HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: learn to read, James
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:09:09 GMT

In article <92399@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>
>>Woah there Nellie!  Are you saying that biological processes *DO NOT* 
>>have to abide by the laws of Thermodynamics?
>
>>Either they do, or they don't.  If they do, then those laws should be able
>>to predict things in biological processes, including Natural Selection
>>and Evolution.  If they don't, well...
>
>	They don't. BTW, evolution (the process) has been directly
>observed -- if you reach the conclusion that it cannot due to the
>laws of thermo, you've obviously screwed up somewhere.

May I quote you on this?  In order to make sure that I am not misrepresenting
what you are saying, let me be precise:

1) Are you saying that biological processes *do not* have to obey the laws
   of thermodynamics?

2) Are you saying that evolutionary processes *do not* have to obey the laws
   of thermodynamics?

3) Are you saying that natural selection *does not* have to obey the laws
   of thermodynamics?

In plain English, YES or NO to items 1-3 above.

>
>>James P. Henley Jr.
>
>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"
>

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Beating a dead horse
Date: 28 Jul 92 11:48:37 CDT

David Rice astutely observes:
:  
: Talking to Ted Holden is like beating a dead horse's ass.

Well, my guess is that TH is a real person (although in a recent
dream I had, Mr. Henley was revealed to be a Mr. Gupta, a Psych
Grad student performing an experiment for his thesis { hope you
are not offended, J.P. ;^) } ).  My guess is that he really 
believes what he is saying, or at least believes that what he
says in true, which may or may not be the same thing.

And, yes, the hypothesis that communicating with TH is totally
useless has been repeatedly confirmed over many years.  And
yet the same people keep asking "Hold The Elephant" the same
questions, and HTE keeps replying the same replies.  Eliza and
Parry did as well together.

So why do you keep picking at Mr. T?

Well, have you ever had a hangnail?  And every time you fiddle
with it, it hurts like the dickens?  But you still keep doing
it?  TH is your hangnail.

But, since I am Holier Than Thou, I have placed the miscreant
into a KILL file, and now I only get secondary THitis.  Not
quite as bad, and I still get to braze him whenever the mood
strikes.  (Not quite so Holy then, hunh?)

The truth is, I KILL TH not because he is annoying, not because
he is ignorant, or stubborn, and not because he is Fact Free.
He is, of course, all of these things, but that is not the
reason.

I KILL him because he is boring.  Dull.  Humdrum.  And that,
dear friends, is also, probably, what killed the dinosaurs.

rob derrick
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Subject: Re: Green Ray Turns People Black, News at 11
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:24:18 GMT

In article <2844@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <Bs1qMv.w4@world.std.com*, twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:
>* In article <2837@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>* >That is a serious misstatement of my position.  I have stated a belief
>* >that both the white and the black races as we see them now are very
>* >recent, the black race a tiny bit MORE recent.
> 
>* Just so I get this right, you seem to be saying that a bunch of
>* radiation suddenly turned half the people in the world into blacks.
>* Is this correct?
>* Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
>
>Obviously not.  Just one person.  But then, that one person had children,
>and those people had children, and those children had more children...

Hmm, guess I'm not following your chronology too well. Didn't you say
that at the time of the flood all the people with this new skin color
were enslaved, but fled to Africa where they founded their own
languages? Are you talking about one guy headed off to the Congo?

Just curious what your timeline is. Like, when did the flood occur,
how many people survived, when was the radiation, how many people of
each race were left after the radiation stopped, and when in this
process did they develop language.

In particular I'm curious to know how all the different African
languages evolved from one person since you seem to think that all
people of the same racial stock should speak the same language.
-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Is creationism science?
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:00:22 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <27JUL199203320344@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <2A734C9F.9371@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@net1.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes...
>>Surprisingly, these creationists do not discard the scientific method
>>surreptitiously; they are extremely blunt about the fact that they have
>>no respect or need for the scientific method as it has stood for the
>>past several hundreds of years.  The first line of the second para-
>>graph reads, "We propose to re-evaluate science."  The ultimate goal
>>of "creation scientists" is not to have creationism accepted as
>>science; it is to have science accepted as creationism.  They would
>>like to "re-evaluate" science, since creationism does not and cannot
>>play by its rules.  Do not ever let a creationist tell you he or she
>>is doing science; remind him or her of the scientific method, and
>>explain how it is cavalierly tossed aside by the top proponents of
>>creationism.
>
>While I do agree that (most) creationism is not science, it's not
>because creationists are throwing out "the" scientific method, since
>there is no such thing.  There are lots of scientific methods; allow
>only one and you are forced to throw out much of science.  A recent
>book which I recommend on this subject (though I do not agree with
>many of its conclusions, at least not in their strongest forms) is
>Henry Bauer's _Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific
>Method_ (1992, University of Illinois Press).  Also quite relevant are
>the contributions of Michael Ruse, Larry Laudan, and Philip Quinn
>(all philosophers of science) to Ruse's anthology, _But Is It Science?
>The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy_
>(1988, Prometheus Books).  Laudan and Quinn both take what is perhaps
>the majority view among philosophers of science, that there is no
>well-founded criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience
>(followers of Karl Popper disagree).
>
>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721

Perhaps philosophers take the view that there is no clear *demarcation*
or *boundary* between science and pseudo-science; but surely *pseudo-science*
exists as such: would you agree that astrology is a pseudo-science?

Am I right in supposing that even if the *boundary* between so-called
science and so-called pseudo-science is fuzzy to say the least, it does
not follow that pseudo-science doesn't exist, and that everything is
science by default? For example, I have no trouble describing "scientific
creationism" as pseudo-science. Could you elaborate on this pls?
Mike
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering: FAQs and figures
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:01:50 GMT

In article <712253273@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>Now, what UNITS the Holden Number has are bizarre, since Ted
>specifies the load in lbs force and the mass in lbs mass.  But in the
>end, the specific units don't matter, as long as the formula is
>applied consistently.


The relationship between lbf and lbm is the gravitational constant gc.

force (lbf) = mass (lbm) * g/gc

At sea level g = gc but at higher elevations g < gc

g  is the acceleration due to gravity
gc is the acceleration due to gravity at sea level currently.

This is widely used in engineering because plant operators, who are not
engineers, but must operate equipment and make measurements are usually not
scientifically educated and are more familiar with the English system.
Just because you aren't familiar with it does not make it bizarre.

>
>Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept
Auburn University
From: 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Category 4 / Other large animal anomalies
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:36:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.010325.5901@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>, 
 akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> 
>>>      Elephants resolve much of the problem of supporting such a large
>>>      body weight through their behavior.  They live unhurried lives
>>>      and seldom do anything quickly.  They walk rather ponderously,
>>>      keeping their legs relatively straight throughout, and although
>>>                                                         ------------
>>>      they can run at a fair pace, easily outrunning a man, their speed
> 
>>Not to mean anything against McGowan, but that doesn't seem right.  Top speed
>>for an Elephant, according to my Almanac, is 25 mph, for man it is 27 mph.  Now
>>granted that is for sprinting, but the Elephant speed is for charging.
> 
> 27 mph sounds high.  That's 39.6 ft/sec: 7.58 sec for 100 yds, 16.67
> for 220, 33.33 for 440.  Unfortunately the Olympics have metric
> distances and I'm too lazy to convert, but my Almanac lists, for the
> 1988 games, 9.92 sec for 100m, 19.75 for 200m, 43.87 for 400m.  200m
> is peak, because it takes time to get up to speed.  Those results, of
> course, are for champion athletes.  I'd be surprised if most elephants
> spend as much time in training as an Olympic gold-medal winner.  :-)

The world record for 100 yards is 9.00 +/- .1 sec (I don't recall the
actual current record, but it is certainly within that range).  200 m
and 220 yd are pretty close together, as are 400 m and 440 yd, though
in both of those cases, the metric distance is slightly less, so the
metric Olympic times are less than you would have for the 'English'
distances.  Not only do those times represent champion athletes who
spend a lot of time in training, but they represent times achieved
only with the aid of special shoes and on a perfectly flat (and in the
100 m/yd case, straight) course.  (And they still represent speeds of
less than 27 mph.)  I suspect that the speed figures for elephants are
for some random elephant in the wild on a less than perfectly level
field, etc.  I know that I would not want to stake my life on
outrunning a charging elephant.  (I'd much rather use some strategy
and avoid the necessity.)

Any of the posted speeds, however, indicate that though an elephant
may not 'gallop', but it can sure move right along.

-- 
Paul Neubauer	00PRNEUBAUER@BSUVAX1.BITNET 	00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
                00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP       neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re:  Scientific American article on cosmology
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:55:22 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

For the interested, this month's _Scientific American_ has an excellent 
article on the history of cosmology, and the debate between the steady-state
and Big Bang theorists.  It also contains a short tangent on Popper's princi-
ple (which states that hypotheses come and go, and only the ones that have
been verified by observational evidence will have any staying power with 
scientists) and the more cynical Planck's principle (hypotheses come and go
only because the old guard that supported the older hypotheses have died off);
the author then concludes which principle applies to the history of modern day
cosmology.


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Elephants CAN'T gallop, damn it!!!
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:14:10 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Jul24.153110.6618@tcom.stc.co.uk> bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:
>In article <2832@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>
>>Russians probably see more pictures of mammoths while coming up through
>>school (the Russians, not the mammoths), than we do, and I've asked a number of them about this.  Several have claimed to have seen pictures of mammoths
>>galloping.
>
>Oh right. This settles it. "Some Russians" claim to have seen pictures of
>galloping mammoths.
>

It must have been that "world class" scientist Kustetsov. So Ted reads
ICR rubbish as well as Velikovsky.

Is this guy for real?

>>Again, this cannot happen in our world at present.
>
>True. There are no living mammoths.
>
>I am coming to the conclusion that Ted Holden is just a big joke and that
>somewhere, someone's have a great laugh at the people who spend time
>disputing his obviously ridiculous claims.
>

I agree. It's hilarious. But if the ICR wierdos and their groupies can
have Russian scientists, why can't Ted?. I just love this group!

>-- 
>Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!stc!bruce
>BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
>Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
>"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford

Chris Lee
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Mr. Henley continues to ignore the issue of force
Date: 31 Jul 1992 19:21:34 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: dirac.phys.ksu.edu

In article <henley.920731111547@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>
>Now as far as work goes, work is a change.  Evolution is a change.
>Evolution is work.

Let's try this syllogism on another case:

1. Now as far as the Pope goes, the Pope is a man.
2. James is a man.
3. James is the Pope. 

Work is DEFINED as the path integral of a force.  A force is DEFINED in 
terms of acceleration (rate of change of rate of change of position).  Other
uses of the words "force" and "work" will almost certainly not be 
subject to the laws of dynamics, kinematics, or thermodynamics.

--
Justin M. Sanders    "The world was made for people who aren't 
Dept. of Physics         cursed with self-awareness."
Kansas State Univ.            -- Annie Savoy in "Bull Durham"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Subject: Green Ray Turns People Black, News at 11
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:59:18 GMT

In article <2837@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>That is a serious misstatement of my position.  I have stated a belief
>that both the white and the black races as we see them now are very
>recent, the black race a tiny bit MORE recent.

Just so I get this right, you seem to be saying that a bunch of
radiation suddenly turned half the people in the world into blacks.
Is this correct?
-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:40:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.153901.14285@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>(Andy Peters) writes:
>>This is not a rhetorical question, please answer it.  What is more
>>important:  believing in God, Jesus, etc., or following the moral
>>guidelines set up in the Bible?  If I believe in your God, but
>>break the rules, am I better or worse off in God's eyes than if I
>>don't believe in him/her, but follow all of the rules?
>
>Depends what you mean by `believing in God, Jesus, etc'. If you
>mean `repent of your sins, turn to God and ask for forgiveness
>based on Jesus's sacrifice in your place', then the answer would
>be (a) believing is better than doing. Following all the rules
>(such a thing is impossible anyway - maybe _try_ to follow all
>the rules) will on its own do no good.

So, you're saying that if I "repent of my sins, turn to God and 
ask for forgiveness based on Jesus's sacrifice in my place," then
go out and sin some more, then repent again, then sin again, etc.,
that's better than not believing, but not sinning at all?

>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Giraffes and HN
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:28:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <2834@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>In article <BruKtp.InH@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
     (Michael R James) writes:

>> Has anyone looked at the HN for giraffes.
>
>Around 13 or so.  No problem.  The problem Giraffes have is geting blood
>to their brains.  A giraffe's blood pressure would blow anything else's
>cardiovascular system apart.  

I'm so glad that the subject of giraffes has come up again.  In
response to Jim Meritt's query about whether or not the Inimitable one
shows evidence of learning, I think we can cite the giraffe story.  

Back when McGowan's book was still fresh on my mind, I asked about
sauropod necks, saying that if they couldn't raise their heads to
reach high trees, why did they have them.  (I'm more or less satisfied
with the answer to that, so we don't need to go into it again.)  Ted
seemed to think that I was championing one of his prized
arguments--that no biological system could cantilever such a long
massive structure in the gravitational field we inhabit.  He claimed
that giraffes overcome the problem by holding their necks vertically.

After going back and forth a few times, he came to realize that
holding such a head up high creates more problems than it solves, and
his statements about giraffes and sauropods now reflect this.
However, I recently came across something in _Natural History_ that
made me want to bring this up again.  The article is about giraffes
pollinating knobthorn acacias, but in the caption to a figure it
states that females tend to feed with their necks held horizontally,
so that they rarely eat from the really high branches.  The males do
the opposite, so they don't compete with each other for resources.
The point is that once again Ted was completely mistaken about this
bit of currently observable data.  Giraffes do *not* need to hold
their heads vertically in order to deal with "the felt effect of
gravity" (or for anything else for that matter).

>Ted Holden
>HTE

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions raised (was: "Biogenesis (+ an invitation to C. Menem)")
Date: 29 Jul 92 04:46:20 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <6vmmb+_.alc@netcom.com> alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>Mr. Einkauf says, regarding biogenesis:
>] The basic proteins of which life is comprised do not occur due to random
>] natural forces.  Granted, biomonomers can occur spontaneously, and can
>] further combine to form proteinoids and some amino acids. 
>
>Amino acids *are* "biomonomers" by any sensible definition of the term.
>All three biochemistry texts that I own agree... 
>To me, this was a clue that Mr. Einkauf does not have a solid
>understanding of the chemistry in question.  But Mr. Einkauf *claims*
>to be well-acquainted with the field:

You are correct.  It is clear that Mr. Einkauf is unfamiliar with
molecular biology.  Amino acids ARE the monomers that make up
proteins.  Deoxyribonucleic acids (the monomers of DNA) and
ribonucleic acids (the monomers of RNA) can also spontaneously
polymerize to form longer chains.








-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:15:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.070434.10557@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>Basically it depends how you want to define mass, I believe
>defining it by its inertial (and thus weight as well) is more
>useful. I generally use rest mass to refer to what you are
>refering to as mass. Although I guess it really doesn't matter
>as long as people know which definition you are using.

Is there some way that I can define matter as meaning something with a 
rest mass?  Or should I just talk about "forms of energy that have a 
rest mass".  I would like to be as precise, *and* correct as possible.
How about it Paul?  Would that be a clear enough distinction - one
that we can both live with?  Bob?  Any other physicists out there who
have problems with my distinctions?

Remember that we need something simple, for a wide audience.

>-- 
>>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
>Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
>in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
>       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/


James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University

Newsgroups: talk.origins