HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: JW discourage education (was Re: dawkins/_the selfish gene_)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:59:29 GMT

In article <6598@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> 
  alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:

Re: The Jehovahs Witlesses think college is a waste because

>4.  Waste of time, given world will soon end.

Just a quick question (I'm bored): How long have these characters
been around?  They are the "millions now living never will die",
right?

C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones)
Subject: Re: Inability to read to the next line
Reply-To: dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones)
Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:36:08 GMT

In article <2858@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil (news) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.062716.3357@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>> > Galloping is clearly out for anything that size, regardless of
>> > conformation.

In other words, anything as large as, say, a rhinoceros simply cannot
gallop, regardless of it's shape, right?

>> Then how come rhinos can gallop and baby elephants can't?

And here Sue Bishop is asking how you explain the fact that rhinos can
gallop.

>>> The conformation of elephants is an obvious adaptation to the
>>> full-grown version/model.  If small ones cannot gallop, it's
>>> because of the conformation NEEDED by large ones to keep legs
>>> directly under the vast bulk.

And now you're claiming that it's not the size of the elephants that
keeps them from galloping, it's their shape.  Which, of course, has
nothing to do with rhinos.

>It's not your imagination, folks:  the double >> above is me, the single >
>is Bishop.  See what I mean?

And now you're once again trying to divert attention away from all
those pesky little rhinos, who keep merrily galloping around despite
your best efforts to stop them.

So tell us, Ted, in what sense can a cat gallop that a rhinoceros or
an elephant can't?

David M. Jones                              "Trifles! Trifles light as air!"
dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu                              -- the Hystricide
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:47:05 EST
 <8ck103Dl606a00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <1992Aug17.212949.4147@access.digex.com>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug17.212949.4147@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
> In article <8ck103Dl606a00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>Marvin Lubenow of the ICR is putting the finishing touches on a
>>book regarding human evolution and the fossil (or lack of) evidence
>>for such. This should be an interesting book.
> 
> Have you read _The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human
> Animal_ by Jared Diamond yet (I'm on page 122)?  If not, it's ISBN 0-06-
> 018307-1.
> 
> -- Herb Huston
> 

I wonder if Lubenow is going to discuss Lucy?  Actually human evolution
is pretty well documented.  Lots of discoveries in the last decade or so.

Sue
>
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: JW's claim of a "Water Canopy"
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:22:29 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug18.005614.162954@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
|
|Well, if this book made a strong case, its successor _Life_ isn't worth its
|weight in toilet paper. :-)  The book made some pretty glaring mistakes in
|science.  For example, it claimed that the elements were inert and stable,
|mixing up chemical stability with nuclear stability.  They should see what
|happens when you put a little bit of sodium (an element) in to water. :-)
|(NOTE: It is illegal to do that in public schools in many states.)

BTW kids, don't do this at home without proper safety precautions.
We wouldn't want you hospitalized, would we?
[I really am serious, this can be quite dangerous, as well as spectacular].
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:11:06 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
I wrote:
>>>Marvin Lubenow of the ICR is putting the finishing touches on a
>>>book regarding human evolution and the fossil (or lack of) evidence
>>>for such. This should be an interesting book.

>I wonder if Lubenow is going to discuss Lucy?  Actually human evolution
>is pretty well documented.  Lots of discoveries in the last decade or so.

Most likely, Lubenow will discuss Lucy. But human evolution is only
"pretty well documented" if you favor a certain worldview or bias.
Of course the t.o regulars who hold that worldview will disagree with
the information in the book, I still think it will be quite interesting.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Creationism and its debunking in Australia
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:05:24 GMT

The Saturday edition of the Melbourne daily ("The Age") contained
an article entitled 'The Boat People -- Scientists scuttle the
"discovery" of Noah's ark'. I almost felt like typing it in and
posting it here, but baulked at the task: some 5 or 6 tightly
printed pages. The article is informative and very funny,
thanks to one Ian Plimer, an Australian archaeologist who
takes the mickey out of the Noah's ark finders. I'll just quote
a few paragraphs to whet your appetite:

"Over there." Ian Plimer shades his eyes against the glare of the 
desert sun with one strong, brown, hand and points with the other
t a cleft in the bosom of the next range of hills. "It's about the
right size  and shape ... see how the side taper together at the
bow."  He squates and pokes among the shards of ferricreten shale at his
feet with a geologist's hammer. "Here are some rivets," he cries, 
dropping some odd round bits of what look like rust into a calico
sample bag. "That is definitely petrified wood... [here some stuff
deleted not to give the story away...]"  He straightens up, brushing 
the dust from his jeans, and scans his field-glasses over the dessicated 
landscape of stony russet dunes sparsely spiked with stunted [censored].

"The evidence is overwhelming -- we are standing among the remains of 
Noah's ark."

------- end of quotation --------------

Now to give the secret away: that particular Noah's ark is slap bang
in the middle of Australia, in Tibooburra. There is also an episode 
of how Plimer dealt with Duane Gish, how the Turkish local tourist
industry is cashing in on the Noah's ark business, how many different
Noah's arks have been discovered over time, ....

