HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:37:51 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

A number of t.o posters have recently been maintaining that the Flood
saga refers to a localized flood, in which only farm animals were put
aboard the ark.  This story, however, is in direct opposition to the
biblical account.  The biblical account, below, clearly states several
points: It was a global flood; all animals were aboard the ark; the
entire earth was covered as the water level rose over 29,000 feet in
40 days.  The arkheads' recent postings show that they are desperate
enough to not only deny the geological evidence that damns them, they
are also desperate enough to deny the factual claims made in the story
they allegedly believe in.  The text below is provided for the benefit
of those who claim to believe in the ark story, but have trouble
with those indefensible details.

Genesis
6: 19-20
Take into the boat with you a male and female of every kind of animal and
of every kind of bird.

7: 11-24
When Noah was 600 years old, on the 17th day of the second month all the
outlets of the vast body of water beneath the earth [an interesting
concept, no?] burst open, all the floodgates of the sky were opened [this
is a reference to the "water above the earth" in Gen 1:8 - the dome of
water over us all] and rain fell on the earth for 40 days and nights.  On
that same day Noah and his wife went into the boat with their 3 sons,
Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives.  With them went every kind of
animal, domestic and wild [guess that kills the "just farm animals" idea],
large and small, and every kind of bird.  A male and a female of each kind
of living being [note: parasites are living beings] went into the boat
with Noah, as God had commanded.  Then the Lord shut the door behind Noah.
  The flood continued for 40 days, and the water became deep enough for the
boat to float.  The water became deeper, and the boat floated on the
surface.  It became so deep that it covered the highest mountains;
[Mt Everest: 29,028 ft.] it went on rising until it was 25 ft above the
tops of the mountains.  Every living being on the earth died [so much
for a local flood] - every bird, every animal, and every person [I have
always wondered about the fish, since they're animals - did Noah have
an aquarium?].  Everything on earth that breathed died.  The Lord destroyed
all living beings on the earth - human beings, animals, and birds.  The
only ones left were Noah and those who were with him in the boat.  The
water did not start going down for 150 days.

based on 8:13-14, the flood lasted for 1 year and five days.

To repeat: it was not local, it required all animals to be on the ark,
and its effects should be seen worldwide.  They're not.


                  Something constructive should come here.
                  $dump ora_control1/blocks=(start:1,end:1)
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com - My other account is a Mercedes.
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden and the greenhouse effect
Summary: remember that the model is simplified with respect to convection
Date: 09 Nov 92 01:49:53 GMT

: From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
: Message-ID: <1992Nov6.153444.29083@cunews.carleton.ca>
: [Deleted: Body of Wayne's excellent exposition of simple thermo, that
: even I, a EE with ONE undergrad course in the subject, could
: understand.  Why can't we have more of this kind of simple, clear
: refutation [...]

Aw, shucks.  But again, remember well: the model I presented was
vastly oversimplifed with respect to convection, due to the relation
between pressure and temperature in actual atmospheres.

For example, why are earth's oceans cold at the bottom, given my simple
model?  Some messy details ensue, but the gist is: water is not a gas,
and thus doesn't obey the pv=RmT law that relates pressure, volume, and
temperature, and water is many, many times as opaque to visible light
(per mass) as is the atmosphere of venus. 

In particular, in venus' atmosphere as opposed to in earth's oceans, to
convect from the bottom to the top and return top to bottom means that
heat is lost at the top at a low temperature relative to the temperature
of the returning gass once it is repressurized. 

( You can see why I left out this messy bit in my simple treatment...
  others have gone over the full treatment of convection in Venus'
  atmosphere, and why it leaves the temperature profile it does, as
  opposed to the simple "heat rises, so the surface would be cool
  if there weren't internal heat" model that Ted seems to hold. )

( And, of course, my exposition of simple thermo had BETTER be
  understandable by somebody with only one undergrad course in the
  subject, since that describes me also. )
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Great-etc-grandparents
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:07:18 GMT

In article 4236@novavax.UUCP, vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro) writes:
>Hi, OK, what's wrong with this: you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents,
>8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, and so on,
>and I figured that if you go back to 20-times-great grandparents
>you end up with 1,048,576 people that were living at the time
>that were related to you. Of course this takes into account
>that no one married their uncles, etc. If you go back 1000
>generations, the number of people is mind boggling. 
>
>Where is the flaw? Can you imagine that x number of years from
>now everyone on this planet will have one common descendent known
>as our great-etc-grandson/daughter?
>
>I'm probably the only one who cares.


You gave the flaw yourself; overlap. These people do marry their
distant relations, ya know. Differently people often share parts
of their family tree also; This is why you don't have to have
an ever-decresing population. You can have more than one kid. :)

(but yerright, you probably ARE the one one who cares.. :) )
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:32:56 GMT
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group

In article <RBL3TB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>Simple laws plus boundary/initial conditions [give high information
>content]. The issue is, where do
>these boundary/initial conditions come from? If they are also solutions
>of simple laws, then we will have an infinite sequence of laws, which
>means that the totality of physical laws actually has infinite
>information content.

You seem to be neglecting Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which
says that some of the boundary/initial conditions will be forever
undeterminable.  Suppose, for example, you have a perfect crystal of
uranium atoms, and you generate data based on the order in which the
atoms decay.  Your initial and boundary conditions are about as
simple as they come, yet they still generate an enormous amount of
information.

>But that defeats the program of science by placing
>forever beyond reach the possibility of finding a unified explanation
>for the world. Is it not so?

The program of science is not to find a unified explanation for the
world.  (I, for one, believe that to be impossible.)  The program of
science is to keep heading in that direction.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Organization: City University, London
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 11:18:51 GMT

In article <ksand-051192183202@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>Lionel, why don't we have any computer programs that show that
>evolution is impossible? 

Because as usual, you would choose not to believe.

Example: would you like to take a ride in an Airbus
whose computer program was modified randomly? Why
not? After all, the theory of evolution states that
this is how improvements are generated.


--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:11:54 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)

In article <7552@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bobb@tekig1 (Robert W Bales) writes:
>In article <97056@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
> Wiener) writes:

>>Do you still claim that your interest in having creationism taught
>>in schools is based solely on scientific motives, and has nothing
>>to do with your religious beliefs?  That is quite simply a lie.

>I do not "still claim" something which I have not claimed to begin
>with.

That's not true.  I used to take you to task on this point five or six
years ago.  You never responded.

>				    The fact that there is objective,
>observed evidence to sugest that life came through a process of
>creation justifies including the possibility in a cirriculum in the
>interests of accuracy.

There is absolutely no such evidence.  NONE.  ZERO.

>		         It would be nonsense to say "We will keep
>what we teach inaccurate because we don't like the motives of those
>who would keep it accurate."

Right.  We do say that it is especially important to expose the motives
of those who are trying to force inaccurate balderdash into the science
curriculum.

>Many will say that creationism should not be taught because it is
>factually wrong.  If this is so (which I contend it is not), it is a
>legitimate response.  However, someone taking this position should
>not be concerned with the religious beliefs of creationists.

Except, of course, certain fundamentalist readings of religious texts
are the some total of evidence for creationism, and here in the USA,
we have strict laws regarding the separation of Church and State.

>Others will say that *any* religious component justifies the
>exclusion of creationism.  Again, I disagree.

So do I.  The Catholic Church's endorsement of the Big Bang is pretty
irrelevant to cosmologists.  But if that were the sum total of evidence,
then I'd push to have it eliminated from any science curriculum.

>					        But if you want to
>take that position, go ahead.  But be consistent.  It is a fact that
>some people have given reasons to believe in evolution which are
>based on an athestic position (i.e., they believe in evolution
>because they don't believe in divine creation [*]).

And hopefully such a view will never be taught in the schools either.
I would want students to believe in evolution because of the staggering
weight of its evidence, and the endless scope of its explanatory power.

>						     So if you
>disqualify creation, you must similarly disqualify evolution.

I disqualify creationism because the _sole_ motive for putting it in the
schools is religious.  Evolution is through and through a basic scientific
discipline.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:55:59 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <w33uTB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>> >  These statements are from Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, by
>> >Dr. Richard Thompson. His arguments are based on information theory
>> >and molecular biology. The proof is straightforward.

>> So post it.

>Read the book.

Translation: "I'm too stupid to comprehend the least aspect of the
proof, let alone that it's riddled with howlers and gaffes."

Go ahead, post the proof.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lionel Tun, idiot or moron?
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:47:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

Sorry, but I must raise one issue, it's one thing to nullify
idiotic ideas, but it's a totally different story concerning
personal attacks.

I don't mind flaming about insane and lunatic world views,
or trashing non-logical scientific theories. However I'm a little
bit worried that we sometimes look at the person writing the
statement, instead of examining the actual statement itself.

So yes, if someone believes that an outside planet nearly destroyed
Earth, kicked off the Moon and stabilized around Venus, and there's
nothing to back this, instead millions of pieces of evidence showing
the contrary, then feel free to trash such bizarre ideas. However,
remember that there's a human at the other end, and it's not fun
taking part in person flame wars.

Please flame this statement, and not little me...
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tycchow@nevanlinna.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 22:14:04 GMT

Although I agree that probability arguments in no way establish that
"evolution is false," I do not think that the responses that I have
seen posted so far are on the mark.  Many of them seem to argue that
the calculations cited are of no value at all.  However, suppose we
interpret the calculation this way: GIVEN assumptions X, Y, and Z, the
probability of abiogenesis is extremely small.  The calculation then
serves the function of suggesting that our current models of abiogenesis
are inadequate and motivating further investigation.  Hence it seems
that a better response to such probability calculations is not to
dismiss them out of hand but to say:

1. A demonstration that the probability of an event is extremely small
   cannot "prove" that the event did not occur, or even that the theory
   that yields the low probability is wrong.  The probability of
   flipping a fair coin a thousand times in a row and getting all heads
   is 2^(-1000) but this doesn't "prove" that such an event has never
   occurred, nor does it prove that if such an event occurred then the
   coin could not have been fair.  Thus, even if all the assumptions in
   the calculation are independently justifiable (which they almost
   certainly are not), such calculations are inherently incapable of
   "proving" that evolution or naturalism or whatever is wrong.

