HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Antti's File of "Nonreligious Objections" (was: Thanks etc)
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:31:36 GMT

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>>Particularly considering you apparently got this idea from a book
>>which nowhere gives this number, and which disagrees with your
>>conclusions.

>	It claims that the probability of abiogenesis (is that the correct 
>	word ?) is just the same as monkeys typing the whole production of
>	Shakespeare. 

Antti, you are getting silly again. If "the book" is Dawkin's "The Blind
Watchmaker", please give us a reference where he says anything remotely
like "the probability of abiogenesis is just the same as monkeys typing
the whole production of Shakespeare".

You've been called on this before, and not produced.

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: admiraal@bio.vu.nl (Alexander Admiraal)
Subject: FAQ or info on creationism
Organization: VU Biology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:12:38 GMT

hello, I am a biology student doing a project on creationism vs.the 
theory of evolution. I understand that this group has some sort
of information file which is sent to creationists who post to this
group. I would very much like to receive this file 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: a farewell to Antti
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:04:24 GMT


asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Ha ! I thought you would give that answer to excuse your 
>	miserable non-existing and forged proofs ! Sorry, no bonus !

Pardon?

Forged?

You really are a dolt. 

I will apologize for saying that after you come up with so much as
a shred of evidence concerning this forgery. References, names,
and dates would be nice, but from you, I guess less will have
to do.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Plant Death before the Fall (Gall Bladders Anyone?)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:57:41 GMT



I presume now that we have determined that felines
won't survive as vegetarians, that in the 10,000 years since
they were created, they must have evolved from vegetarians
(before the Fall) to the carnivores they are today.  Can
anyone postulate what differences would have had to have
evolved in that period of time?

Also, aren't there some species whose young are born inside
the body of one of the parents, and who eat their way out
or something like that, implying that they too, may have
had to go through a bit of evolution after the Fall to get
to such a state.

And I guess Salmon and grunion must have continued to live
after they laid their eggs.

Keith

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: a farewell to Antti
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:10:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.144146.23770@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> >I would fail you -- you are an idiot. I don't require my
> >students to believe in evolution, but I sure as hell expect
> >them to be able to regurgitate the definition. Don't expect any
> >further responses to any of your posts from me, you have now
> >proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you will avoid, at all
> >costs, any honest attempt to consider evolution on it's own merits.
> 
> 	Ha ! I thought you would give that answer to excuse your 
> 	miserable non-existing and forged proofs ! Sorry, no bonus !

  For somebody who has yet to produce a single piece of evidence that he is
willing to defend from even the most cursory criticism your words strike me as
rather bold.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:22:48 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <58@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|In article <1186@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|
|There's an easy way to test it out:  try living on pine cones for about
|a month or two.  I'll stick to the apples and pears, myself...
|
It's been done.  (Humans will try almost anything in the way of food).

However, the sauropods didn't eat pine cones, they ate conifer leaves.
Some of these leaves were certainly what we would today call needles, but
many, or most, of the confiers of that time were more similar to those
few remaining conifers with larger, flatter leaves, such as Agathis and
Araucaria, or Phyllocladus (all from the southern hemisphere).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:14:12 GMT

sieferme@carson.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.210149.5703@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com >(Dave Weaver) writes:
>>I am not a regular reader of t.o, but just passing through looking
>>for something interesting...
>>
>>We had this pi=3 discussion on t.r.m a while back. My reply...
>>
>>From 1 Kings 7:23...
>>The given diameter is 10, which has ONE significant digit.
>>The given circumference is 30, which has ONE significant digit.
>
>Looks like TWO significant digits to me.

BZZZZZZZZ Wrong answer, please check with your local math text.
     3000 has one significant digit.
       30 has one significant digit.
       31 has two significant digits.
     31.4 has three significant digits.
Zeros to the right, in the abscence of a decimal point, aren't significant.

>>Divide two numbers of one sig digit, and how many digits can you
>>keep in the result?  pi=3 is correct to ONE significant digit.
>>Where is the error? 
>>Are Biblical authors not allowed to round off measurements?
>
>The problem is not with the authors (whoever they were).
>The problem is with the people who want to believe that
>the book containing these questionable translations of
>ancient writings is absolutely and literally true,
>and should be used as an infallible guide for all
>questions of life, including (gasp!) science.

I would just encourage anyone to double check before exposing textual errors.
The pi=3 passage is not one, for the reasons stated above.

Dave Weaver
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 00:00:34 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct9.221500.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>In article <BRUCE.92Oct9114117@suprenum.uxb.liv.ac.uk>, bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>> 	<1992Oct8.162854.1281@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
>>> Right, but wrong.  Whilest the gravity at a distance n away from the center
>>> of either sphere will be the same, because the big Earth has a larger
>>> radius the *surface* gravity of the expanded Earth will be less than the
>>> *surface* gravity of the normal Earth.
>> 
>>> All we need is an Earth with twice the radius and the surface gravity
>>> is only 25% of what it is now.  Are you listening Ted?
>> 
>> Doesn't this idea make the Flood much more difficult?  After all, now
>> we've got 4 times the surface area to cover.  If we can work out some
>> Flood explanation (after all, we don't need to work out every little
>> detail to make it a better theory than the normal Uniformitarian
>> bulls**t)...
>
>   No, in fact it makes it easer, because the Earth's surface
>was smoother then, so the Flood wouldn't have to cover such a 
>depth; then when the Earth contracted its surface assumed a bumpier 
>form and the water went into the lower parts, what are now the 
>oceans.
>
>Karl

 Maybe I can make up for my truly horrendous mistake (since mercifully
deleted) by extending the Once Hollow Earth Theory (OHET). It's
even easier; obviously, the contraction was the proximal cause of
the Flood; it caused all the water to slosh upwards out of the shallow
seas it was in, and it only later settled down to present levels.
 Makes sense to me.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Holden and the C programming language
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:42:35 GMT

In article <67@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <718507718@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>> First of all, the program as posted is not ANSI conforming.  Nor is it a
>> legal K&R C program.  
>
>K&R C compilers, free with UNIX, are a classic example of getting what
>you pay for in life.  

As are your theories.

>Ted Holden
>HTE

Never has so much been claimed by someone who knows so little.

C "Still gunning for 12 points" Frog
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: evolution through time
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:19:08 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <97807@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|In article <ksand-051092182921@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|
|>Could you please let us know when the thory of evolution changed
|>dramatically, thanks?
|
|When Lamarck proposed evolution, he presented it as organisms
|continually being spontaneously generated and becoming more
|complex through internal mechanisms (I think this is called
|orthogenesis, don't quote me.)

You have it right.  You have also correctly identified one of the real
significant differences between Lamarck's and Darwin's version of evolution.
[NOT inheritance of acquired characteristics, which was mostly a side-light,
and not a core issue until much later].

|Darwin proposed a new mechanism
|for evolution (natural selection), but in the end added some
|Lamarckian ideas to cover for his lack of knowledge of genetics.
|He also presented evolution as a branching tree, not a linearly
|progressive ladder as Lamarck envisioned. I'm not sure if that
|was a contribution of Darwin, or if biologists had switched
|the pattern of evolution prior to Darwin proposing selection

You were right the first time - this was Darwin's *other* main contribution.
It is also the one that was almost immediately accepted by the vast majority
of working biologists (while natural selection remained controversial
up until the 1940's or so).
|
|In any case, substantial change has been made (IMHO) to evolution
|to make the theory fit the data (which keeps growing in quantity
|and quality). The rate of change seems, however, to be tailing 
|off. The biggest changes of late are probably the neutral theory
|of molecular evolution and directed mutagenesis.

And the *importance* both of these are highly uncertain.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Kazmaier at 200,000 lbs vs the 200,000 lb sauropod
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:24:51 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct7.000645.27287@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
|  Humans aren't all that
|good at lifting.  Plenty of animals can run more efficiently (faster) 
|than people, plenty of animals can jump more efficiently (higher) than 
|people, why can't some animals lift more???? Hell, we know that chimps 
|and gorillas can run all over your Holden Number, why do you persist 
|in claiming it means anything?

Hey, how does that old saying go:

Where does a 300 lb. gorilla sit?
	Anywhere he wants to!

I mena really who, besides Ted, would be silly enough to argue with him?
|
|>I honestly cannot think of any other possibility, other than for one.
|
|Proof by lack of imagination.  How droll.

Yeah, still I sometimes see that same argument in refereed scientific
journals.  [The main argument against the common origin of insects and
crustaceans is based on just this type of argument].

