HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:27:53 GMT

In article <70@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <PHS.92Oct11161638@cassiopee.lifia.imag.fr>, 
>  phs@cassiopee.lifia.imag.fr (Philippe Schnoebelen) writes:
>
>Even Throop and a number of others at this point are admitting that a 
>200,000 version of one of our top power lifters would not be able to 
>function in our world.

Ted, I would be surprised if any of us on t.o have ever denied that.
What we disagree with is that your calculations for a biped translate
to a quadruped.  You have still, despite everything, never given any
evidence for that.

>The next step will be to somehow get them to realize that a 200,000 lb 
>sauropod
>would not in any way be stronger or more efficient than a 200,000 lb version
>of Kazmaier or Paul Anderson.  That seems glaringly obvious to me for several
>reasons:

Blah blah.  I can also use your reasons to say that Kaz should be able
to long jump and high jump better than any creature his weight.  Not,
alas, true.  Not only can he be beaten by other animals, he is beaten by
lots of other humans.  Humans aren't all that good at jumping.  Why
do you assume we are so hot at lifting?

>I mentioned the thing about time frames in passing.  The thought was this:
>
>   IF tens of millions of years have actually passed since the time of the 
>   sauropods, and IF conditions on earth have changed no more than is 
>   commonly believed, then indeed something, at least one life form, SHOULD
>   have again evolved into such sizes.

Why?  Evolution is not directed.

>In our age, central asians have been trying to breed eagles (berkuts) for
>size and strength for 2000 years, and cannot get them beyond 25 lbs, at
>which point they begin to experience sever problems taking off.  You've seen
>my long post on prehistoric flying creatures;  I'll repost it shortly.

Gee thanks.  We can also try and breed really large quadrupeds.  Let us
start with, uh, dogs.  Darn, once they get over 300 pounds (say) they
get pretty unhappy.  Guess that means no quadruped can be that size and
live.  All you have proven is that eagles can't get that big.  I fail
to see how your example generalizes to all winged animals.

>Ted Holden
>HTE

C "What happened to bear?" Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 350 lb super-athlete goat?
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:51:23 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Oct8.054419.25692@scic.intel.com>, sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes:

*>The t.o regular crew says no problem.  Fine;  you should be able to show 
*>me a goat, a mountain sheep, a burro, or some such animal which, at around
*>300 - 400 lbs, can lift 2000 lbs.  
 
*Or maybe you could actually pay attention to the several posts which
*have described gorillas as being able to do that or more?  But then,
*that would have you paying attention to facts, and we know that's
*just not going to happen...

I suspect me paying attention to facts is a good deal likelier than you
paying attention to the nature of these debates/arguments/pissing-contests,
or whatever you want to call them.

I'd have to see a gorilla lift 2000 lbs in any meaningful fashion, and I don't
mean from standing straight up minus 1.5 inches to standing straight up,
as per Paul Anderson's famous 3000+ lb yoke lift.  That's meaningless.

But that's not what I was talking about at all, and the entire subject of
gorillas, which are omniverous and, I assume mostly fruit eaters, is 
irrelevant here.  

A sauropod dinosaur was low man on the food chain, which is why most of
his weight was taken up by the digestive system needed to deal with huge
volumes of low value food stuffs.

That is why such a creature would be very much weaker than a guy like Kaz
its own size, who was mostly muscle.

So, as a fair contrast, I'm asking the t.o crew to show me an example of
a creature which is roughly Kaz' size, which is also low on the food chain
(which leaves out gorillas, big cats, and all other such contenders), and
which can lift 2000 lbs.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: weasels, chimps, Micheal Stipe and Darwin
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:26:35 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <Bvsy10.6EF@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:

>Now, Chris, I really must protest against your libelous statement above.
>Chimpanzees are intelligent, inquisitive creatures that bear no resemblance
>to Antti's net.persona.  It's really lucky for you that chimps can't sue.

I had a dream last night that a group of weasels and chimps were
pounding on my door demanding an apology.

>-- Herb Huston

On a complete tangent, does anyone out there have the new REM
disk? What does Stipe say about Darwin in the song "Man on the
Moon"? There's a line about an apple falling on Newton's head,
then some stuff about Egypt being plagued by asps then 'Mr.
Charles Darwin [something, something, something]'. I think its
either 'had to go and ask' or 'had the balls to ask'. Anyone
able to understand Stipe's mumblings? Its a great disk, BTW.

Chris "I figured out '9-9' from _Murmur_, but this ones got me" Colby 

"We zap and maim/With the bravery of being out of range" - Roger Waters


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:11:16 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1207@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
wrote:
> In article <ksand-041092173516@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> |
> |I don't know much about the biology studies in Finnish universities,
> |however I'm quite confident that evolution is part of the curriculum.
> |It's nearly impossible to avoid it, unless you are stubborn. 
> 
> Actually, if the curriculum is anything like that of universities here in
> the states, it is impossible to graduate with a degree in biology without
> studying evolution, even *if* you are stubborn - there are invariably
> several *required* courses that cover various aspects of evolution.
> [I believe that at K.U. there are about 3-4 courses that between them
> cover the basics of evoolution, and then several advanced courses that
> cover certain specific areas in more detail].  

I will actually revise my statement. Speaking from experience from
my high school days in Finland it was impossible to avoid taking courses
in basic theories of evolution before graduation. 

I would assume that people interested in biology would have an even better
picture of the theories. In that sense you have to be quite stubborn and
deliberately forget what they teached you in high school. Then again there
are people that are such morons.

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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Holdenism
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 09 Oct 92  09:56:48

Tag1: Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb))
And: news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden)
 
TH> "golden, or antediluvian age, when the earth was VERY
TH> egg-shaped, and then the classical age of Cronos, or
TH> golden age, during which time the earth was still egg-
TH> shaped, the felt effect of gravity still attenuated, but
TH> not so greatly...  i.e. he figures the original conformation
TH> of the earth collapsed in at least two discernable stages.
 
PL> "Yes, but he also figures that the size of the bulge would
PL> have broken the earth into little pieces. In at least this,
PL> he is in full agreement with most of the other people who
PL> comment on your 'theories.'"
PL>
PL>     'Danby's formula [for tidal distortion -prl] gives
PL>     about 61000km for the distance needed for an eccentricity
PL>     of 0.6 [the size of the antediluvian hump -prl] and about
PL>     73000km for an eccentricity of 0.36 [the size of the
PL>     'golden age' hump -prl]. Both of these distances are
PL>     considerably _less_ than the Roche limit.'[1] p21.
PL>
PL> The Roche limit is the smallest orbit that a body can have
PL> without tidal stresses destroying it. Ted has often been
PL> told on t.o that his schemes which gryate the Earth around
PL> Saturn producing huge humps would tear the earth apart; here
PL> he has it affirmed by his own sources."
 
Mr. Holden, it appears, believes that an "electromagnetic star"
was located over the "north pole," and that this produced such
an effect that it pulled all the land masses together, to form
the lump called Pangaea.
 
What was the force that kept Earth from falling into this star's
gradient?! If it was strong enough to bunch up land (which a
logical person would sooner believe WATER would be collected
there, not land), Earth should have spiraled into this star.
I wonder if Ted can come up with the mechanism that made such
an orbit stable, and yet retains the "reduced felt effect of
gravity." Don't anyone hold ones' breath.
 
Another thing. What held the atmosphere on Earth? If this star
could pull land into one place, surely it could suck up and
consume the atmosphere, without a belch. The atmosphere is a
very large mass.
 
Conversely, if Earth only received sunlight on one hemisphere,
surely the atmosphere would have swiftly migrated to the dark
side, via convection air currents, to meet the freezing atmosphere.
Would not the entire atmosphere eventually freeze in a huge lump
on the dark side?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Why is it bad science?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:43:53 GMT


livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>That's exactly the point I am making.   Anyone can come up with a
>notion like "God could have done this and that" but there's simply
>no way we can test it precisely *because* these are speculations
>involving the idea that God has falsified the available evidence.

>The reason it's not science is that science has to deal with the
>evidence that *is*.  Science can't indulge in speculation about
>how the evidence "could have been" falsified by external magical
>agents.

>What did you think I was saying?

It musta been a long day....   Never mind....  I'll probably get one of
these "how did you get THAT out of what I said?" from Richard Harter
as well....