I'll send the article to one of you who wants it AND will make
hay of it in the US. E-mail me: j.guy@trl.oz.au

Sorry I can't offer to photocopy and mail it to every one who asks:
if I'm unlikely, I'll get 100 requests and that would cost me around
200 bucks in postage!

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:24:40 GMT

In article <2867@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
[...]
>Bones do not lift weight.  Muscle does.

*Both* are required to lift weight, at least in vertebrates.

If you don't believe me, take a sharp knife, and cut your bicep loose
from one of its attachment points.  Then try to lift something with
the arm you just modified.

Muscles can't lift weight unless the weight is attached to them.  On
a vertebrate such as a human, the weight is attached indirectly via
the bones.  Thus, the bones are as much a part of the lifting mechanism
as the muscles.

>Ted Holden
>HTE


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:08:59 GMT

My understanding is that there are two counteracting mechanisms at
work.  One is that darker skin offers better protection from the 
sun.  The other is that vitamin D is produced by exposing the skin
to the sun, and lighter skin makes this process more efficient.
The result is what you would expect to see.  People whose ancestors
lived in warmer sunnier climates have darker skin while those who
lived in colder (and in the wintertime darker) regions have lighter
skin.

--Brian
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: JW discourage education (was Re: dawkins/_the selfish gene_)
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:43:51 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <36947@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:
> In article <omv7ocs@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>>
>>My degree is also in mathematics.  I found Sutter's posturing
>>to be utterly laughable.  Does he expect to awe his readers with
>>his stunning education?  That might work in his JW congregation,
>>where most people aren't likely to have math degrees, and would
>>be easily cowed.  It probably won't work here, where his audience
>>is likely to be expert.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, the Jehovah's Witnesses discourage their
> members from attending college for some sort of religious reason
> (interpretation of some Bible verse, It think).
> 
> 

I've had very little respect for the JW position on many things after
talking to an acquaintance who is JW, she had five kids, had had three
miscarriages and nearly died with bleeding during her last child's birth.
She wasn't supposed to use birth control pills (some medical reason), 
other forms of birth control have a certain percent of failure, yet 
the elders of the church were telling her that getting either herself
or her husband sterilized was 'altering their body for convenience' sake'.

Sheesh!

Sue

> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steve Linke
> Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
> La Jolla, CA
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:55:52 GMT

	Louck's has said:

>It is also my belief that God could have easily created
>with the appearance of age, though most definitely not to deceive.

	It is not the appearance of age that gives the creationist 'theory'
problems, but rather the appearance of evolution.

Rob Zuber
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: Science and God
Keywords: Science, God
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:12:49 GMT

skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:

>>>	This is both an unsuported and arrogant assertion. Oh

[ that God created the universe so that we could live in it]

>>Certainly unsupported but not particularly arrogant. If you believe in Quantum mechanics the whole universe evolved to as to bring us into existence so
>>that we could make observations on the history of the universe. This seems

>No, that wouldn't necessarily follow.  It would only apply if you beleived
>in ONE particular INTERPRETATION of QM (namely the Anthropic Principle).  I,
>at least, don't buy that particular interpretation.

What is your resolution of the role of an observer in making QM measurements?
I was not intentionally thinking of the anthropic principle, simply the
view that unless a macroscopic measurement is made a quantum system 
will just stay in a superposition of states never selecting any single
value for an observable. But we obviously see the universe take
up a specific sequence of states. (Are you thinking of Everett's
many worlds theory?)

julian
 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: Are we privileged observers?
Keywords: universe,earth, paradox
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:56:38 GMT

maoh@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Maureen O'Halloran) writes:

>julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:

>> . . .  But if science can be shown to
>>need extra assumptions OUTSIDE the realm of science itself in order to explain
>>the unvierse we observe then we might be justified in postulating God
>>with some assurance.
>> .....
>>If one answers yes, then it is an unscientific assertion as we can by 
>>definition do no experiments there, if no, then why do we hold a special
>>position in the universe so that where we cannot see the laws of physics
>>change?

>How about answers other than yes or no, such as that its meaningless
>to speculate about things that can't be measured.  That's metaphysics,
>not physics, and if by definition measurement is impossible then you
>can't verify or disprove any theories.  So whats the point other than
>personal amusement?

Well, it is only us that cannot do the measurements, other alien
scientists can do them quite well. Or are you saying that anything WE
cannot measure does not exist? Also the measurements are only impossible
now, if we wait the light will come to us (WOW, profound huh?) and we
can then verify (or not) our theories in those regions. Consider
the precession of Mercury's perihelion. Until we could measure it
Newton's laws were a good theory, but then a different theory came
along and an experiment was devised to test between them. Perhaps there
are things beyond our current horizon in the universe that will be important
later. Quasars (which I understand are the most distant objects we can
observe, and are anomalously small for the power output) might be 
things will be inexplicable until we change our theories. 


