HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
Subject: Confused creationists (was: worthless comic strips)
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:13:39 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <1992Sep11.153652.12928@phillip.edu.au>, lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
writes:
> 
>   It appears to me that the only thing wrong with BC is that paranoid
> evolutionists disagree with it, which in their eyes makes it wrong. All the
> flack the strip has received recently shows a real fear of anything opposing
> evolutionary views.  Don't fall into the trap many evolutionists accuse
> creationists of, that is to suffer from tunnel vision.

   Okay, I'll explain it again.

   The BC strip said that evolution CLAIMS to be random.

   If evolution claimed to be random, it would be garbage.

   No evolutionary biologist claims evolution is random.  There is some
   randomness but it is very, very filtered randomness.  A good set of 
   filters can produce the Brandenburg Concerto out of white noise.

   Thus, Mr. Hart is spreading a lie that is used by creationists to 
   falsely impune evolution.  His culpability is moot, he may not know
   he was spreading a lie, but given that he reaches tens of millions 
   of people he should probably stick to what he knows, like baseball.

It wasn't that Hart disagreed with us, it was that he misrepresented our 
position.  Are you too a victim of this misrepresentation?  Do you think
evolution claims to be a random process?  If so, there is no charge for 
the lesson and you're most welcome.
 
>   I haven't noticed any posts condeming yoga/meditation/eastern philosophy in
> public schools. Don't be a Christophobe.

   This is because the eastern religions are not mounting a well funded campain
to invade the schools in violation of constitutional law.  If the buddists
start lobbying for a meditation hour in American public schools, I'll start in
on them.

Also:  CHRISTOPHOBE?!?!?!?   Look, we're mostly idiot-o-phobes here.  
Christians that can think are numbered among our venerated and valued 
regulars.  You seem to be confusing a leathal mutant sub-spiecies of
Christianity with the entire Body of Christ.  Don't; it's unjust.

> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"Growl, snarl, arf!"
-my father-in-law's dog making more sense that creationist "science".
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: And what about the decay in the speed of light?
From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 4 Sep 1992 17:33 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <david_s.1.715531716@gribb.hsr.no>, david_s@gribb.hsr.no (Sjen, David Andreas   8-94) writes...
>Has anyone out there read the report 'The Atomic Constants, Light and Time'
>by Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield, issued by the Stanford Research 
>Institute in August 1987? I have read it, and to me it sounds very 
>convincing (yes, I believe in literal inspiration of the Bible), although I 
>am not competent enough to verify it. Briefly, it sets out to prove, by 
>statistical methods, that the different values for the speed of light since 
>1675 do not (statistically) form a straight curve. The curve that gives the 
>best fit converges towards infinite around 4000BC. This, if true, solves 
>some interesting scientific problems, like the missing mass, for instance.
> 
>Does anyone out there have any comments on this report?

Yes, it's complete garbage, as even many creationists admit.  See the
last several years of the _Creation Research Society Quarterly_; look
for articles by Gerald Aardsma and D.R. Humphreys.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cosc177z@rosie.uh.edu (92H02966)
Subject: Re: 25,000,000 year-old BEE?????????
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:33:00 GMT

In article <2AA81ADF.5977@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes...
>sjc28473@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven Joseph Chmura) writes:
>>"Scientists have found DNA from a bumble bee 25,000,000 (yes, million) year
>>old.  This is forcing science to re-think the Evolotionary clock.."
>>
>>1)  How old are Bees anyway?
> 
>I'm not sure about bees exactly, but modern insects evolved about 300
>million years ago.  So 25 million years ago isn't much.
> 
>>2)  Was this a joke?
> 
>Doubt it.
It may have sounded like a joke on the radio if the left out the fact that
the Bee was not alive but preserved in amber.  In the article I read, it went
on to say that they hope to get dinosaur DNA from mesquitos (sp?) similarly
encased in amber.;
---
Stephen McLeod        4 more hours of chemo.  Drip, drip, drip...
The Eternal? Student  Got a hard lump on your testicle?  Could be cancer.
                      Regular self examination is the key.
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism,alt.fan.dan-quayle,sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:09:14 GMT



[The B.C. comic strip contains anti-evolution and pro-school prayer strips]

Crosspost disclaimer: EDIT YOUR NEWSGROUPS LINE IF REPLYING.