Keith
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden and the C programming language
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:43:44 GMT
Organization: NRAO

In article <1992Oct13.234020.24730@csis.dit.csiro.au> prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb) writes:
>Actually, feel compelled to encourage Ted in his efforts to improve
>his programming style. The program which he posted and has had criticised
>in this thread is a *vast* improvement to what he had published in
>Aeon 2(4), p115.
>
>---------------begin Ted code; indenting per original---------------
>#include <stdio.h>
>#include <math.h>
>int i,j,k,l;
>long ii,jj,kk;
>double a,b,c,aa,bb,cc,dd;
>double x,y,z,xx,yy,zz;
>main()
>{
>xx = 550;
>while(xx > 1)
>{ printf("\n num of args was %d\n", ii);
>exit();
>}
>xx=jj; yy=kk;
>zz=pow(xx,.666);
>aa=yy/zz;
>printf(\n\n ratio = %f\n", aa);
>}
>---------------end Ted code---------------
>
>The while loop in this program continues to fascinate me.

Now that is an understatement!!!!

But there must have been a transmission problem somewhere along the
line, surely.  Ted to Aeon or Aeon to the typesetters/printers?
No one could write code like that; could they?  All of the declared
and not used variables and all of the referenced and not defined
variables makes it look like this code (?) was lifted from something
else.  Since all of the variables are declared outside of main ()
that would seem to imply there were other functions involved.  Of
course there is no reference to them in the rest of the code.

Given the variable names this looks like something that may have been
originally written in BASIC and then transliterated to C to give it
a modern look.  The printf ()'s give me that impression also.  But
being fair, is the lack of the leading " in the second printf () a
typo on your part or is it the way it appeared in the article?

But then again the logic in the above code bears a striking resemblance
to the logic in Ted's posts.  :-(
-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Holden and the C programming language
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:30:17 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <71@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-111092152633@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> > In article <67@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote:
> > > K&R C compilers, free with UNIX, are a classic example of getting what
> > > you pay for in life.  
> > 
> > Well, gcc is also free
> 
> GCC is one of the rare exceptions;  the standard C compiler isn't.  

This is what I tried to say, the K&R C compiler is not a freebie,
as stated in your statement above. You pay a licensing fee to Bell
Labs (AT&T) for the UNIX system including the tools. 

> Don't interpret anything I might have said as imparting such a motive to Sagan;
> the basic motive there is to advance the yuppie career of one Carl Sagan...
> if a few inferior minds get destroyed here and there in the process, and it
> looks like they might have, hey, that's the American system.  Rejoice.

I don't remember this one. However I read books by Sagan, and I do think
he has a fairly sharp mind. And in that sense I applaude that he's one
of the few scientists that the common people recognize. We need 
more scientist heros and less war heros, IMHO. So it's good he's 
has a yuppie career so more American kids will follow his thread
and become scientists and engineers.

Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:14:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.233510.1480@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>The genius whose brain spawned this thing was Immanuel Velikovsky, a Swiss
>psychiatrist.  Physicists who have read his books say that the history part
>sounds reasonable, but the physics part is bullshit, whereas historians think
>it's the other way around.

Did Velikovsky actually suggest all this gravity stuff? I was under
the impression that it came from a fringe group of his followers, like
Rose and Ted.
-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Date: 9 Oct 1992 17:49:41 GMT
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sitka.triumf.ca

In article <1992Oct9.161412.15246@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
|> BZZZZZZZZ Wrong answer, please check with your local math text.
|>      3000 has one significant digit.

Er, it has anywhere between one and four significant digits, Eric.
3000 +/- 500 has one sig fig.  3000 +/- 0.5 has four sig figs.

|>        30 has one significant digit.
|>        31 has two significant digits.
|>      31.4 has three significant digits.
|> Zeros to the right, in the abscence of a decimal point, aren't significant.

Which digits are significant depends on the stated uncertainty of the
measurement.  Without an uncertainty estimate, the significance of zeros 
is not decidable.

If your statement was correct, then it would be impossible to express
the number "3000" to, say, two or three sig figs (without changing 
notations or bases, that is).

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
From: frank@hsr.no (Frank A Stevenson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:04:09 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre


	One thing that is evident from the biblical text in question is that the
jews at that time had poor knowledge of both mathematics and bronzework. It is
clearly stated that they had to import the brass vessels from a neighboring
country. At any rate it seems possible that the person describing the vessel was
totally unaware of the fact that upon giving the diametre of the vessel there is no
need to give the circumference. Possibly he had little appreciation for
the accuracy of the given measurements.

	But if you want this text to remain absolutely true and you're willing to
take a far fetched explanation this is how to picture the vessel. The outer
diametre could be 10 and the inner circumference could then be 30. From here I
leave it as an exercise to the reader to calculate the thickness of the vessels
rim.

