HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Category 4 / Other large animal anomalies
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:38:35 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Jul20.122126.27223@rhrk.uni-kl.de*, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
 
* Warren Vonroeschlaub:
* *   You get my drift.  Would Ted be willing to post the ENTIRE paragraph that
* * comes from?
 
* Ted Holden:
* *No I wouldn't;  the sentence was simple enough, the intent simple enough.
* *It's just this sort of bullshit which makes me unwilling to further engage
* *in the debate of t.o.
* 
* Ted, leaving out things that don't suit you is called "falsifying evidence".
* You know that term?

Yeah.  It seems popular amongst liars such as Meritt and yourself.  The ONLY 
way I'd satisfy you would be to post the book on usenet.  I'd get writers' 
cramp, and I'd get sued.

Claiming that I left anything meaningful out of that quote is bullshit.

The man simply said that falls can be fatal for elephants.

Can't stand it, can you?


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 6'th Category of flood evidence / the flood and evolution
Date: 20 Jul 92 17:39:59 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <2825@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>Again, no fictitious story could possibly have the complex ramifications
>and intricacy of detail involving concepts which the authors had no 
>notion of, as does the flood story.

Aha, I see. Therefore the story is true. Mmmmm... impressive.

deletions...

>I cannot help it if the truth is not politically correct.  All I know is
>that if the brain-dead tenets of political correctness were enforced
>upon automotive design the way the idiots involved try to enforce them
>upon the natural sciences, we'd all be doing more walking...

I cannot help it if the truth is not dogma-compatible. All I know is
that if the brain-dead tenets of religious fundamentalism were enforced
upon automotive design the way the idiots involved try to enforce them
upon the natural sciences, we'd BE GOING BACK TO CARTS AND DONKEYS.
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:09:57 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


My Responce to Henley's Thermo: Part 4


henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>o Does Snowflake formation violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
>
>A forming snowflake is an open system.  There is mass transfer across the
>boundary.  If snowflake formation causes a reduction in the entropy
>of the snowflake, then, by the second law, the entropy change of the
>surroundings must increase.
>
>What about the order of the snowflake?  A snowflake indeed appears to have
>a high degree of order, but remember, we are talking about ordered energy.

No, we are talking about the order of the microscopic state of the
snowflake, not just its energy.

>Ordered energy is energy that is available to do work.  Once a snowflake
>forms, it doesn't do any work, it just slowly drifts down to the ground and
>then just sits there, melts, or sublimates.  A snowflake has a pattern, but
>that pattern is static, and is *not* ordered energy available to do work.

Who says ordered energy has to be useful energy?  In engineering we
want it to be useful, but that need not be the case.

>Snow has a remarkable ability to resist change.  Unmelted snowflakes will
>not readily bond to each other, snow has a very poor ballistic coefficient
>which prevents snowflakes from accumulating any significant kinetic energy
>when they fall.  Snow does not readily absorb radiation or heat energy.
>Snow is chemically inert compared to water in other states.  At the
>macroscopic level, since snowflakes are unique, we would have to say that
>the pattern of snowflakes is highly disordered - otherwise we should see
>large numbers of identical patterns.

Fine by me.  That would mean that DNA is highly disordered as well!
Just look at all the unique codings for seperate organisms!  Why, if
it wasn't for entropy, we'd all be a boring set of clones!  Wow, I'm
sure glad of the 2nd Law of Thermo! :-)

Seriously, entropy is *microscopic* disorder or uncertainty, not
macroscopic disorder.  For any particular snowflake, there's a
relatively small number of microscopic states it can be in, therefore
low entropy.

>[1] _Fundamentals_of_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, Howell and Buckius,
>McGraw-Hill, 1987
>[2] _Introduction_to_Chemical_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, _Fourth_Edition_,
>Smith and van Ness, McGraw-Hill, 1987
>[3] _Classical_Thermodynamics_of_Nonelectrolyte_Solutions_, van Ness and
>Abbott,  McGraw-Hill, 1982
>
>
>James P. Henley Jr.
>Chemical Engineering Dept.
>Auburn University

|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                                                          |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu                                              |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo                                            |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: "Not enough helium" argument
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:42:42 GMT

In article <2A6B1F97.4181@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>I've heard a few vague allusions to a creationist argument against
>the old age of the earth, and it had something to do with the "fact"
>that there's not enough helium in the earth's atmosphere.