>straightforward one with the fewest unproven assumptions is the best
>choice, and time and time again this has proven to be true.  Anytime
>you introduce a step like "and then a miracle occured" you are
>introducing an unproven assumption.

Hmm, does this mean unique events cannot occur? Some things are
just irreproducible but still occur.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ was born around 4 BC and was
God. Just because it does not happen again is irrelevant here we
need assumptions to understand what is going on. Atheists make the 
a priori assumption that God does not exist so JC must be either
fictional or just a person. Christians make the assumption that God
does (or at least, may) exist so they can test whether JC claimed
to be God, and was, or did not. Science will not tell us anything about
this situation. Similarly science will not tell us about the regions
beyond our observation. I think the key point here is: does science
exhaust the set of things that exist (or that we can know) in the universe
(and elsewhere) or are there other things? I for one do not think
this is a pointless question... 

I believe in order that I may understand.        

julian
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re:  Life in the RNA world & beach bubbles
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:14:48 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Content-Type: text
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 811



	As a previous post pointed out, the development of a 
persistent membrane allows an increase in the concentration of reactants
much greater than ambient concentration.  Thus, the formation of
long-lived lipid membranes enclosing a primordial "soup" increases the
likelihood of reaction.  Adding heat (as in the seafloor warm spring)
usually increases reaction rate.

	However, regarding literal "bubbles on the beach":  Unless the
primordial reducing atmosphere had been abiotically converted to an
oxidizing atmosphere, without an ozone layer ultraviolet light would
destroy any complex organics exposed to sunlight.  Thus, I don't
think "beach bubbles" are the proper mechanism, but lipid "bubbles"
protected from destruction are part of the abiogenesis process.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:52:31 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug17.162241.26511@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> In article <zs9msg+.alc@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
|> 
|> >[..about dating trees by tree rings...]
|> 
|> Suppose you had a garden. One day you look out of the window and see
|> a tree in the middle of if where previously there had been none. Now
|> a friend comes to visit you for the first time and looks at the tree.
|> He counts the rings and says its been there for 100 years. You say 
|> its been there for 1 day. Which of you is correct?
|> 
|> Hint: It depends on your assumptions.
|> Advice: Don't make too many assumptions about the origin of the
|>         universe and of species.

    Let's read your puzzle literally.  :-)

    It says that there was a tree there for one day.  However, it
did not say that the tree was there only one day.  Perhaps, in a
later clarification, or more detailed statement, we discover that 
the tree was there, yes one day, and also 100 years before that.
You see, you haven't specified to the satisfaction of us garden
literalists, when it says "previously there had been none", how
long previously.

    This, of course, is only a speculation.  There are other ways
of interpreting the story literally so that it is true.

    I challenge anyone to find any contradictions within the garden
story.

|> 
|> --
|> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
|> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

    BTW, my point is not to make a joke.  My point is that,
given a determined reader, and any somewhat reasonable story, it
is probably impossible to find any contradictions in the story.
It might be interesting to see if anyone can write a paragraph
which it is impossible to interpret literally, and consistently.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:55:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.130130.26260@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>
> Sure; what I was getting at isn't whether you personally are conducting
> a campaign to mandate legally the teaching of some creation theory, but
> whether or not you would support such a campaign, and if so, in respect
> of which particular theory of creation. *If* you think that X should be
> taught in science class with legal force, you presumably can say what X is.

Jim informs me by e-mail that he can't find the question in the above
paragraph, so I've rephrased it:

  Would you support a campaign to mandate legally the teaching in school
  science classes of some creation theory, and if so, which creation
  theory?

Hopefully this is clearer. Although I've sent this by e-mail, I've also
indicated that I'll post it here and requested that Jim respond here rather
than by e-mail.

> An answer to the question which I keep asking would be just fabulous.
> You can find the question again above; it's in my first paragraph in
> this post.
>
> Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:35:01 GMT

In article <julian.714081311@sfu.ca>, julian@tantalus.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>Agreed, QM will obviously affect the prediction. But I seem to remember that
>even in Newtonian mechanics  a dynamical system cannot be predicted to arbitrary
>accuracy for an arbitrary time no matter how small the initial error.

I doubt that.  I see no reason for it.  Laplace's demon lost its job when QM
came up, not earlier.

>I think I mean that the accuracy required is so minute that the calculation
>takes longer-than-the-age-of-the-universe sort of time. So, for all
>practical purposes Newtonian mechanics cannot compute the trajectory.

For all practical purposes, yes, definitely.  (but I try it anyway, with
another chaotic system)

>When one factors in the QM limit on observation then it becomes impossible
>even in principle to calculate the trajectory (room for free-will perhaps,
>just a joke, I do not believe in a god-of-the-gaps). Poincare did this
>calculation back in 1900s and showed that such predictions are impossible for
>some systems.

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:59:06 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Are we privileged observers ?



Why go back 15 billion years to find places inaccessible to our
experiments ? Even yesterday in my office is no longer accessible
to me, and I'm hard pressed to disprove experimentally my colleague's
claim that in that small space there were significant differences
in the laws of physics from the accepted ones during that period.

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins