HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:05:23 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1993Jan20.101924.27484@abo.fi>, MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
> In article <222@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
 
> >This would involve Earth and possibly one or two other small planets
> >being suspended BETWEEN Jupiter and Saturn, possible at or near some point
> >of equal attraction, which you might call a "baricenter" or some such.
 
>       Do you mean a Lagrange point, Ted? That would not diminish the
> gravitational field of the Earth at all.

I have never spoken of "diminishing the gravitational field of the earth",
since that would something stranger than I know anything about in the way
of physics...  the only statement I have ever made here is that in 
antediluvian times, living creatures on earth felt the gravitational pull
of some other body aside from the earth as well as the earth's pull, and that
threfore the perceived/felt effect of gravity was less.  The felt effect of 
gravity diminishes quite a bit when you jump into a swimming pool...  water
boueyancy.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Johnson uses Argument from Personal Incredulity
Date: 28 Jan 93 19:22:17 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <2B63AD4A.27409@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
|> 	In this particular case, the assumption being made is that
|> 	only animals that are preyed upon need camouflage.  What is
|> 	overlooked is that predators also benefit from being
|> 	concealed from the prey.  Polar bears stalk seals resting
|> 	on the ice.  If the seal sees the bear coming from far
|> 	enough away, it can escape.

Not only that, but this particular item has been confirmed by observation
of stalking polar bears.

That is, the fact that a seal can escape if it sees the bear in time is
confirmed by observed instances of this happening.

And by comparing stalking by young, inexperienced bears, and older, more
experienced ones, it can be shown that camoflouge is an important component
of hunting success in polar bears. (The younger bears make no effort to
make optimal use of the camoflouge opportunities available to them).

|> 	   The polar bear argument turned out to be almost too easy
|> 	to demolish but, in an important sense, this is not the
|> 	point.  Even if the foremost authority in the world can't
|> 	explain some remarkable biological phenomenon, this doesn't
|> 	mean that it is inexplicable. ...  But we
|> 	aren't testing human ingenuity.  Even if we found one
|> 	example that we *couldn't* explain, we should hesitate to
|> 	draw any grandiose conclusions from the fact of our own
|> 	inability.  Darwin himself was very clear on this point.

I agree.  Unfortunately biologists themselves often fall into this trap.
The main argument against a monophyletic origin of all arthropods (from
a arthropods ancestor) is based largely on an inability to imagine how
crustacean and insect style leg joints could evolve from the same (already
jointed) ancestor.

For this reason I *never* accepted these arguments.  Fairly recently a new
analysis of leg form in early arthropods has shown that there *is* a series of
viable intermediates, and there are even fossils of them.

So, given how easily even a trained scientist is taken in by this sort of
fallacy, it is easy to understand how it could confuse many people.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: chris@eso.mc.xerox.com (Chris Heiny)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:25:50 GMT
Reply-To: chris@eso.mc.xerox.com
Followup-To: dev.null
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY

In article 8RJqXB7w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us, system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>Reading my signature is the only good thing that ever happened to you in
>your entire miserable life, and you should get down on your knees and
>thank the God who made you for giving you this opportunity to at least
>see His holy name in print.

In article 1iiVXB9w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us, system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>Why don't you try and make me?

Hmmmm.  Arrogance & belligerence.  Has Kalki been attending the Ted Holden school
of debate?  Or are they really the same person?  Has anyone seen them in the same
place at the same time?

And what the heck is this stuff doing on talk.origins, anyway?

							Chris

Don't forget to take ten deep breaths before responding.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 19:01:26 GMT

In article <1k182mINN3d1@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:
>: philosophy of science section.  Find things written by Karl Popper,
>
>I was taking a more mathematically rigorous definition of the
>term "prove" than the original poster perhaps intended.

Then perhaps your mistake was in applying that definition to
anything outside the realm of mathematics.  Nothing at all can
ever be proved (in the mathematical sense) unless you have the
luxury of being able to define the universe it is to be proved
in.

In The Real World, we deal with levels of evidence, which range
from nonexistent to weak to strong, but are never absolute.  The
evidence for evolution is overwhelming.  (Take a couple dozen
college level biology courses if you doubt this.)  I don't think
anybody, even Creationists, can seriously challenge the idea that
the evidence supports evolution far better than any other theory
that's ever been proposed.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: rlg@omni (Randy garrett)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Who is Christian - a simple answer
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:06:30 GMT
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
NNTP-Posting-Host: omni.ida.org
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

: 
: So any person who accepts Christ's teachings _as a whole_ can be
called a
: Christian.  So I, a free-thinker who does not believe in Christ's
divinity,
: who does not believe in Heaven or Hell, call myself a Christian, for
I accept
: the Golden Rule.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

But Christ taught that He was divine.  How can you accept His teachings
and not accept that?   Or do you only accept some teachings and not
others?  In which case, how do you choose? 

It seems to me that C.S. Lewis's Lord, Liar,
or Lunatic argument holds a lot of logical validity:  

If Jesus were not divine, then given His clear claims, He must have
been the greatest Liar who ever lived as well as the greatest
hypocrite since He condemned very strongly the smallest lies.
So, I certainly wouldn't want to have anything to do with the
teachings of someone like that.

Or,

He was simply a Lunatic, on the order of someone who says they're
Napolean, a poached egg or some other more creative object.  In
this case, I certainly wouldn't put any credence in any of His
teachings.

Or 
  We're in a heap of trouble if what He claimed was true ...

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Organization: University of Georgia
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:02:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.062150.19564@trl.oz.au> jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
>I still think my very own homebrewed theory explains it all much better:
>in those days the earth revolved in two hours, so that near the equator
                                     ^^^^^^^^^
>you weight half as much as at the poles, courtesy of "la force centrifuge"
>(sounds much more convincing when put in a foreign language).
>
>Do I believe in it myself? Why yes, sometimes I catch myself wondering
>if, after all...

I will only comment on the "two hours" part, since I remember someone else 
saying this before, and I wouldn't want it to go unchallenged.

Fossil coral records, specifically from the Devonian period, show annual and
daily growth rings (as do modern corals).  These clearly point to a year
made of about 380 days (number off the top of my head- it's only a few
longer than now, though).  So, if you belive the fossil record, no go.

Paul Keck  I'm not a coral polyp, but I play one on TV.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:57:58 GMT
Organization: The Language Game Inc.
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1993Jan25.144819.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
wrote:
> In article <91710c3e@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> > Now please state the theory of creationism.
> I think I've discovered why no one wants to put the theory of Creationism on
> t.o.  I keep seeing in the Creation Research Science Quarterly ads asking
> people to send money so that a model can be developed.  This is no small task. 
> CRS has only been around for 30 years or so, and they have to review all the
> scientific data. 

I personally think this is really hilarious when I think about the grip
on science the Christian church had for many, many decades. And all the 
wealth of the Church has been unable to sponsor more scientists to finally
after thousands of years produce the theory of Creationism.

Moreover, the current way of science is to let a better theory superseede
a bad one, and if there was something like a Creation theory that easily
was proven and showed the truth, the universities would teach and
investigate
this theory today. As long as there is nothing, it is classified in the
same
group as theories on UFOs, Loch Ness monsters and similar fringe sciences. 

> However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God created the
> universe.

A scientific theory is much more than an opinion. Can this be be
falsifiable,
yes, no, if not it's just an opinion. Where's the empirical evidence? 

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:29:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

In article <1993Jan25.213222.25537@spectrum.xerox.com>,
chris@eso.mc.xerox.com (Chris Heiny) wrote:
> 
> In article 16938@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> >The fossil record for intermediates is sparse or non existent
> >per se. There is a good reason for this.
> 
> Well, Lionel, I'll bite.  What is this reason?

I started to think about the fossil record of my father's ancestory line,
I know where my father and grand-father is buried, but after that I don't 
have the singlest clue where the rest are. In other words if I have a
hard time finding 'family' fossiles that are barely 200+ years old, what
about 
fossiles of whole species? Sometimes I'm amazed how much stuff you could
dig out from the dirt in South Dakota.

Just my own observations,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Date: 26 Jan 1993 00:49:35 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <C1DrDw.39y@world.std.com> pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.134326@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>In article <qXiuXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
>>system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>>>The basis of Darwinism is materialism, i.e. the proposition that 
>>>there is nothing in existence except matter and material energy, and 
>>>nothing ever influences matter except other matter or material energy.
>>
>>  False.
>>[...]
>>  If you cannot devise a test for these things, then they might as well not
>>exist.  What difference does it make?
>
>A test that a scientist would use would be a test involving material energy
>or matter, would it not? So how is that you describe the materialist
>presupposition of Darwinism as "False"? You seem to be saying the
>exact same thing by your request for a material test.
>
>Am I mistaken?
>
>paul duggan

	This thread is going astray. Evolution does not constitute a critical
test of materialism. Beside the obvious prejudice implicit in this claim there
is the larger problem of assuming that science decides issues outside its rather
narrowly defined focus, and that it claims absolute knowledge. Science neither
decides metaphysical issues nor claims absolute knowledge. Believing it does,
deom the point of view of a religionist with prejudies against evolution,
indicates the wish of the person who makes this claim that he has absolute
knowledge and confuses physical and metaphysical questions on purpose. In fact,
the chief trait of such a person is confusion and lack of care about important
distinctions.

	If it is true that science is limited to questions that embrace the
physical universe, that is no proof against a non-physical or a non-material
reality, only that science does not address metaphysical and spiritual issues
directly.

	Finally, no one who replies such as Johnson has has ever made a case
that origins as depicted by science, including evolution, is incapatable
with a spiritual life or a religious calling, except to imply, only, that
the details of origins mattered in the justification of human morals and
purpose. I can by no means accept this as an unsupported assertion, but
think that people who make this assertion without supporting it have an
unconscious problem with the authority of their beliefs, or are unsophistocated
in their use of language for spiritual matters as opposed to science, law,
or history.

Bruce Salem
 

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James)
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:16:50 GMT

>In article <(Kalki Dasa) writes:

  Reading my signature is the only good thing that ever happened to you in
  your entire miserable life, and you should get down on your knees and
  thank the God who made you for giving you this opportunity to at least
  see His holy name in print.

(?) writes:

   As well should you, Kalki, revel in the holy words printed in my 
   own sig, especially the quote from Duke, which will bring you eternal
   happiness and warm fuzzies.
 
(Kalki Dasa) writes:

   Your own sig is useless, materialistic propaganda, suited only for those
   who are destined for darkness. "Dropping acid" is a sure route to
   spiritual suicide,

Me:

I knew a guy who converted to Christianity from an experience he 
had on an acid trip.
True story.

Interestingly enough he was a lukewarm creationist studying physics.
I don't know what happened to him (although I know he got his degree).

--
  Michael James   mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu  
                 "Wouldn't it be great if insecurity and desperation
                  made us more attractive?" -- Albert Brooks, Broadcast News
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:35:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1993Jan25.150359.23939@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
|> 	My own spin on the "macroevolution = cumulative microevolution"
|> question:  the time element is missing.  I think, stressing the "I", that
|> rapid, cumulative microevolution, esp. in those apparently chaotic, turbulent
|> geologic period transitions, does equal macroevolution.  The process
|> occurs too quickly to get a geologic "snapshot" of it in progress, unless,
|> with Archaeopteryx as the ultimate example, we get lucky.

You do not even really need much in the way of chaotic transitions to get this.
All you really need is the founder effects and breeding system disruptions
involved in the formation of small, isolated population on the periphery of
a species range.  Under these conditions normal microevolutionary mechanisms
(selection, drift, mutation pressure &c.) can easily generate considerable
changes in a very short time.  See many of Ernst Mayr's studies on morphological
variation in birds in the East Indies for excellent examples of this.

And, of course, if, as Mayr's model indicates, speciation mostly occurs rapidly
in small,localized areas, it is hardly surprising that this is hardly ever
found in the fossil record.  This conclusion is what is called Punctuated
Equilibrium.  (The irony, of course, is that the very article in which
the P.E. model was proposed there is an example of a case where the local
transitional population *was* preserved - so saying it is 'never' found
is simply not true!)

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:15:25 GMT


   In article <1993Jan22.011901.26469@galois.mit.edu> 
tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes...