Helium is very light, so it ascends to the "top of the atmosphere" and
diffunds (sp?) away into space, as far as I know.

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Do you ask a Napoleon why it has to be Moscow, of all places?  Do you ask a
Mondrian why one has to paint only in the rectangularly framed primary colours
Red, Blue, and Yellow?  Ah, how all questions are ruined in view of a persuas-
ively recited system of madness! And is there a mortar keeping those systems
together firmer than real or supposed enemies?  -  Robert Gernhardt
From: jgacker@NEPTUNE.GSFC.NASA.GOV (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Oil and coal origins (short)
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:21:45 GMT


	Just a note on coal and petroleum reserves:

	Coal results primarily from "metamorphism" of terrestrial plants,
while oil primarily results from metamorphism of aquatic biota, primarily
algae.  A current theory attributes the huge Middle Eastern oil reserves
to mid-Cretaceous "superplume" volcanism, which caused a massive injection
of carbon dioxide into the oceans and several million years of algal
blooms, which became organic-rich sediments and after some chemical
reactions at high P and T, petroleum.
	Reference:  presentation at Spring 1991 American Geophysical
Union meeting, Baltimore, Md.  Have to search my notes for the 
author.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


	P.S. Henley and Colby, don't be so arrogant.  Your tone makes 
me want to stop reading this highly interesting debate.
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Elaphants CAN'T gallop, ddamn it!!!  Nor mammoths!!!
Date: 30 Jul 92 06:59:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <2843@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.171106@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>   Ted, if you are worried about wasting bandwidth why not post it as a .jpg? 
>> Sure it's lossy, but not so much that the cave painting will suffer, and it
>> reduces picture size 50%-80% (depending on data and compression rate).
>Unlike t.o regulars, I'll admitt when I don't understand something.

No you just ignore anything you don't understand or anything that
proves you wrong.
>What's a .jpg?

It's a image compression format. If I remember well it compresses
the file with a slight but hardly noticeable degredation. I think a
program called jpeg is responsible for this format but there are
better groups to discuss this.
>Ted Holden
>HTE


-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 15:12:01 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Elephants going bump....


Considering that elephants have been used in warfare until modern
times, I'm surprised that there is no manual on the pitfalls of
pachyderms or something like that around. I mean, humans have had
a long history of living with elephants; surely something more than
conjecture is available ?

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:57:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.125945.19354@medtron.medtronic.com> ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba) writes:
>maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
>: In <1992Jul20.104506.18345@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
:The full meaning of the verses in I Corinthians and I Timothy
:is very straightforward to me.  Your "full meaning" just ignores
:these verses.  Aren't you mixing the "natural Philosophy" of our
:20th century (sexism is wrong) with your derivation of meaning
:from scripture.  Scripture says that men should treat women well,
:but that they are clearly beneath men in power/authority.  In the
:20th century most of the western world believes that women are equal
:to men in power/authority.

	Interestingly enough, the part that states that men should
treat women well also states that masters should treat their slaves
well. And just as women should obey men, slaves should obey masters,
all according to the Bible.

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: July 2 Nature article
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:30:58 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul30.015703.285@news.Hawaii.Edu> goldader@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Jeffrey Goldader) writes:
|The July 2 issue of Nature had what seems to me to be a very 
|interesting article on the presence of what seem to be
|transitional fossils between different species of dinosaurs
|in Cretaceous sediments in Montana.  The authors suggested
|the structural changes may have been related to fluctuations
|("transgressions and regressions,") in the intercontinental sea-ways
|causing changes in the coastal plains in what is now Montana.

I haven't yet read the paper (though I intend to).

Howver, I have heard of it, and I am familiar with the issues.

Now the core of the issue at hand is how 'major' evolutionary changes occur.
The speciation model developed by Ernst Mayr, which forms the basis of
the Punctuate Equilibrium model of evolution states that new, distinct forms
evolve mainly in small, isolated populations.  Furthermore, it is in these
small populations that selection is able to work most effectively in re-
organizing the genotype, and thus the phenotype, of an organism.