-- 
    /// Frank Andrew Stevenson ><>
\\\///  Rogaland University Centre
 \XX/   Norway (frank@hsr.no)
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Summary: Ted requires a force that acts on rocks and not water...
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:40:28 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <57@fedfil.UUCP>
: In the age when the really big sauropods lived, all the land had reduced
: perceived gravity (since it was all pulled up into one place, i.e. under
: the small electromag star we then orbitted, and the majority of the water
: did not.  The southern hemisphere was pretty wet.

An interesting force, that can pull granite across bassalt,
but somehow leave the water behind.  But then, the "electromag"
forces that Ted requires are always pretty talented.  They stabilize
unstable orbits, allow mental telepathy, work on rocks (but not
water, as we see here), buoy up the sauropods (but make them still
have thick bones despite not needing them), halt the spread of
communism, eliminate the national debt, and reduce the need for
floridation of water, thus avoiding the ongoing pollution of
our precious bodily fluids.

Actually, Ted often says that the force is gravitational, but of course
it is trivial to see that gravitational-based forces won't leave the
water behind.  This can clearly be seen by going to any of our nations
fine ocean beaches and watching what goes on there for some period of
time.  Most people figure this out within 12 hours.  Under this
scenario, all the water would be under the "electromag star", and the
dry land would all have an *increased* "felt effect".  (Before you chide
me about how tides work, I know that, but Ted has said that earth was
not in free fall (though granted, it isn't clear to me that Ted even
realizes that the scenario he described requires this).)

So, some golden age.  Constant richter-10-plus earthquakes as torque and
acceleration are applied to the core via electromagnetic forces to
stabilize the orbit Ted requires, all the water covering up that
world-mountain.  And to top it off, so close to a star (electromag or
not) that everything fries.  Doesn't sound comfortable to me. 
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: What makes a creationist?
Keywords: creationist
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:41:49 GMT



ksiew@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (steven kok-hsien siew) writes:

>1) Have anyone done a psychological profile of
>   a creationist? What are his motives?

An attempt to reconcile conflicting "truths" (a misnomer in both cases),
that given by a particular and rigid interpretation of a religious book,
and that given by scientific investigation of geology, biology, astronomy,
etc.  What's interesting is neither of these two sources are particularly
compelling as capital-T "TRUTH" and science for one, doesn't even claim
to be (though interestingly enough, we have seen that the creationists
are themselves inclined to consider science=TRUTH just as they are their
particular rigid interpretation of the Bible).  The common thread here
seems to be a need for certainty in a world where certainty only exists
in authoritarian dogma.

>2) Why do creationist put up arguements that even
>   a high school science student can find holes in?

Because most of them didn't do very well in high school science, or went
to private schools that didn't teach the same sort of science you may
have had.

>3) Why do creationist keep bringing religion into
>   their "theories"? Can't their theories stand on
>   their own.

(Theories?  I don't need no steenkin' theories!).  It's hard for them
to keep religion out of creationism, because they don't really want to.
The point *is* to shoehorn religion back into the public schools, or,
failing that, undermine the public schools in favor of private sectarian
schools.

>4) Why do creationist keep insisting that the bible
>   is the literal truth?

It's worse than that, they keep insisting that their *specific
interpretation* of the Bible is the literal truth.  There are religious
people who can see and understand the evidence for evolution who also
believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and also understand that
creationist "literal truth" is artificially constrained.

>5) Why do people "become" creationist in the first place?
>   What kind of people accepts these creationist
>   ideas?

Right-wing conservatives who feel that their religious system has
determined without a doubt what God thinks, and that he thinks that
everyone else should unquestionably pay attention to this unique
knowledge on the subject.  Persons who want to enforce their unique
understanding of God's laws on the American people through American
government.  People who have taken what little understanding they
may have had and traded it in for their undeniable self-righteousness.

>6) What economic benefits do "crackpots" have in
>   advancing their creationist arguements?

A large portion of the American public is anti-intellectual, and
creationism rewards them for being so.  If you ain't smart, you
can be better than any genius simply by knowing the undeniable
TRUTH.  Economic benefits?  You'll PAY to know what you REALLY
think.  For me, if I ain't smart, I'd rather just assert my Bob
given right to be Sub-Genius.

Keith