In article <9SEP199211051321@juliet.caltech.edu>, waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu
(Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:

>>> How long has B.C. been pulling this stuff?
>> 
>>Coupla years that I know of.
>> 
> 
> It could be that long.  It is certainly not the first time I have seen
> creationist themes, or more specifically, sarcastic anti-evolution
> comments, in B.C.  I think they were always through Wiley, though I am
> afraid I can't remember any specific examples.  And you should see some
> of the stuff he produces around Christmas or Easter!! (ie. references
> to the Nativity or Resurrection).
> 
> Wayne.

   It just gets worse.  B.C. is now replaying the entire Republican convention.
Yesterday "Dr. Peter/Headshrinker" opined that telling Dan Quayle jokes was the
first sign you're loosing your mind ("It's a terrible thing to loose you mind. 
Or not to have a mind to loose.").  Today Wiley's dictionary defined RU 4-86 as
"Are you for stiffing the kid."

   Mr. Hart certianly has a right to his opinions but this sort of mindless
propaganda with no discussion of alternatives is disgusting.  At least the
liberal smear campaigns, e.g. Doonesbury, tend to mention alternative points of
view.  They're also clever while Mr. Hart is flailing away with a blunt club.

   In particular, Mr. Hart's claims in the last two weeks are:

   (I) Evolution claims to be a random process (it doesn't).

   (II) The fact the phrase "wall of seperation" doesn't appear in the
establishment clause of the first amendment means that phrase has no weight in
constitutional deliberations.  (at the very least this displays a terrible
ignorance of the processes of constitutional law).

   (III) You have to be nuts to make fun of Dan Quayle (obviously a sign of
being a Republican lackey; since the majority makes Dan Quayle jokes it is by
definition sane behavior :})

    (IV) RU-486 is nothing but an abortion drug and abortion is murder. (the
latter view is controversial the former is nonsensical.  Neither is good fodder
for a daily strip where debate cannot take place.  The strip may help kill
women with breast cancer, for example, and is hence wildly hipocritical).

    (V) Humans and dinosaurs are contemporanious. (B.S.! Thanks to those on
talk.origins that pointed this out).

   I've read B.C. for YEARS and it seems that Mr. Hart has only recently
transformed from a soft core, tollerant, evangelical christian to a brainwashed
zombie purveyor of conservative hate propaganda.  This sort of worries me; lots
of people read the comics before (or instead of) the front page.  This
progression represents another jack-boot clomp in the progress of
irrationalistic think-o-phobia.  Ackthpppttt!

Dan (from inside my asbestos tent, where I am watching M*A*S*H reruns)
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti's word
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:14:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep9.155714.13297@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >airhead, bozo, goober, twit, dimbulb, poltroon, maroon, and, of course,
> >user(*).
> 
> 	bimbo, jughead

Speaking about 'bimbo', doesn't it show that language itself
evolves, and with the advent of Hollywood stars lacking certain
intelligence compensated other ways our language got a new
word. In other words, evolution. Thanks Antti for pointing this out.

Please, I'm not advocating the use of the word bimbo, in my
humble opinion why didn't we create a similar ugly word 
about dumb men with blonde hair?

Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Subject: Re: 25,000,000 year-old BEE?????????
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 19:46:42 GMT

sjc28473@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven Joseph Chmura) writes:
>Driving home from my lab tonight I heard a blip on the local radio (WLS-Chicagf)
>
>To kinda quote from our great memories :)   
>
>"Scientists have found DNA from a bumble bee 25,000,000 (yes, million) year
>old.  This is forcing science to re-think the Evolotionary clock.."
>
>Well, as I have no backspace key I will not correct the spellings but....
>
>1)  How old are Bees anyway?

I don't really know.  I believe the bee is actually 40,000,000 years old.

>2)  Was this a joke?

Nope.  In fact, that work is being done right here at my school.  They were
able to crack a bee out of hardened amber.  Now they can clone its DNA and
examine it.

One aside.  They apparently also got some bacteria from within the amber
sample.  They found the stuff growing the next day, and it conforms to no
currently known bacteria.  Chances are pretty good that it was traped in the
amber with the bee.


|======================================================================|
| 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        |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:25:13 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.105722.26949@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
>Siivonen) writes:
>> 	I suppose you (all) know the famous Larus fuscus - Larus argentatus  
>> 	-case ? In this it SEEMS to be speciation, but it's only micro-
>> 	evolution. 

>  Would you mind being more specific?  Why is it considered microevolution? 
>What are the circumstances that brought you to this conclusion.  What facts are
>there from which this statement can be shown true?  And especially: why does
>this prove speciation can't happen?

	You see, they are one species, but Larus argentatus can't breed with 
	Larus fuscus fuscus. But L.f.f can breed with L.f.intermedius and 
	L.f.i can breed with L.f.heuglini and L.f.h can breed with L.f.taimyrien
	sis.... -> L.argentatus graellsii. 

	This is the example that is shown to prove macroevolution (of course it
	is not showed like this), but I think you can see that Larus argentatus 
	and Larus fuscus are only distant races of the same gull, not species. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Xref: sparky talk.origins:11139 alt.atheism:16925 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3528 sci.skeptic:16211
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism,alt.fan.dan-quayle,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:36:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep10.153658.4628
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <w88uqB3w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>
(some stuff deleted)
>This is a case where Limbaugh is wrong.  Liberals do know how to laugh, both at
>ourselves and at the whackos on the right.  Trudeau has been making us laugh
>for a long time, and Breathed also, albeit only on Sundays now.  Let 'em have a
>low rent strip like B.C.
>
>Of course, if Trudeau really does fire everyone in his strip for their lack of
>'family values,' that'll only leave the empty images of GHWB and Our Boy.
>

This thread has me thinking about Our Boy and the "cultural elite".
Consider comics like Doonesbury and Bloom County.  Consider the number
of movies which satirize fundamentalism.  Consider that Jay Leno's
jokes about the Bushman / Dan-o seem to get more laughs than jokes
about any Democrat (except maybe for Ted the K.).  Now consider 
B.C.  Consider the lame and boorish attempts at humor at the
RepuliCon Convention.  Consider other attempts in conservative
/ fundamentalist literature at humor or satire (they are few
and far between).

A cursory analysis would lead one to believe in the myth of
the liberal cultural elite; since "cursory" is the outer
boundary of the Dandroid's thinking ability, this explains
why he is so fond of the myth.

The point of this rambling:  are Dan-o and his minions just
inherently funnier than the Dems?



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Flat Earth and the Bible
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:06:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.030213.1543@scic.intel.com>, sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes:
> Does anyone have the list of Bible quotes that the flat-Earthers
> use as the basis of their claims?  Thanks in advance!
> -- 
> Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
> Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
> ----------------------------------------
> "A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
> Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
> hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
> of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien

Unfortunately for the flat-Earthers, the Bible says that the Earth is round. 
I'm not sure of the exact spot where this is located.  It's either in Job or
Psalms.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:11:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.112526.20889@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> >Then how come you think the book is so wonderful?
> 
> 	I give you a reverse answer: It doesn't contain trickery. 
> 	I have an example:
> 
> 	a = 3b/2   =   4a = 6b   =  (14-10)a = (21-15)b  or 14a-10a = 21b-15b
> 	15b-10a = 21b-14a   =   5(3b-2a)  =  7(3b-2a)  =
                         division by zero in this step ^
> 		5 = 7
> 		=====

  Okay, I have pointed out the error.  Would you be kind enough to do the same
with evolution?

> 	language or jargon. This is common. Magician uses two methods: Draws
> 	the attention elsewhere or hides the object. This is not honest 
> 	science.  

  Are you saying that scientists are intentionally hiding the truth?  Is this
where the Templars come in?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject:  "Shaving down" in swimming -- no origins involved
Content-Type: text
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 18:06:38 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 1131      



	A subject I know about!

	Having minimal body hair and being a competitive swimmer, it would
seem that shaving it off would have limited benefits for me.  Au contraire!
"Shaving down" is the culmination of tapering for a big event, which
also includes more rest, better nutrition, more anaerobic "sprint" 
workouts, etc.  "Shaving" is the last step.

	It feels amazing.  Very slippery, very smooth, and very fast.
(Know any women by the same description?  HA!)
	Seriously, there is really no reason it should work, but the
kinesiologic effects are amazing.  You feel fast = you swim fast.

	Mary T. Meagher, the world-record holder in both 100 and 200 
butterflys, was glad to retire so she could shave her legs regularly.  She
let the hair grow so she could shave down.

