HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: John Wilkins <john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: SURVEY: Who has read Origen of the Species?
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6D25F1BFB012434@manager.ccc.monash.edu.au>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 8 Sep 92 21:46:03 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne Australia
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:45:08 GMT

In article <BtyGoD.C05@oryx.com> stephen l favor,
xcpslf@decsrv.NoSubdomain.NoDomain writes:
>Have you read Darwin's Origen of the Species (or his synopsis of it)?
>
I thought Origen was an early church father. I have read several editions
of the Origin of Species. For an absolutely revolutionary and
graoundbreaking work published well over 100 years ago, I thought it held
up pretty well, apart from Darwin's un-Mendelian genetics.

John Wilkins
Manager, Publishing & Advertising
Monash University, Melbourne Australia
Internet: john@publications.ccc.monash.edu.au
Tel: (+613) 573 2099

"Nature is profligate in variety but niggardly in innovation"
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:57:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep2.154944.9333@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> 	OK. I will give you some. Finnish is a primitive and complicated 
> 	language, English is modern and developed. 
> 
>                         English                    Finnish
> Infinitive:           2 forms                       4 forms
> The number of cases:  2                            18
> Vocabulary:           Determined                   Flexible

Sigh, I speak with Finnish and English (as well as Swedish and 
a little bit German). But I would never compare English and 
Finnish that way. Finnish is a very young grammatical language,
and has very firm and solid grammar rules (style LISP). While
English has a heritage of change that reflects in all the
exceptions to the grammar rules (ANSI C).

Both works well. Frankly speaking they are very different, and
I would never start comparing languages based on number of
cases or infinitive forms. This because even if English lacks
many cases, it uses prefix notation to define direction (instead
of the Finnish post-fix notation to nouns).

Anyway, if we look at the issue of evolution and languages,
Finnish is actually a prime example of a new 'species' of 
a language, that is still quite simple and perfect, and
have not mutated a lot. Mostly because there has been little
meme mutations, until now when Finland is on the world map,
and Finnish kids watch Mutant Ninja Turtles.

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.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:58:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep2.160703.9793@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 	I think that a simple language can't be expressive. And if this is the 
> 	criteria, languages have changed into worse. It was said in my Finnish 
> 	lessons that you can't translate "epajarjestelmallistyttamattomyydes-  
> 	saankopahan" to English. That about expressivity. 

That word does not mean anything in Finnish anyway, so garbage-in,
garbage out.

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.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:10915 sci.skeptic:15993
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 5 Sep 92 19:33:35 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Sep5.084624.27783@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>The idea that it is blood does not explain the fact that it is nice and red 
>after 600-2000 years

Well, for that you simply need to invoke a miracle, thus further proving the
shroud's authenticity. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: eftv03@castle.ed.ac.uk (L R Watt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Hydraulic Sorting
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:37:06 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University, UK

In article <12542@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford) writes:

> The idiot sorting
>argument originated with Henry (air-head) Morris.  In fact, the sorting that
>Morris proposes (simpler single celled life at the bottom and complex multi-
>cell organisms at the top) is BACKWORDS!  Oceanographers (and many others) have
>know for a long time that given two objects of similar shape and density, the
>larger one will fall faster in a fluid.

Last week I came across a school project I did in my
mid-teens, and I found the following details.

Suppose we have a fluid (density d0, viscosity n) and a
falling (or rising) sphere (density d1, radius r, speed v).

The forces acting on the particle are


                    Buoyancy
                        ^
                        |
          Viscous drag  |  Impact of fluid
                   ^    |    ^
                   |    |    |  
                   |    |    |

                        O

                        |
                        |
                        v
                      Weight


where    drag = 6*pi*r*n*v
         impact = pi*d0*(r*v)^2
         buoyancy = 4/3*pi*d0*g*r^3
         weight = 4/3*pi*d1*g*r^3.

Even if the particle isn't spherical, expressions like
the above will still hold.

F = m*a gives  m*a = Weight-Buoyancy-Drag-Impact.

The settling velocity V is attained when a=0, giving


      3n                  4*d0*g*(d1-d0)*r^3
V =  ---- ( -1 + sqrt{1 + ------------------} )
     r*d0                     27*n^2

                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When the underlined term is << 1,
                       V approx = [2*g*(d1-d0)*r^2]/[9*n]

and when it is >> 1,   V approx = sqrt{[4*g*(d1-d0)*r]/[3*d0]}.


Now I haven't read a detailed creationist description of how
materials were deposited during and after the flood, but the
fossil record certainly wouldn't be explained by the above.
Strahler ("Science and Earth History" 1987, Prometheus Books)
gives a description of what you would expect to find in the
aftermath of such a flood.

>
>  Isn't it interesting that someone with a Ph.D. in Hydraulic Engineering could
>be so ignorant about hydraulic flows? 
>

Indeed it is.  I sometimes wonder whether these people actually
believe the explanations they give.

Lindsay.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Antti is confused (was Re: macroevolution)
Organization: sgi
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 22:03:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.113914.21606@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
|> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
|> >Answer this, Antti (and remember, I'm in Bloomington, Indiana, not Russia or
|> >Finland or wherever you claim to be:  Here, it's rude _not_ "to answer right
|> >to the question):  if the intermediate subspecies did go extinct, why
|> >would you continue to insist that the extreme (sub)species were not
|> >full species?
|> 
|> 	Because it seems that the Biblical definition of species differ from
|> 	scientific definition. This is speciation in scientific sense ONLY, I
|> 	can agree that. 

Which Chapter and verse in the Bible *defines* species?

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Re: Back to "Bales' scales"
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:43:38 GMT

	Hey Bob. What's the theory of creationism?

Rob Zuber 
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.lang
From: poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser)
Subject: Re: Ted Holden on Linguistics and Evolution
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:23:15 GMT

Discussion of statistical methods in the context of Greenberg's
claims about genetic affiliation is irrelevant for the simple reason
that he hasn't used statistical methods. There is no discussion
anywhere in LIA of what the statistical null hypothesis is or what
it would take to reject it, nor are there any calculations of
probabilities. So, sure, in principle one could use statistical
methods to argue for a historical connection without establishing
phonological correspondances, but the fact is that Greenberg makes
no attempt to do so. He just waves his hands and says, "Well, gee,
these look so similar to me that it couldn't be due to chance."
Consequently, it is quite out of order to criticize his critics
for a lack of understanding of statistical methods. I am one of
the critics, and I assure you, I am familiar with statistical
methods. Indeed, those of us familiar with the relevant mathematics
are aware that when you have as many languages to choose from as
Greenberg does, and use criteria as loose as he does for similarities,
the probability of chance resemblance is extremely high.

Please note also my use of the term "historical connection" rather
than "genetic affiliation" above. Suppose that someone is able
to make a valid statistical argument that two languages resemble
each other in ways unlikely to be due to chance. Insofar as we
can agree that these similarities are not due to universals, then
we have an instance of a historical connection. But there are two
sorts of historical connection, namely genetic affiliation (descent
from a common ancestor) and diffusion. It is far from clear that
statistical methods can be used to distinguish the two. Precedent
suggests that the best way to distinguish loans from true cognates
is by means of the traditional, painstaking methods of historical
linguistics. The classic example would be Huebschmann (1875)
which showed that Armenian is a distinct branch of Indo-European rather
than a member of the Iranian subgroup, to which it had previously
been assigned, by using careful analysis of the phonological correspondances
to sort out the two layers of Persian loans from the native Armenian
vocabulary.
							Bill

Reference

H\"ubschmann, Heinrich (1875)
``\"Uber die Stellung des armenischen im Kreise der
indogermanischen Sprachen,''
{\it Zeitschrift f\"ur Vergleichende Sprachforschung}
23.5-42.




Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 22:27:27 GMT

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
> 
>	I do one-liners to save your valuable time. You can ask me more. 

Well, thanks for nothing.  Just what do you think we've been doing
here anyway if not asking you for more?

>>[Problems with anti-evol lit]
>	Yes, this is true in most cases. Especially point five bothers me a
>	lot, when people want to prove some young-earth nonsense or such. I 
>	read an anti-evolution post in sci.sceptics not long ago and it was
>	quite okay, except that 5. It somehow affects nastily to the reliabili-
>	ty. If there is a dirt-spot in the (otherwise clean) tablecloth, it 
>	can't be used. But aside these dirt-spots the literature is quite OK.

Would you care to show that the literature isn't all dirt-spots?  I
certainly haven't seen any evidence of this.

>	I suppose you (all) know the famous Larus fuscus - Larus argentatus  
>	-case ? In this it SEEMS to be speciation, but it's only micro-
>	evolution. 

No, we don't know about it.  Well, it's a start.  But, you'll probably
have to come up with a more than a couple of gulls to sink evolution.

>>on the internet, care to give us their full names along with mail addresses?
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
>	Menem is changing site now, so he is off for a while and I don't now
>	his new address yet.   

Are you avoiding the question?  I asked for both of their names, and
you just complain about how one of them is off system for the moment.

>	I can explain the L. argentatus-case if you haven't heard of it yet. 
>	You could also first see what the others have written not to make 
>	the same questions. 

Please do.  Just what is it about these gulls?

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

PS:  I'm going away on a trip for a few days.  Also my system will
be down at various times over the next week.  If you wish to reply to
me, please e-mail it as well as posting it.  I can be reached at
either the address in my .sig or at s.kroger1@genie.geis.com

|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:31:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.205115.12884@cbfsb.cb.att.com> hrbob@ixstar.ih.att.com (R.E. Wiersbe) 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?
>>
>>
>
>My own current opinion is that He has a very _large_ ego and He needs lots
>of people to stroke it.
>
>Bob Wiersbe

	I have a slightly different opinion that Man has a very large
ego, or is egocentric, and invented God to justify the childish belief
that the world, or the universe, revolves around himself. The suggestion
that comes from modern science that Man could be incidental or peripherial
to the universe is just plain galling to alot of folks, hence Creationism
and other Creation myths.

Bruce Salem
From: pals@ipact.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationism Philosophy (was: White skin--how)?
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:16:55 CDT
Organization: IPACT, Valparaiso IN

In article <92247.164849U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
 
> If I remember correctly,the local (white) branch of the Reformed
> Church was quite approving of Apartheid policies,meaning that they
> were about as happy to accept Apartheid's pseudoscientific methods
> of racial classification as Lionel's non-existent racist "evolutionists"
> would be.

I challenge you to back that slanderous statement up with some evidence.  I
have been associated with that denomination for many years, and their
official position has always been *strongly* anti-apartheid.  They long ago
severed relations with those South African churches that supported
apartheid.  And another thing.  The Reformed Church is not "(white)", it is
multi-ethnic, multi-racial. 

-- 
Randy Pals                |pals@ipact.com
IPACT, Inc.               |
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Gentry/Luzenetsov Info request.
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:09:55 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <13SEP199200393450@utkvx3.utk.edu> maddox@utkvx3.utk.edu (Maddox, John Thortan) writes:
>
> 1) I recently came across Gentry's book "Creation's Tiny Mystery".
>Any info on responses from the scientific community (other than those
>he includes in the text) would be welcomed.  
>
>Any material on the above would be appreciated.  

I don't know if these references appear in the text or not, but I've
found them helpful in debunking Gentry's ideas.

    Robert  Gannon,  "How Old Is It?," _Popular Science_,
    p. 81, November, 1979.

This mentions Gentry's beliefs but gives little real information.

    David  B. Wilson, _Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It?_,
    p. 216, The Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa, 1983.

    Laurie R. Godfrey, _Scientists Confront Creationism_,
    pp. 71-72, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983.

These articles provide effective answers to some of Gentry's ideas.

    _Creation/Evolution_ magazine, Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988,
    p. 13, article "Gentry's Tiny Mystery - Unsupported by Geology",
    by J. Richard Wakefield.

This article debunks part of the `Tiny Mystery' book by showing that
Gentry's sample material containing `polonium haloes' came from intrusions
into pre-existing rock and therefore couldn't be `created basement rock'.
Therefore, Gentry's haloes have no bearing on the origin and age of
the earth.

Alan Feuerbacher          |  As long as you think you have the truth, you
Tektronix, Inc.           |  will feel no need to pursue knowledge and
PO Box 500, MS 47-623     |  understanding.
Beaverton, OR  97077      |  There is often a difference between good
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com   |  sound reason and reasons that sound good.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 8 Sep 92 06:18:06 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <2895@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <Bu2AwE.1Cu@encore.com>, bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:
>> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <KAI.92Aug31094228@kai.nada.kth.se>, kai@kai.nada.kth.se (Kai-Mikael J-Aro) writes:
>> >> 
>  
>> >They carry their necks almost straight up;  it's the only way they can deal
>> >with the weight.
>  
>> 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.

Says you!  After all, any statement from the man who said that new born horses
can't run, that horses can't comfortably carry any weight over 125 pounds,
that giraffes have enormous blood pressure in their heads *(ALL totally
untrue)*, is very suspect.

Sue

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ted Holden
> HTE
> 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:24:06 GMT

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?


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 19:52:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.162127.4115@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber) writes:
> >	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.
> 
> 	It's a brief,

  True.

> comprehensive

  False.

> introduction

  True.

> to the evolutionary 
> 	questions

  False.

> in an easy-to-read-form.

  True.

> 	How about that ?

  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.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Flat Earth and the Bible
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:15:49 GMT

In <1992Sep15.130640.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>In article <1992Sep6.030213.1543@scic.intel.com>, sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes:
>> Does anyone have the list of Bible quotes that the flat-Earthers
>> use as the basis of their claims?  Thanks in advance!

>Unfortunately for the flat-Earthers, the Bible says that the Earth is round. 
>I'm not sure of the exact spot where this is located.  It's either in Job or
>Psalms.

I am afraid that you will find no such quote.  There is a mistranslation in
Isaiah that talks of the "circle of the earth" but the Hebrew talks about a
"line of the earth" not a circle.  Rather you will find the opposite:

The enormous tree visible to the ends of the earth (Dan.4:10-11), taking the earth by the 
edges and shaking it (Job 38:13), the earth's foundation can have a measuring line 
across it (Job 38:4-5), "the four corners of the earth", "the four winds that blow upon 
the earth", "the high mountain from which one can see all the kingdoms of the 
world". etc., etc. We can take them as metaphor today, but there is no indication in 
either the original languages or in any round earth view being discussed elsewhere 
, that these were not literal statements. 
--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics
Carleton University	
emc@doe.carleton.ca