>Ted Holden writes:

><Basically, velikovsky is saying that chemicals entering
><out atmosphere from that of Venus formed, possibly in combination with 
><elements of our own atmosphere, hydrocarbons which rained down on earth 
><during the time of plagues mentioned in Exodus and, at a somewhat later
><time, some of these same chemicals, or others, or again some other combination
><of earth and venus atmospheric elements, which were in suspension in our
><clouds still, somehow or other formed into edible compounds (carbohydrates)
><and condensed out.

> In article <1993Jan20.181104.1@si151a.llnl.gov> brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
> writes:

><If there is "nothing magical" about converting hydrocarbons to carbohydrates,
><show me even a single example where this has been done in the modern world.

> Where did you get the idea of "converting" hydrocarbons to carbohydrates?
> Ted doesn't say this.  All he says is that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates
> both formed out of the combined atmospheres of Earth and Venus.

   You are correct, and I apologize.  I assumed that people would read the
paragraph immediately preceding this one, (which for reasons that escape
me, you have failed to quote).

       "Nothing magical here?  You are claiming that 'somehow or other'
	Venerian atmospheric constituents could at will form either
	hydrocarbons or carbohydrates.  'Somehow or other' the same thing
	couldn't happen on Mars.  'Somehow or other' the Veneran atmosphere
	would become completely devoid of any such compounds.  This is
	impossible working under the laws of physics as we know them.  Your
       'Somehow or other' is nothing more than an appeal to the miraculous.
	In my book miracles can be lumped into the category of magic."

   I was working under the (apparently) mistaken assumption that people could
extract context from this earlier paragraph.  I assumed (mistakenly it appears)
that this paragraph would make the context of the phrase "converting
hydrocarbons to carbohydrates" clear.  Thank you for pointing this out, so
I had a chance to elucidate my position before being quoted out of context
by Ted.

>  If you want to spend time refuting Ted, at least get his claims straight.

   Thanks for the advice, Tim.  If someone hadn't taken the time to read the
paragraph I reinserted above, I can understand how someone would feel that
I had misunderstood Ted's claims.  Now that I have reinserted the lead-in
paragraph, it should be obvious to everyone that I had Ted's claim straight.
Good advice, though.  It would save a lot of bandwidth and useless niggling
if everyone took the time to understand what was posted before jumping in and
looking foolish.

>Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Date: 25 Jan 93 06:26:46 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan24.230705.13854@trl.oz.au> jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
>rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:

>>>This theory has the advantage of being falsifiable: we ought to find
>>>fossils of very much larger creatures near the equator only.
>>No sooner said than done.  Malawisaurus, from Malawi, was an atypically
>>small Sauropod.  See Jacob's new book on African DInosaurs.

>I resent your attempt at keeping me out of Rolls-Royces and wild women.
>Righteously thinking future members of my Church of the Earlier Saints
>Days of Eight Ours (tm) will point out the manifest error in your
>reasoning. It is the presence of very large terrestrial fossils
>near the poles that would disprove the theory, not the presence of
>small fossils at the equator. Your fundamentally flawed reasoning
>brands you as a choice recruit for my Church. Start those donations
>coming, you have my blessing.

Oh, I misunderstood.  I thought you were discussing Science rather 
Religion.  On those grounds your case is unimpeachable, and I really
cannot quarrel with you.  Best of luck with your Holy Endeavours.

By the by, folks, I would like you all to support Jacques to the best
of your (financial) ability.  I notice that he omitted to mention where
to send those donations so, out of the goodness of my heart, I am
volunteering to serve as a collection agent for him.  Send your
donations to the address below, and mark them

	The Jacques Guy Rolls Royce Fund
	Church of the Earlier Saints Days of Eight Ours (tm)
	%Richard Harter

I will gladly see that Jacques gets everything coming to him.
Remember, the greatest virtue is giving liberally to the Church.
Give Early, Give Often.  


-- 
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.
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: For Richard Harter
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:53:09 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan19.005027.11623@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>Richard, your e-mail keeps bouncing.  Do you have an
>alternate address?  I wanted to discuss your Creation FAQ.

Have you tried rh@smds.com, per my signature.  The news software fills
in the UUCP address, which may or may not get though.  I dunno.  If you
have some saucy suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them.  If you want to
argue, on the other hand...


-- 
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