	I have some Masters team members for which it would probably
have some hydraulic benefits.  I keep trying to convince this one guy
to shoot for one meet and shave down - he will be awesome.  'Course
he'll itch for a month afterwards, too.  C'est la vie.

	Any more questions?  E-mail (out of office 'til Monday)

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Hydraulic Sorting
Keywords: Hydraulic Brain-death All-Wet and Leaky-Arguments
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:45:56 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

------------------------------------------------

  Our mainframe has been unable to post news articles for a few months.  This
is a repost of an article that I sent (unsuccessfully) some time ago.  I hope
that you will not find it too dated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <1992Aug20.133449.21750@news.nd.edu> Tom Scharle writes:

    [ ... ]
    The fossils were hydraulicly (or is it "hydrologically" -- could
    someone tell me?) sorted in the Flood.  So the creationists tell us.
    Wouldn't that be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?  Or, 
    for that matter, any other mechanism which would sort the fossils.
    [ ... ]


   No, such sorting does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.  Think about
what happens to the "order" of the displaced fluid.  Also, potential energy
is being converted into kinetic energy as the mass falls.  The idiot sorting
argument originated with Henry (air-head) Morris.  In fact, the sorting that
Morris proposes (simpler single celled life at the bottom and complex multi-
cell organisms at the top) is BACKWORDS!  Oceanographers (and many others) have
know for a long time that given two objects of similar shape and density, the
larger one will fall faster in a fluid.  The terminal velocity is proportional
to the mass (downward directed force due to gravity) divided by cross-sectional
area (upward retarding force due to drag).  If the objects have similar shape
(i.e. similar drag coefficients) and similar densities, the larger one will
have a larger downward force compared to it's cross sectional area (i.e. mass
is proportional to R^3 but area is proportional to R^2).  Thus the distribution
caused by hydraulic sorting would be the inverse of what is seen in the fossil
record (and consequently the inverse of what Morris claims).  This is precisely
why fog and clouds form in the air but lakes don't.

  Isn't it interesting that someone with a Ph.D. in Hydraulic Engineering could
be so ignorant about hydraulic flows?  A useful tip - creationist arguments
are almost always backwards (i.e. they LIKE looking backwards [pun intended]).
For example, evolution does not violate the second law but creationism does, so
creationists claim that evolution violates the second law.  If you are going to
bring in something from outside the universe (the supernatural) you will end up
violating your original postulate (i.e. having a closed system).



  UUCP:  uunet!tektronix!sail!mikec  or                  M.Cranford
         uunet!tektronix!sail.labs.tek.com!mikec         Principal Troll
  ARPA:  mikec%sail.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET            Resident Skeptic
  CSNet: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM                         TekLabs, Tektronix
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: sgi
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:57:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.112526.20889@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
|> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
|> >Then how come you think the book is so wonderful?
|> 
|> 	I give you a reverse answer: It doesn't contain trickery. 
|> 
|> 	Trickery is what magicians do: They make audience look to the right
|> 	hand when the left hand is working. The same is done in science, but
|> 	using words, references and charts. 

Yours must be an interesting life.   I gather you don't
use electric light, go to a doctor, take modern prescription
drugs, never had an X-ray, don't cross suspension bridges,
never fly in a plane, ride to work on a horse, never listen
to the radio, or watch TV, only read books printed by impression
never by rotogravure.

If science is all trickery, how could you trust any of these
things?

Or isn't it *all* science that's trickery?   Perhaps some
Science is OK and some is trickery.   How do you personally
decide which is which?

jon.
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:04:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep7.103452.26605@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep4.110341.27321@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
> >(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> >> 	Here in Russia it's rude to answer right to the question. 

> >When has Joensuu (a medium size town in Finland) moved to Russia?
> >You aren't pulling a silly lie again about Finland being part of
> >Russia, aren't you?

> 	1323 ce., 1595 ce., 1712 ce., 1742 ce., 1809 ce. Those years are 
> 	familiar to you, especially if you were good in history. 
> 
> 	No, I'm not. 

I guess you are good with maths as well. Add together all the
years Finland belonged to Sweden, and compare it with the years
Finland *belonged* to Russia. Based on your twisted sense of 
geography you would live in Sweden just now.

Anyway, all this is silly anyway, because Finland has been an
independent state since December 6, 1917.

Stop lying, you will not be part of the people that will rule
Earth when Jesus arrives if you continue spreading lies about Finland.


Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:11024 alt.atheism:16743