HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: sgi
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 22:18:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.114457.24720@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> In article <qe5e904@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> Pick up a copy of `Only Love Can Make A Miracle' by
|> Mahesh Chavda, published by Kingsway. There are cases
|> of people with _no eyeballs_ having their sight
|> restored. There is also a picture of the signed death
|> certificate of a boy who died and whom God restored to
|> life.

Sorry, that's not a reference.   That's a pointer to a book
containing an anecdote.   I would like a properly attested
medical case.

How you get from medical cases to miracle is a whole second
stage, of course.

|> 
|> >While you are at it, explain how you distinguish between a
|> >spontaneous recovery, and "God did it".       I've always 
|> >wondered about that one.
|> 
|> There are no hard and fast rules - but if you nip off
|> a sliver of skin from the end of your finger and it
|> grows back, thats no great miracle. But if you have a
|> withered arm and it instantaneously grows back...

You finished that sentence by trailing off into ellipses.

I take it that that means you have no idea how to 
distinguish one from another either.   Otherwise you 
would say.

jon.
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 27 Sep 92 02:52:25 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1465@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|> 
|> The statement in quotes was a rephrasing of a previous statement made
|> in a prior posting that said something to the effect: the circular
|> argument exists among many religious people that "we know that
|> religious writings are correct because our religious leaders tell us
|> so and the writings tell us so."  I apologize for giving the
|> impression that circular arguments exist in science.  What I should
|> have made clear is that circular arguments about science exist among
|> many people.

Fine, then we can all be friends once more.   Probably I was just
taking you too literally.    If all you are doing is drawing a
comparison between some of the adherents of Science and some of
the adherents of religion, then there's no problem.

Of course, now that we've said that, we can go back to talking
about the differences between Science and Religion.   Within
its claimed domain, you can test what Scientists tell you, so
you don't have to accept its claims on authority.   I really do
not see how you do that in religion.    I see how you do it with
some eastern philosophies: in fact I've done that myself in a
small way, but I don't see how anyone can test the grandiose
claims of "western" religion.

|> 
|> Faith begins with tentative opinions and what religious people 
|> who make the quoted statement in the previous paragraph have 
|> is tentative opinions.  To increase that faith (in science or 
|> religion) requires some study and experimentation with basic 
|> concepts.

Well, leaving aside the cheap jibe that in some periods of
history your mere use of the word "tentative" would have been
a punishable offense, how exactly do you do this?    In 
particular, how do you do an "experiment" in religion that
is repeatable?

jon.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:07:56 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Oct2.080657.7277@nic.funet.fi>, Teemu Makinen writes:
*In article <42@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

*>Again, reread what McGowan says about the lives of elephants.  They spend
*>most of their waking hours eating;  McGowan says it is not clear to him
*>how anything could eat enough to get any bigger than elephants.  
*     ^^^^^^^^

*What about whales?

He surely meant large land herbivores.  Whales eat animal protein, whether
plankton or squid and fish in some cases, and that's a different ball game
from what Stan and I were talking about.  Sauropods ate the same kinds of
stuff elephants do.  The point I was making was that if elephants need to
eat almost all day long as they do and require the volumes of green leaves
which we know they do, then there is no way that sauropods could live in
the kind of area which Stan was describing.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: A brief Tirade and an addendum
Organization: sgi
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:23:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.063054.4402@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
|> In article <1135@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|> > In article <1992Sep24.125153.4329@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
|> > |
|> > |Question number two:  What kind of evidence would you (as a creationist) 
|> > |consider valid evidence for evolution? 
|> > |
|> > |Responses I have gotten:  Bob Bales - Anything that doesn't look designed.
|> > |(This is an answer?)  Various other Creationists - (total silence)
|> > 
|> > Well, then Bob Bales, you may consider yourself answered.  Go read "The
|> > Panda's Thumb" by Stephen J. Gould - it is just chock full of such things.
|> > Or try Darwin's "Origin of the Species", it also mentions a great many
|> > things that don't look designed, and uses them as major supporting
|> > arguments for his theory of evolution.
|> 
|> But Bob claims EVERYTHING looks designed.  Even when no one else would think
|> it does.  Bob has tunnel vision.

Almost everything.   When I asked him if God showed signs of having
been designed he simply shut up for a month.

jon.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:28:24 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <BRUCE.92Sep30153607@suprenum.supr.scm.liv.ac.uk> bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
|
|Here's another example: suppose I want to roll six sixes (with six
|dice).  How many rolls would I expect to need if
|     a) I just keep rolling all six until they all come up sixes?
|     b) If I take out any that come up sixes and just reroll the rest?
|
|The answer for b is much less than a, because the two situations are
|quite different.

*Much* less - ever play Yahtzee?

My *guess* would be that it would usually take fewer than 5 rolls, and
almost never more then 6 (in the b case).

Case a comes out somewhere in the 10's of thousands.

| Similarly (as any biologist should know) evolution
|is not the same as pure chance; it entails selection.  The selection
|is much less effective than either Dawkins' analogy or the dice
|analogy, but it's there all the same: if you ignore it, you're
|ignoring an essential part of evolutionary theory, and you wouldn't
|want to do that, would you?
|
As Mayr says, evolution is neither pure determinism nor pure chance.
It is something entirely different.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists III
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:05:26 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link



rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (Robert P.J. Day 277-3175) writes:
>Creationists:  what will you do with your academic term?  What will
>you present?  What theories?  What evidence?  And how can you do it
>without referring to evolution?  Keep in mind that to say you
>are going to use your term to attack evolution is totally unacceptable.
>If you want equal time for creationism, then you teach creationism.
>You have, let us say, three months of teaching time to fill up.
>What are you going to put in it?

I doubt if the creationists would really go for this, as it would
clearly demonstrate the bankruptcy of their science, which would in
turn cast significant doubt upon their theology.  Since support
for their theology is what they are really interested in, this would
have exactly the opposite effect.

What they seem to be working for (and achieving in many situations)
is the watering down or even complete removal of evolution from
textbooks, so that they can teach origins in church instead of
at school.  "Equal time" means, "since creation science takes up
no time in classrooms, neither should evolution science".

Keith
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Favorite astronomer jokes
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:46:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.211509.20010@u.washington.edu>,
sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> Anyone got a punchline for this one:
> How many catastrophists does it take to shift the orbit of Venus?

27 (even if they are quadrupeds).  I have calculations proving that
this number is correct.  Wanna see them?

C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
	<1992Oct1.174958.14160@wdl.loral.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:17:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.174958.14160@wdl.loral.com> mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.165653.12051@lsil.com> gascan@dcst16.dc writes:
>>2Chronicles 4:2, referring to the construction of Solomon's temple:
>>'And he made the molten sea, and it was round, ten cubits from rim to rim, five
>>cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumfrence.'
>>That's either pi=3 or the most underrated miracle in the Bible.  Show me a circle
>>ten units across with a circumfrence of 30 units and I'll accept creationism.

>Come on now, that's just a granularity of mesurement error.  Take a circle
>ten units in diameter, yes its circumference in 31.415+ units, but your
>messuring it by walking a 1 unit cord around the circle.  The arc length
>associated with a 1 unit cord is 10*arcsin(.5/100) = 1.004 units, so yes 
>it should have said 31 and a fraction cubits.  But all the other numbers
>are given in only 1 digit accuracy so 30 is close enough.  Remember the bible
>is not a blueprint for building the temple.  If you built a circular fish
>pond 10 yards in diameter in your backyard and someone asked how far around it
>was you would most likely just say "Oh, about 30 yards".

So then you admit there are some errors in the Bible?
Or do you admit that there are some approximations in the Bible?

I'll take either admission from a literal Bible reader and throw it
back in her/his face every time (s)he quotes another inane passage.

-Bill
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Antti's File of "Nonreligious Objections" (was: Thanks etc)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:57:26 GMT


asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>  I'm sorry, I've been off for a week, collecting ideas and visiting
>  libraries. I found the Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins. Now, before I say
>  my own points about it, I would like to ask you, evolutionists, how well
>  this book describes your views.

I think among other things, Blind Watchmaker clearly demonstrates that the
probability arguments against evolution are bogus.  His simplified computer
simulations demonstrate that you do not need very many components for
evolution as a process to operate, and in fact, that it does operate on
any system that accumulates errors and is filtered by any kind of selection
process.

That errors are accumulated during the processes of biological reproduction,
and that they are filtered by selection processes are indisputable, and
in fact, are the basis for the micro evolution that is accepted even by
creationists.  Creationists therefore, have found there are only two things
that can disprove evolution:

	1. There must be some kind of explicit limitation on the ability for
	   errors to accumulate, prohibiting "macro" evolution in the
	   Earths biota.  A self-correction factor perhaps, or physical
	   limitations that cannot be bridged.

	2. There hasn't been enough time to accumulate enough errors for
	   evolution to produce the biota that exists.

Creationists have been completely unable to identify any specifics with
regards to point #1.  Point 2 can only be derived via the "special pleading"
of the Omphalos (artificial appearance of age) argument, which makes
creationism philosophically indistinguishable from Last Tuesdayism.  The
ICR's response here, seems to now be to redefine science to allow
their version of Last Tuesdayism as a viable scientific alternative.  This
definition of science in effect, considers all things that have not been
proven false as equally viable, independent of falsifiability.

Keith

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Kazmaier and standing up at 200,000 lbs:  why it can't happen
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 06:45:26 GMT

In article <45@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>I have (sufficiently often), on t.o.  presented a rather simple and
>elegant demonstration as to why nothing now evolves into any size beyond
>that of the largest elephants, and the regular crew of t.o has never
>been able to comprehend it.

Actually, it seems that the problem is that the regular crew of t.o.
is quite capable of comprehending it--and, indeed, as a consequence,
keep pointing out how your simple and elegant model bears only a 
very limited correspondence to reality.  Your model does, truth be
known, make a very good case for no fossil Kazmaiers greater than
200,000# with proportions identical to our own contemporary powerlifter
of that name have been found.

Unfortunately for your model, there are a goodly number of fatal flaws
with it, each one sufficient to show that your reasoning isn't valid.
This is fortunate, otherwise we'd have to conclude that, since it
doesn't appear possible for ants to grow to 250# while keeping the
same body structure and proportions, that we can't exist either and
might as well stop pretending to exist and using up net resources.

Incidentally, a quick check of my biceps tendon shows that it feels
somewhat smaller in diameter than my thumb; it also feels like it 
attaches to a point somewhere around 2" from the elbow joint while
my palm is around 15" from the elbow joint.  Yet, earlier I was doing
curls with 135# and the tendon showed absolutely no signs of breaking
nor was there any sensation of soreness (except normal muscle fatigue).
This would correspond to a tension of more than 1000# on this tendon,
a level of tensile strength per unit area quite sufficient to support
a sauropod neck, even given your own figures.

Trygve 

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Subject: Re: Words to Think by
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:31:19 GMT

In article <97302@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <BvGIzD.F0H@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>
>>In the same chapter (or maybe the second), Burke tells about St.
>>Augustine (I think), who made a list of things even God couldn't
>>do.  Among them was, "make the interior angles of a triangle sum to 
>>other than 180 degrees."  I liked that.
>
>What if you drew the triangle on a curved surface (such as a sphere)?
>The sum of the angles would be less than 180 but I'm not sure if you
>could still call the three sided figure a triangle. Just curious,
>anyone knee deep in geometry trivia out there?

The sum of the angles of a spherical triangle (a triangle drawn on a sphere) 
will be between 180 degrees and 540 degrees. The spherical triangle is 
a different animal altogether. I am sure St. Augustine was talking about
planar triangles.

>>* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
>
>Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
>"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
>resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
> 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

Scott

P.S. It's late and I am pondering a wonderful Trappist (sp?) Ale brewed
by Belgian monks. Where in the hell (Indiana, actually) am I going to
find it around here? I was introduced to it years ago by a friend of mine
who managed a restaurant. I could kill that guy right now. This is a Bud
state! (barf!)

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:35:18 GMT

In article <REUS.92Sep29163531@klein.euromath.dk> reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen) writes:
>Despite being both scientist and creationist I do not possess a
>" theory of creationism " ! I am aware of some but they are 
>outdated as Scientific theories . I do not share most "theories"
>appearing on the net which sounds to me like American political
>speaches.

To which theories appearing on the net do you refer, and do they sound to
you like Democratic speeches or Republican speeches?

-- Herb Huston
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Abuse By t.o Regulars
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 28 Sep 92  09:39:08

Tag: Jim Loucks (jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks))
 
[most of article removed for space]
 
JL> "It would be extremely beneficial for everyone if those
JL> who have sent me mail would begin to participate in the
JL> debate. I'm referring to the scientists out there who do
JL> not hold the evolutionary world view and haven't participated
JL> in t.o due to the reception they would receive, plus the
JL> 'professional' peer pressure that would follow. If you are
JL> not comfortable with this then please do not feel any
JL> pressure to jump in, that is not my intent."
 