It has long been known that the mid-continental coastal plain of the
Late Creataceous contained a large number of highly derived species
of dinosaurs, including almost all known species of ceratopsians.

What Horner et alii claim to have discovered is that the earliest of
these specialized forms first appear during a period of extremely high
ocean level, when most of the coastal plain was underwater, and only a
few isolated patches (refugia in ecological terminology) were left above
water.  This would, naturally, lead to many small isolated populations
seperated from one another by water and mountain barriers.

Thus, this find suggests that all of the famous Late Cretaceous dinosaurs
arose from species that diverged in these isolated refugia.  This would
tend to support Mayr's peripatric speciation model, and through that
Punctuated Equilibrium theory.
|
|ref: Horner, J. R., Varricchio, D. J., and Goodwin, M. B. 1992,
|Nature, 358, 59

Now I just have to read the article to see what evidence they base their
conclusions on, and which specific groups of dinosaurs are involved.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:31:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.174113.7103@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>,
akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:

|>fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
|>
|>>As a born-again Christian, I subscribe to the theory of a young earth
|>> (6000 to 10000 years old).
|>
|>>Does anyone have scientific evidence to support this?
|>>(Stuff on dating methods, dynamic vs. atomic time, etc.)
|>>Please e-mail or post.
|>
|>Do you normally decide first what you want to believe, and then look
|>for evidence to support it?  Wouldn't it be better to examine what the
|>evidence says, and *then* decide what to believe?
|>
|>That's only a suggestion, of course.

Could I just point out that Chineese written history goes back 8000
years so you better go for the extreeme end of the scale. The west only
dubbed the first 4 dynasties "Mythology" so that creationism would
work.

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: bvickers@net1.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 25 Jul 92 03:16:18 GMT

henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>I didn't say energy wasn't measurable,  I said that you have to use matter
>to measure it.

Big deal. So what?

>OK, I'll bite, how do you measure pure energy apart from matter without
>allowing it to interact with matter?

Energy and mass are equivalent by the famous E=mc^2.  Yours is a
non-question.  And I don't think you ever answered Paul Schinder's
question.  What in the world is "pure energy"?  Sounds an awful lot
like a "kind".  It's certainly not a scientific term.

>You are confusing closed systems with isolated systems.  You didn't read
>the FAQ.  The definition of a closed system is a system that does not have
>mass transfer across system boundaries.

Very well, then the Earth is therefore an open system.  And not a
"slightly" open system.  Energy (in the form of radiation) is
constantly flowing into and from the Earth.  Even if the earth
were a "mostly closed" system as you seem to wish it would be,
you've basically proven the point that the second law of thermo-
dynamics for closed systems does not apply.  Not even a little bit.

>Are you are trying to say that the earth is not a closed system because some
>sunlight gets converted into matter, thus increasing the mass of the earth?

Who ever said sunlight had to be converted into matter for the second
law to apply?  Where did you get this ridiculous notion?  A creationist
tract?  Remember that mass and energy are equivalent.

Basically, for a closed system, the second law of thermodynamics
states that the entropy of a system and its environment either has
to increase or stay the same if some process causes it to move
from one equilibrium state to another.  The radiation of energy
from the Sun to the Earth is a thermodynamic process;  therefore
the Sun must be included in any system being discussed by the
second law.  You're ignoring it, therefore you are disingenuously
(or ignorantly) misapplying the physics.

Don't write a FAQ file unless you're really answering FAQs and you
know what you're talking about.

Eagerly awaiting the "FAQ" for biology...
--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
From: davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 6'th Category of flood evidence / the flood and evolution
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:31:03 GMT
Reply-To: davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
Organization: Health Computer Sciences, U of MN, Mpls

In article <2825@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>The ancient (but historical) world knew a number of seven-day
>light festivals, Hanukkah, the Roman Saturnalia etc.
>Velikovsky claimed that all were ultimately derived from the
>memory of the seven days prior to the flood.

Damn it Ted!! You've been told at LEAST twice in the past year and a half, but
your stupid postings never appear to get corrected.

Hanukkah is an EIGHT DAY celebration, and the derivation of the holiday is well
documented and has absolutely NOTHING to do with "memory of ... the flood"!!

If you can't even get the little details right (and blatantly ignore
corrections such as this one) why should anyone in their right mind believe you
when you talk about the larger picture?

