g acceleration for the Earth, so we have half of
  (5.9e24*2.2)/(5.9e24*2.2)^(2/3), for a Holden Number of 117506412 or
  thereabouts.  True, the Holden Limit of 27 is based on strength of
  muscle, not the strength of rock.  But rock is certainly not a
  hundred million times stronger than muscle and bone.  Yet Ted prefers to
  suppose the earth has a Holden Number of a hundred million, rather than
  to suppose that a sauropod has a HN of 60.  )
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: A Theory of Creation (first draft)
Keywords: creationist God LORD Darwin fish chips wood carpenter
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:56:25 GMT

In article <1bld9hINNljm@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan
Schneider) writes:
> 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

   And after I loosed a white hot flame at a simillar post and made a fool
of myself.  *sigh*  My idiocy apparently did _no_ good.  :)

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Chauvanism against Chimps  (was: a farewell to Antti)
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:39:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.144146.23770@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	At least I'm not related to chimpanzees. 

A serious question for Antti and any other Creationists who feel
like he does:

What do you feel would be wrong with being related to chimpanzees?
Please note:  I'm not asking why you think you aren't related; I'm
asking why, if you were, that would be so bad.
-- 
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: david_s@hsr.no (David Andreas Sjoeen)
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Reply-To: david-s@ifi.hsr.no
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:38:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.210149.5703@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
> I am not a regular reader of t.o, but just passing through looking
> for something interesting...
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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?

Well, this is not a valid argument, since 10*pi=31 rounded off.
I think the explanation is to be found in 2 Chron 4:5, which says
that the molten sea was formed as a cup, as a lily (Norwegian
translation, but not important).

             |------- 10 -------| -    
             \                  / |
              |                |  |
              |                |  5
              |                |  |
              |                |  |
              `----------------'  -
              |---- 30/pi -----|

The distance from rim to rim was 10 cubits (it isn't easy to measure
the circumference of a narrow rim). The diameter of the 'main body'
of the sea was 30/pi cubits.

:)avid

-- 
 __________________ ___________________________________________________
| David A. Sjoen   |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
| Gulaksveien 4    | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them   |
| Norway           | out of my hand." John 10:27-29                    |
`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
    E-MAIL: david-s@ifi.hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Further Clarification
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:37:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct16.172023.2568@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

[>>Mickey Rowe wrote: ]

>>I have one comment.  Please read Stephen Jay Gould's book entitled
>>_Wonderful Life_.
>
>I think I have read that book.

I hate to be *really* rude, but try to make sure.  I suggested you
read it because you indicated that you were totally unaware of its
major premises.  I suggest that if you read it, you either didn't
understand it or didn't retain it.

Perhaps it might also behoove you to infer from the responses that you
generate here that you really don't seem to understand that much about
biology.  That in itself is perfectly excusable; everybody has topics
that they're not terribly familiar with.  However, most of your posts
read like lectures--like you're teaching us the ways of the world.
Since you don't seem to know what you're talking about *I* find that
to be really rude.

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)

P.S.  Notice to all creationists: This post is a demonstration that we
are an equal opportunity newsgroup.  Things don't get flamed here
because of their creationist content.  Things get flamed here because
they're trash.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Plant Death before the Fall (Gall Bladders Anyone?)
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:42:17 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct14.143336.26046@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> 
|> This sort of thing `nature red in tooth and claw', did not
|> happen before the Fall. I agree - its really ugly how life
|> has been corrupted by Sin.

Oh Boy, you can tell us about what happened before the Fall?
How about after?   How about telling us how the fossil record
can be explained using a Flood model?

jon.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Progressive Creationism Part 6
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:49:39 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <6OCT199214425874@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
|
|When the Rev. A.C. Dixon assembled the twelve booklets, _The Fundamentals_,
|between 1910 and 1915 (from which fundamentalists get their name), he had
|cleric-geologist George Frederick Wright write a chapter for it.  The
|chapter was originally to be titled "Evolution from the Christian Point
|of View," but was ultimately titled "The Passing of Evolution."  In it,
|he argued for special creation at the species level, but that each species
|was "nothing more than enlarged or accentuated varieties, which all admit
|are descendants from a common ancestry." ...

Interestingly, this position was almost reasonable in the teens and 20's.
At this time, after the 'rediscovery' of Mendel's work, and before the
Evolutionary Synthesis, it appeared as if Mendel's results contradicted
Darwin's model of natural selection.  Thus a continuation of Lyell's
'special creation' model of species origin, or the less theological
variants of it, such as Goldschmidt's mutationism, were reasonable
alternatives to Darwin's ideas.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Hydrological sorting" (was: "Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!")
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:17:21 EST
Followup-To: talk.origins
 <1992Sep30.115043.25745@city.cs> <ksand-061092192536@wintermute.apple.com>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <ksand-061092192536@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.115043.25745@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
> Tun) wrote:
>> No. The two statements are entirely compatible. To say that
>> fossils appear in various layers is one thing. But to piece
>> together assorted layers from round the world and assemble
>> a supposed historical timescale is entirely another.
> 
> You don't need to piece together layers from all around the world.
> Just take a trip to the Grand Canyon. You still need to explain
> the intelligent sorting of fossiles that happened in this place.
> If you can't, then your theory is false.
> 

A trip to the Canyon is an experience of a life time.  One of my fondest
memories is the hike my family and I took to the bottom of the Canyon
and back up again.  It is literally a _Trip through Time_......  

BTW, a good word of advice.  Don't ever take the hike with small children.
It's too embarrassing!  They will out-hike and out walk you!  Mine were
seven and ten.  On the last two miles out of the Canyon (a VERY steep
and exhausting climb), they walked backwards in front of me, singing 
Ford truck commercials, walking like a chicken, walking like a duck and
encouraging their poor old exhausted mom......

Sue

> Cheers,
> Kent
> 	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
> Knowles
> -------------------
> Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
> DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Antti dodges reality (take two)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:15:16 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Oct7.143626.23448@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >  He also would like you to explain what happens to the formation when the lead
> >bird is shot by hunters in these species that don't switch off lead birds.
> 
> 	They do. But, if similar case occurrs, then the formation usually gets
> 	lost (but finally they find the right direction). 
> 
> 	It's the same as if the boss of your company would be shot. 

So we have the know-how of leading the flock part of each animal,
right? So the formation is back on the track after a while. Latent
knowledge, Antti, do you know what that means? I give a hint,
it has to do with genes and natural selection.

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:13068 alt.atheism:19147
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A Theory of Creation (first draft)
Keywords: creationist God LORD Darwin fish chips wood carpenter
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:43:39 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1992Oct15.154301.1759@aber.ac.uk> dmf@aber.ac.uk (Darren Michael Forbes) writes:
>
>                        A Theory of Creation,
>                                by
>          Darren M. Forbes BSc. and Jonathan M. Ashley BSc.
>          dmf@aber.ac.uk                     jma@aber.ac.uk
>
>          Communications should be addressed to the authors.
>

Super!  All very explicit.

[...]

>Furthermore, much evidence directly contradicting the theory has been
>observed, again as predicted[4,5].

[...]

>and non-sentient life forms. The theory is sufficiently flexible to encompass
>all observable evidence.

[...]

So there is no possible evidence, even in principle, which could falsify this
theory?  Sounds just like several other theories I know of.  How do you suggest
we choose between them?

-Norman
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Why Ted was ALMOST right! Proof!
Date: 9 Oct 92 07:53:51 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <Bvt8yn.I0F@encore.com> bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:

	.... Really neato theory deleted ....

>So, all you T.O. regulars, just try to refute this one! Or in the words
>of Joel Robinson, "What do you think sirs?".

Love it, love it, love it!!!

The only complaint I have is that you haven't tied it to mythology.
If you're going to have a really good crackpot theory you've got to
have psychic resonances, and the pitter patter of little archetypes.
For example, that black hole at the middle of the Earth has a minature
accretion disk.  Every once in a while some molecules fall into the
black hole and a pulse of destructive psychic energies is generated
which causes wars and plagues and Madonna concerts.

The black hole is not only a gravitional sink, it is also a sink for
psychic energies, which explains why telepathy no longer works.

It also explains why racial memory of all of these stirring events
is so muted.  Racial memory is really a standing wave resonance in the
psychic energy field.  The black hole damps out the field.  More
than that, the psycho-mass of the black hole reacts with the psycho-mass
of the planets to modulate the psychic field in a complex series of
harmonics.  Each individual person has their own psychic field which
has a particular phase relationship with each harmonic of the modulated
planetary psychic field; the phase relationships depend, of course, on
exactly when the individual was born.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:15:00 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <BRUCE.92Oct9114117@suprenum.uxb.liv.ac.uk>, bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
> 	<1992Oct8.162854.1281@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
>> 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)...

   No, in fact it makes it easer, because the Earth's surface
was smoother then, so the Flood wouldn't have to cover such a 
depth; then when the Earth contracted its surface assumed a bumpier 
form and the water went into the lower parts, what are now the 
oceans.

Karl
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:01:06 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA


kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|
|markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|>
|> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> |
|> |markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> Why does a less dense Earth have to be so ridiculous?  Couldn't
|> |> the Earth have originally been formed as a less packed, larger
|> |> body that has since gradually become more packed or dense from
|> |> the forces of gravity?  In so doing, the forces of gravity at
|> |> the surface would increase with time.  In fact, wasn't the Earth
|> |> formed by gravitational collecting of "loose" matter?  If so,
|> |> then the Earth had extremely low density at one time!
|> |
|> | 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 :)

Mark
-- 
   To be is to do. -- Immanuel Kant
   To do is to be. -- Sigmund Freud
   Dooby dooby do. -- Frank Sinatra
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Favorite astronomer jokes
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 11 Oct 92  21:42:00

 > From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
 > Message-ID: 1992Oct2.211509.20010@u.washington.edu

 > Anyone got a punchline for this one:
 > How many catastrophists does it take to shift the orbit of
 > Venus?

Two. One to bombard the audience with bombastic nonsense, while the other
grabs references out of context and produces bogus data tables.

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Real americans don't     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| pledge allegiance, they  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| make the government earn | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| it.                      | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: davis@bedlam.asd.sgi.com (Tom Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse B
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:58:04 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bedlam.asd.sgi.com

Since when were the authors of the bible required
to use modern scientific notation and significant
digits conventions?  In how many places in the
bible does a decimal point appear?  Was the earth
created in "somewhere between 6.5 and 7.5 days"?
Before the flood, did it rain "somewhere between
35 and 45 days and somewhere between 35 and 45
nights"?

The bible is inerrant!  30 means 30, not 31.4159...
It's all easily explained, of course, by the
increasing value of PI through time.

  -- Tom Davis