Ah, plasible denial in t.o. How political! (SMILE!) When these
hypothetical individuals fail to post, you have a ready-made
reason why they didn't. (Sounds like claims about God to me.)
 
I would paraphrase you to say that creation "scientists" -DO-
have evidence / facts / valid observations / valid contributions,
but they do not share them with us, nor the world at large,
because they fear redicule and peer review.
 
My observation is that the "t.o. Regulars" as well as innocent
bystandards such as myself, would =LOVE= to see these emails
of yours, and discuss with these "scientists" you alude to, in
the spirit of information exchange / education / enlightenment /
and, yes, "ripping of fresh assholes" (i.e. bloody arguments). If
said "scientists" cannot stand the heat of scrutiny, and stand
upon their data, are they scientists or cranks?
 
They can start with telling us what the "theory of 'creationism'"
is. That I'd like to read.
 
To my mind, "Creation 'Science'" is just more New Age psudo-science
babble. Couched is "scientific" sounding jargon, the Creationist
attempts to disguise their occult doctrine behind science. Sounds
like astrology and Edgar Caseyism to me.
 
However, if "Creation 'Scientists'" would only PRODUCE EVIDENCE,
I'd happily retract and revide my observation. Why do the not???
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation!
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:08:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.135043.23660@cbnews.cb.att.com> ran@cbnews.cb.att.com (Robert A. Neinast) writes:
}
}A new scientific study has now given us the data to show that the
}creation certainly occurred after 33,000 BC and strong evidence
}shows that it probably occurred in 5386 BC.
}
}This equation shows that body temperature would
}of been 212 degrees in 33286 BC, so it is clear that the creation must
}of occurred after that date.  We can better pin down the date
}for creation by considering the perfection of God.  What better
}evidence of the flawlessness of his Plan than to create humans with
}body temperature exactly midway between the boiling and freezing
}points of water: 122 degrees F.  The above equation shows that
}this occurred in 5386 BC, in remarkable agreement with other estimates
}for the time of the Fall.

You forgot to take something into account.  The felt effect of time would
vary with the speed of the chemical reactions involved doing the perceiving.
Since (roughly) the felt effect of time would double for every ten degrees,
it would really be MUCH more recently, and only be PRECEIVED as happening
a long time ago.

;-) included for the humor impared.  Any bets that this will show up
some time in a Ted dump?


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:37:17 GMT

Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com) wrote:

: While you are at it, explain how you distinguish between a
: spontaneous recovery, and "God did it".       I've always 
: wondered about that one.


	The same way you distinguish between the spontaneous creation
of the Universe (the "Big Bang") and "God did it".
	You can't.  That's where faith comes in.
	Again, the fountain of Lourdes in France has specific 
criteria for what can be considered a "miraculous healing".  I KNOW
they exist, but don't know where to find them.  Whether or not the
healing is truly "miraculous" no doubt depends on the perception of
the individual.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Water Sorting
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 02 Oct 92  15:58:50

Tag: Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
 
>The fossil record (even as assembled by 19th-century
>Creationists, not to mention the much more extensive work
>that has been done since then) clearly shows that different
>forms of life appeared at different times. Change
>unquestionably occurred; the only question is how.
 
LT> "All it shows is that different forms of life appear in the
LT> fossil record at different _layers_! [P] As to the interpretation
LT> of that, evo's say its because of evo, but an equally if not more
LT> valid interpretation is that of hydrological sorting in the flood.
 
Alas, you haven't been paying attention. Just how did water sort
the fossils by their age?
 
LT> --
LT> Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation!
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:08:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.135043.23660@cbnews.cb.att.com>, ran@cbnews.cb.att.com
(Robert A. Neinast) writes:
> collected the data using OVER ONE MILLION PEOPLE.  This pretty well points
> to the fact that, just as maximum lifespan of humans has been declining
> since the Fall (c.g. Methuselah--Gen 5:27), so has average body temperature.

  I am pretty sure this is a joke, but I can't resist pointing out that the
average human lifespan has NOT been declining since the fall.  The average human
lifespan has gone up about 30 years since the turn of the century.

  For just the U.S. it has gone up even more..

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************