-- David Paschall-Zimbel
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Ted's Greco/Roman Saturn-Worshippers!
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:29:12 GMT

In article <712176310.10095@zooid.guild.org>, gecko@zooid.guild.org (GECKO)
writes:
>  
>   Teddie Holden writes: 
>  
... lots 'o other stuff ....
>  
> >I have claimed that this planet once orbitted a small electromagnetic 
> >star, one pole forever pointed straight at that star, animals on the 
> >earth feeling gravitational pull not only of the earth, but of the star 
> >as well.  Only this allowed the giant antediluvian animals. 
>  
>      You have yet to put forth anything to suggest that a Biblical Flood 
>      ever took place, or that the Earth is as young as you claim, or that 
>      this star ever could have existed.  Until then... 
>  
	Obviously, you haven't been reading Ted's posts.  He never has -- and
probably never will -- presented evidence (including calculations or models)
for anything.  His tactic is to state that any evidence presented AGAINST his 
position is 'uniformitarianism bullshit', without providing a detailed
critique of what exactly is wrong.  (BTW, is a 'uniformitarian' anything like a
'kind'? :)

... lots more stuff ...


>                                     - GECKO 
>  
>     "All most of us get is 'Mind-that-bus-what-bus-SPLAT!'" 
>  
> gecko@zooid.guild.org 
> 

"The universe is my dwelling, and my house is my only clothes.  What are you
doing entering my pants?"  -- Liang Liu (?)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner          Department of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu             Iowa State University 
                            Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 02:33:59 GMT

maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
>Your best source for info would be:

>The Institute for Creation Research
>P.O. Box 2667
>El Cajon, CA 92091


Mostly because they're the biggest collection of liars and frauds ever
collected outside of congress.  Need any evidence for a young earth?
Great, they'll fabricate it!

-- 
Microbiology Lab:  Staph Only
Xref: sparky talk.origins:8782 bionet.molbio.evolution:288
From: jlogsdon@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (John Logsdon)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,bionet.molbio.evolution
Subject: Age of Earth and Origin of Life
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:49:05 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

Alright, here's a question for you geologists out there.
Young earth creationists, please do not bother.
PLEASE educate this molecular evolutionary biologist.

I am wondering; what serious values have been proposed for the age of earth?
In casual converstion, I usually hear values ca. 4.5 Billion years.
In a quick check of a few paleobotany texts (all I have at my immediate
disposal) this is close to what they cite in their "geological columns." 
In a nutshell,on which isotopes are these based and what statistical errors 
correspond to these measures? 

In a recent paper in  _Science_ (v257: 232-235, 10 July 1992), the authors
claim to have found fossil eukaryotic algae that are ca. 2.1 BY old. This 
is striking to me because this lineage likely represents a fairly derived
eukaryotic lineage itself.  In other words, there are a number of eukaryote
lineages which branched off before this one did.  This makes these other euks
older than 2.1 BY.  In fact, Archaezoa (euks with out mitochondria, ie:
_Giardia_, that wonderful intestinal parasite) are probably MUCH older than 
the Algae they found (_Grypania_).  Given this and that the root of the 
tree of life is EVEN DEEPER [either between eubacteria and 
archaebacteria+eukaryotes, OR between two groups of archaes (see _Science_ 
v257: 74-76, 3 July 1992)], this seems to put "life" (ie: the common ancestor 
of all life: the "progenote") fairly ancient, perhaps ca. 3.5 BYA.  

This, as I read it, apparent ca. ONE billion year gap between the Earth's
origin and the origin of life is the impetus of this post. From a VERY
naive point of view, this doesn't seem very long. If in fact there
is significant statistical error associated with the Age of the Earth, or the
Dating of the fossils in question for that matter, perhaps there is a longer
time period between the Earth origin and Life origin. If not, are there any
problems with such an apparently limited time frame for evolution of life
theories? 

Any primary literature (biology) and/or review/popular (geology) references 
are much appreciated.

Thanks!
John
___________________________________________________________
John Logsdon         Department of Biology
                     Indiana University
                     Bloomington, IN  47405
                     (812) 855-2549
                     (812) 855-6705 fax

jlogsdon@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
____________________________________________________________

  
 
Newsgroups: talk.origins