2. This does not mean that probability calculations have no value at
   all.  An extremely low probability *suggests* (but does not "prove")
   that there is something inadequate about the assumptions used to
   arrive at the probability and can thus motivate us to look for further
   explanations.  In the case of the coin, a long sequence of heads
   *suggests* that the coin might be biased, or that the sequence has
   somehow been selected out of a much longer sequence of coin flips---
   suggestions that point to directions for investigation.

Note also that both the creationist and the philosophical naturalist find
the low probability unacceptable.  They differ in that the low probability
suggests to the creationist that the assumption of naturalism is wrong,
whereas it suggests to the philosophical naturalist that the model of
abiogenesis employed is wrong.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:47:19 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <7ZD4TB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> 
>> >Read the book.
>> 
>> Translation: "I'm too stupid to comprehend the least aspect of the
>> proof, let alone that it's riddled with howlers and gaffes."
>> 
>> Go ahead, post the proof.
> 
> Read the book.

   I think you're starting to push your luck, Kalki.  You complain
about evolutionists posting "grafitti" and hate-filled messages 
while you keep repeating "read the book" about a book that is only
available from your institute?  I see asbestos in your future.

> Sincerely,

   I'm beginning to have my doubts too.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Science is inadequate
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:31:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.135820.15243@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <btd.720568735@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu> btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>}	Aha!  I think I got it!
>}
>}In <96@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>}
>}>In article <1992Oct29.094810.10054@nic.funet.fi>, TMakinen writes:
>}>^In article <92@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>}
>}[ Ted Holden't theory of venus, which, in brief, super green-house violates
>}2nd law of thermo. because middle layers should be hotter. ]
>
>At the risk of offending someone, have the ones debating the issue bothered to
>look at the thermal profile of earth?  We have hot in the bottom of canyons,
>warm surface, colder with increasing heights, then a VERY "hot" (NOTE THAT _I_
>KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEMPERATURE AND HEAT CONTENT!)  thermosphere.
>
>The profile of earth - a well researched planet - is impossible via Holden's
>descriptions.  I submit that earth exists,
>
As a matter of fact, about a week ago I posted an article mentioning
that the temperature in the thermosphere can exceed 1000 K, and that
according to Ted's scenario the _surface_ of the Earth ought to be
hellish right now.  Not that I expected a response from Ted, of
course.

He also ignored the fact that Venus' albedo is .76; that's one reason
it's so bright when seen from Earth.  There's no way the "middle cloud
layers" absorb "most" of the 98% of the sun's radiation that doesn't
reach the surface of Venus; 76% of the sun's incident radiation is
reflected, not absorbed.  2% reaches the surface, leaving 22% to be
absorbed by various layers in the atmosphere.  Is it too much to ask
to at least get the simple facts straight?

If such a simple refutation of the super greenhouse effect really
existed, Sagan's theory would have been soundly trashed before even
getting published anyway.  In short, Ted is pretty much as he's been
described:  the proponent of a fantastically paranoid fantasy.

SD
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:35:06 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <RBL3TB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>Yes, the solutions have high information content, and this is because
>the initial conditions or the boundary conditions have high information
>content.

Wrong.  Broken symmetry is about high information arising spontaneously
in situations of low information, including the initial conditions.

If Thompson doesn't understand broken symmetry, he's a crackpot.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Keywords: AWESOME
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:06:54 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <BxAKCJ.552@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.173752.24501@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>I retract, withdraw and cancel my comments on the Colby program.
>
>When will you be retracting your claim that one can easily distinguish between
>ape and human fossils in all cases?  Or will you be presenting an analysis of
>_Australopithecus afarensis_ to support your claim?
>
>-- Herb Huston

While you're retracting things, remember the claim about floods being
able to produce the fossil record.

-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   custts@cc.helsinki.fi)                       00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 18:21:53 GMT

In article <JTPyTB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>If you have not made up your mind about the issue of evolution vs.
>creation, then why should you not take the time to acquire this book? If
>you have already made up your mind in favor of evolution, then why even
>bother with it?

First, you are displaying the fallacy of black and white thinking.
Having one's mind made up is not an either/or proposition.  On most
issues (perhaps all issues), it's reasonable to be leaning strongly
towards one conclusion but willing to entertain evidence to the contrary.

However, there's a difference between willingness to entertain contrary
evidence and willingness to entertain garbage.  Since the field of
Creationism has so very much garbage in it masquerading as disproofs of
evolution, it's logical to assume that your favorite book is no different.
You certainly haven't given any reason to expect otherwise.

I also am very busy, and I would like time to read over 100 books that
are already in my bookcases at home.  Why should I add to this list
another book that requires much effort simply to obtain and that has as
its only recommendation the word of someone (somemany?) who apparently
can't or won't think for themselves.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins