HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Elaphants CAN'T gallop, ddamn it!!!  Nor mammoths!!!
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:03:20 GMT
Organization: HTE

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.
What's a .jpg?



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Holden & Bales
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:00:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.120453.13656@linus.mitre.org>, jmeritt@retina.mitre.org
(Jim Meritt) writes:
> 
> Has anyone seen a change in the positions in the postings of either Bob Bales
> or Ted Holden over the years, regardless of the number of times that they
> have been demonstrated wrong?
> 
> If yes, what and when?
> If no, why expect it now i.e. why argue with a rock?

   I'm taking a course in answering rhetorical questions and this is my
homework assignment.  


   The answer, grasshopper, is that no rock is truly an island.  Picture a lump
of Holdenite with dull gray Henly inclusions not in isolation, for it is not
isolated.  View it, rather, as sitting in a growing field of grass and flowers.
Some of these herbs like Hamilton's daisy or the prickly wild Merrit rose with
it's brambles are beautiful.  Others like the Tunweed are hard to look upon but
still part of the field.

   The great part of the ground is covered with tender young shoots who breathe
in both the foul vapors emmitted by the Holdenite and sweet but bracing odor of
the Merrit rose.  In the absence of the rose fragrance, some shoots, for lack
of a comparison, might come to think the foul fumes to be sweet.

(If I could spell, this might get me a C)

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU 
Xref: sparky talk.origins:8757 sci.astro:8369
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Age of the galaxy (was: stars & carbon)
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:06:12 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <92204.124953DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
|> Actually the sun's period around the Galaxy is closer to 250 million years
|> so with a 5 billion year age, the sun has gone around ~20 times.  ...
|
|This brings to my mind the question, how old is our galaxy?  I suppose that
|it is older than the Sun, but how much older?

These are good questions.  The best current estimates for the age of the
Milky Way are thta it is about 12-15 billion years old, about 3 times the
age of Sol (hence we say Sol is a 'third generation' star).

|  Are all galaxies remnants of the primordial density fluctuations, or
|are there second and third generation ones?

A *really* good question - we don't know.  A month ago I might have answered
that most larger galaxies were 'primordial', but recent discoveries have
changed that drastically.  It is now known that in the earliest observable
times there were far more *small* galaxies than there are now.  Thus, it
appears as if large galaxies form by the coalescence of small ones.
(But then again, there may be some other explanation).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Unified gravitation/electromagnetism
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 17:19:58 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>He was referring to the existence of a
>heretofore unobserved gravitational-electromagnetic interation that occurs
>in the simultaneous presence of both a large gravitation field and
>electromagnetic field from two bodies.  It's a phenomenon that lies beyond
>the current limits of observation and something that would only be taken
>correctly into account by a UNIFIED theory of gravitation and electromagnetism.


Except that the EM field in question is the Earth's. That field may
fill a large volume, but it has very very low intensity. [Note that
some pulsars have a significant fraction of their _mass_ in their EM
fields.] In order for a "UNIFIED" theory to be really needed, we'd
have to encounter a gravitational well that should shred the planet,
no? Or are you claiming that the Earth's field used to be a lot
different, leaving no geological evidence of same?

>This is, in fact, what initiated the collaboration between Velikovsky and
>Einstein,

We've heard claims (of this collaboration) before, but no one has
produced a shred of evidence. Do you have some?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:59:54 GMT

Nice paper on thermodynamics but what is it doing on talk.origins?
The fact that entropy need not increase in an open system is mentioned
over and over again. Infact anyone who has seen a refrigerator knows
that one can decrease entropy one place by increasing it some place
else.
-- 
>>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.--          \/
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: blah, blah, blah (was: Re: Blah Blah)
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:45:40 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <henley.920730111300@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>
>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...

If they don't, well what?

Please state your conclusion.

BTW, when you say "either they do or they don't" (assuming determinism),
could you add the possibility that they do, but because the processes are
so complex, no calculation is practically feasible?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Subject: Re: Closed vs. Isolated systems
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:35:06 GMT

btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>	The following paraphrased definitions courtesy of James Henley:
>
>Closed System:  a system which does not exchange mass with its surroudings.
>
>Isolate system:  A system isolated from its surroundings, exchanging neither
>mass nor energy.  Entirely non-interacting with surroundings.
>
>	Mr. Henley claims to have obtained these definitions out of an
>engineering thermodynamics book.  (Or several.)  Fine,  I'll believe him.
>However, I would like to point out the following:
>
>1) the above definition of 'closed system' is not what I'm used to as a
>physicist.  The above I find confusing, because I have never seen the above
>distinction between 'closed' and 'isolated'.  However, as long as you clearly
>define what you mean by 'closed' -- as you have -- you can define it to
>mean whatever you want.

Thanks for posting that.  It made me realize something I was missing.
I think the problem is that Mr. Henley is using the definition from one
particular disipline and saying that other disiplines are confusing the
issue with thier definitions.

Science and Engineering do tend to use different definitions for things.  I
remember a discussion I had with a physics major roommate once.  I made some
statement about the perfect gas law that really confused him.  It turned out
that the major reason for this is that we have different definitions of the
gas constant.  In science fields, people use a single Universal Gas
Constant.  In engineering, we use gas constants which are specific to the
gas in question.  Neither one is more right or wrong than the other.  They're
just more convienent for each of the respective fields.

>2) I am curious to see what practical purpose there is behind the definition
>of the 'closed' system you have above.  All of the laws of thermo I'm
>familiar with apply to 'isolated' systems; I know of no situation where
>the above distinction is usefuls.
>
>	By the way, Mr. Henley:  I was perhaps unnecessarily harsh in my
>early reaction to your FAQ.  I think the main problem is that you were
>using familiar terminology in an unfamiliar (at least to me) manner -- the 
>way you have shown it is different from what I have seen elsewhere.  I 
>will try to be more careful in the future.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Benjamin T. Dehner          Department of Physics and Astronomy 


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             complement."  -Voltaire        |
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:03:36 GMT

In article <BryLrs.Bus@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:
}In <1992Jul23.115606.202088@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
}>Does anyone have scientific evidence to support this?
}
}Your best source for info would be:
}The Institute for Creation Research
}The best line of evidence is simply the fact that there is no physical evidence of
}human existence prior to the time of the Floood.  That is , of course, if you
}discount 

You could have stopped right there.  The "best evidence" is to ignore the
evidence.


Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
From: croberts@infon.jhu.edu (Chris Roberts)
Subject: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 02:48:20 GMT

RE the local bishop turning up the culprit: any references on that?
I was under the impression that the shroud was always suspect, but
not aware that it was definitely known.  Sheesh.  I wish the facts
would stay put so I could catch up once in a while...
From: jshelby@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jerold A. Shelby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Category 4 / Other large animal anomalies
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:38:52 GMT
	<2839@fedfil.UUCP>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
In-reply-to: news@fedfil.UUCP's message of 27 Jul 92 11:19:31 GMT

In article <2839@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
Path: ut-emx!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!fedfil!news
   From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
   Newsgroups: talk.origins
   Date: 27 Jul 92 11:19:31 GMT
   References: <2822@fedfil.UUCP* <1992Jul19.134625@IASTATE.EDU* <744@tdat.teradata.COM*
   Organization: HTE
   Lines: 25

   In article <744@tdat.teradata.COM*, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
   * In article <1992Jul23.183919.3071@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
   * |
   * |So, what?  Falls can be fatal for horses, falls can be fatal for giraffes,
   * |falls *can* be fatal for humans.  
   * 
   * Oh yes, talking about giraffes, does ted know that giraffes' feet support
   * more weight per square inch cross section than do those of elephants?
   * [What, you mean *giraffes* exceed Holden's weightlifters limit? - yep].

   * sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
   *   or
   * Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com


   Actually, this only means that Friesxen does not COMPREHEND Holden's
   weightlifters' limit.  The Holden number for a giraffe would be around 13,
   nothing outrageous.  The Holden number referrs to muscular capabilities
   vs the amount of weight a creature has to deal with.  Shoe size, bone size,
   etc. are irrelevant.


   -- 
   Ted Holden
   HTE


Can anyone calculate the Holden Number for an paramecium?
(gravity -> viscous drag)

Jerry Shelby
The University of Texas at Austin
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Category 4 / Other large animal anomalies
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:19:31 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <744@tdat.teradata.COM*, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
* In article <1992Jul23.183919.3071@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
* |
* |So, what?  Falls can be fatal for horses, falls can be fatal for giraffes,
* |falls *can* be fatal for humans.  
* 
* Oh yes, talking about giraffes, does ted know that giraffes' feet support
* more weight per square inch cross section than do those of elephants?
* [What, you mean *giraffes* exceed Holden's weightlifters limit? - yep].
 
* sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
*   or
* Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com


Actually, this only means that Friesxen does not COMPREHEND Holden's
weightlifters' limit.  The Holden number for a giraffe would be around 13,
nothing outrageous.  The Holden number referrs to muscular capabilities
vs the amount of weight a creature has to deal with.  Shoe size, bone size,
etc. are irrelevant.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Xref: sparky talk.origins:8858 talk.religion.misc:12888 sci.skeptic:13320
From: jlogsdon@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (John Logsdon)
Subject: Re: Age of Earth and Origin of Life
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:42:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.004905.7322@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, jlogsdon@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (John Logsdon) writes:

OOPS, I must have been asleep at the wheel last night!

>  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)],^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 
I mixed up two issues, unrelated in the context of the original post:

The pertinent one:
1) the root of the tree of life, which has been shown to be 
  between eubacteria and archaebacteria+eukaryotes based 
  on duplicated genes (Iwabe et al Proc Nat'l Acad Sci USA,
  1989, v86: 9355-9359  and Gogarten et al Proc Nat'l Acad Sci USA,
  1989, v86: 6661-6665).

2) the issue of relationships between Archaebacteria and eukaryotes. 
		A particular group of Archaes (the "eocytes" of Lake et al, above and 
  refs therein) is thought by some (esp. Lake) to be more closely related to
  eukaryotes than are the other main groups of Archaes.

The Root of the tree of life is NOT thought to be
" between two groups of archaes ", as I stated above.
Just a clarification. Sorry for the confusion.
  
___________________________________________________________
 John Logsdon         Department of Biology
                      Indiana University
                      Bloomington, IN  47405
                      (812) 855-2549
                      (812) 855-6705 fax
 
 jlogsdon@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
 ____________________________________________________________
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: blah, blah, blah (was: Re: Blah Blah)
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:34:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.221725.172900@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>
>No, no, no.  Thermo and evolution deal with two rather different
>things.  Thermo deals matter and energy.  Evolution deals with
>information.  The fact that the information is stored in matter is
>irrelevant.  The information itself doesn't interact with the world
>with the same basic laws that thermo uses.
>
>Such thermo concepts such as "driving force" and "useful work" don't
>hold here.  Just because some concepts hold for some things very well
>doesn't mean they are applicable to absolutely everything.
>

May I quote you on this?  Let me be precise, are you saying:

    Evolutionary processes *do not* have to obey the laws of thermodynamics

Yes or No?

>>> Seth Kroger
>>
>>James P. Henley Jr.
>
>|======================================================================|
>| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
>| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
>| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept
Auburn University

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Felt Gravity (was: Tyrannosaurus Rex and Triceratops)
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:23:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul15.164321.10710@tcom.stc.co.uk> bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:
>If the North Pole was pointed inward toward the star, the felt effect of
>gravity on the South Pole would be considerably increased. The felt effect
>of gravity on the Equator would be very strange with a strong component
>of gravity pulling from the side...

In article <1992Jul19.022339.1626@uwm.edu>, markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
> Gravity will decrease at the poles and increase at the equator.  At none
> of these places will there be any sideways component.

In article <1992Jul19.132303.11497@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes
>OK.  Here is a picture of this system.  'O' is the earth, '-' its axis,
>'.' its orbit...

WRONG!

The correct answer is Tides.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Subject: Re: The evolution of sexes
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:42:36 GMT

In article <784@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>Normally conjugation can only occur between individuals of different
>mating types (as they are called). In a few species there are as many
>as a dozen mating types, though 2 or 3 is the norm.

Oh.  Is that what you mean.  There are similar cases in various plant species
(such as cherries) where sharing certain alleles makes pollen incompatible.
This forces outcrossing, with the practical horticultural result that you need
to plant more than one variety to get fruit set.  I think I remember that
there are large numbers of these "mating type" alleles in cherries.

I suppose this brings up the question of where sexes start and mating types
end.  I have no idea what the answer has been defined to be.

Mike Huben
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Flat Earth Error
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:04:43 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul29.011250.3140@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|In article <0!mm!h-@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger
|Squires) writes:
|
|It was indeed known at the Spanish court that the earth was round.
|Columbus however was peddling a fib. He was claiming that the Indies
|were much closer to us than they really are. He fixed up the maps to
|support his fraudulent case and used them to get funding. When he bumped
|into the Americas he was to coin a phrase a real lucky bastard. He
|should by rights have killed himself (and the half of his crew that
|survived).

I believe he was not quite that bogus.  He did have some real evidence
that there was land about that distance to the west.  He just naively
assumed that this land must be some place already discovered, and thus
that it had to be Asia.  And thus he concluded the standard globes were
wrong, and th eEarth was smaller than believed.

|However, the Vatican did screw up el major big timo over Galileo and the
|heliocentric theory. And the effects of the Borgias etc can hardly be
|described as advancing the human lot.

Yeah, hard to argue that.  Of course the Borgias didn't do much to advance
the *church* either!
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Woman Liberated
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:50:22 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <Bs5o8o.4IE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:
>That's right, God's chain of authority is Father - Son - man -
					   ^^^^^^
					   Where's the Mother?

If people are in God's likeness, then God must be in people's
likeness. Does God have genitals? And if so, what sex's genitals?

	In the biological world, there are lots of parthenogenetic
females, but no parthenogenetic males. So that's why I'm asking where
the Mother is.

	And if God's supposed masculinity is allegorical, then why is
it allegorical while Genesis 1 is supposedly literally true?

>woman - kids.  We shouldn't have women running churches and being
>the primary channels for bringing forth instruction and making 
>decisions.  Kids instructional classes or 'sunday schools' are not
>the authoritative and primary corporate gatherings for imparting
>truth to people.

>The principle of male authority has meaning because that's the
>way the rules were set up in the beginning.  Same way with
>monogamous , lifetime marriage.  Obviously in our sinsick
>world, there are not always easy answers to implementing God's
>cosmic rules regarding human relationships.

	So it does nothing at all for human happiness. We must follow
God's orders no matter how painful it is. I once knew an opponent of
divorce who bragged about how his parents never divorced each other no
matter how much they hated each other.

>Face it.  You're just using some fifth grade tactics to try to 
>justify your faith in evolution, for which there is not a single
>verse anywhere in the Bible.  If Jesus Christ , Paul and all
>the rest were that stupid and ignorant to write that life was
>created by divine fiat from dirt, when evolution was and is a
>sure fact of science that everyone has to believe, then what
>use is there for their views on marriage and male authority etc. .

	Or maybe you don't like to have to search for justifications
other than:

	I'm just following God's orders.

	And a Ruler of the Universe can always coexist with the
occurrence of biological evolution, even if said being doesn't quite
resemble the God of the Bible.

/Loren
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:04:34 GMT

In article <schinder.712268482@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov> schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
>>This idea is somewhat erroneous. Give me a sensitive enough scale,
>>a box made of perfect mirrors with light inside and I'll weigh the
>>light for you.
>
>Nope, the idea is exactly correct.  I meant what I said.  The mass of
>a photon is zero. Mass != weight.  The mass is the square root of the
>square of the four momentum vector, and it's exactly zero for a
>photon.  That you can "weight" photons is a consequence of the fact
>that all forms of energy (including massless particles) gravitate.

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.
-- 
>>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.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.origins