Of course I find it no more convincing in a journal than when Ted does it!
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Further Clarification
Date: 14 Oct 1992 22:49:04 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct14.174944.15397@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
|> 
|> Why hasn't life evolved many times on earth? ( maybe it has, but there is no
|> evidence supporting it as I know of.)

One answer is that the existing forms of life would compete
with it, or even use it as food.

[Mind you, it doesn't take 108 lines to say that]

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:26:22 GMT

Stanley Friesen (swf@teradata.com) wrote:
: |: Aaaaah.  That's a good point.  There wasn't *biological*
: |: evolution before life, but there was *chemical* and *molecular*
: |: evolution.  ...
: |
: |	Just wanting to keep terminology straight (and I haven't
: |read Dawkins).  Is it proper to refer to the development of increasingly
: |complex chemical systems as "evolution"?   We could probably break 
: |down the reactions into polymerizations, condensations, etc. but I'm
: |uncomfortable calling this "evolution", because of the confusion
: |it might engender with biological evolution. There has to be a more precise 
: |term, but I can't think of one at this moment.  Anybody?
 
: This gets into a tricky area of semantics, speculation, and science.
: 
: Most of the current hypotheses about abiogenesis propose more directed
: processes than the sorts you are describing ("polymerizations, ...").
: 
: These suggested processes often involve the operation of selection, or
: something akin to it.  If these ideas are even aproximately correct then
: the border between what is 'evolution' and what is not becomes rather
: fuzzy.  Thus, it could be construed as appropriate to use the term 'chemical
: evolution' for this prebiotic selection-driven phase.

	After reading an extraordinarily interesting article in "New
Scientist" entitled (perhaps incorrectly) "Survival of the fittest
molecules", I am entirely comfortable in calling a directed change in 
chemical systems "evolution".  _Science_, vol 257, p. 635 (described
in the article) -- two molecular biologists succeeded in "coaxing" a
biological molecule to evolve artificially, doing in a few weeks
what nature night take millenia to accomplish...
	"New Scientist" October 3, 1992.
	Check it out.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti fails to grasp basic evolutionary principle
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:43:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <Bvs69t.FHF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu
(Virginia Metze) wrote:
> This is 'off the subject' but I wonder if you have any idea how
> scary it is for people like me to see such anti-science, anti-
> evolution stuff being blasted around among people who apparently
> all have college degrees or are working on them????

Does anyone know how it feels for me seeing a fellow Finn showing
his stubborn stupidity, and creating bad PR for the educational system
in Finland that I'm also a product of? Please note, the huge majority
of Finns are highly aware of the issues related to evolution, and very,
very few are fundamentalists supporting Creationism. No schools in
Finland are allowed to teach quasi-science, style Creationism.

Cheers,
Kent 

Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Teemu Makinen
Subject: Pi/4=1-1/3+1/5-1/7+...
Organization: Finnish Academic and Research Network Project - FUNET
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 06:23:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.154046.21572@athena.mit.edu> lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren
King) writes:
>
>Pi can also be defined as the sum of a convergent series (I don't
>recall off-hand what the series is, however).  Wouldn't this get
>around the problem of a geometric definition?

Pi is much more than just a ratio, it is a very fundamental number in our
mathematics. Consider, that

     e^(i*Pi) + 1 = 0  ,

joining together e, i, Pi and the identity elements of multiplication and
addition, respectively.
The series you mentioned is probably the Leibnitz's formula derived from the
equation

     Integrate(0,1) ( dx/(1 + x^2) ) = Arctan(1) - Arctan(0) = Pi/4

Then, expanding the integrand into a Taylor series and integrating term by
term, we obtain

     Pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - ...

This series, however, converges so slowly that it is useless for numerical
calculation. There are lots of better choices around.
You get Pi out almost always, when you carry out complex integrals like Fourier
transforms. That is suggested by the residue theorem, for example.

Teemu Makinen  --- teemu.makinen@fmi.fi 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Chauvanism against Chimps  (was: a farewell to Antti)
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:36:28 GMT

Mark Isaak (isaak@aurora.com) wrote:

: What do you feel would be wrong with being related to chimpanzees?
: Please note:  I'm not asking why you think you aren't related; I'm
: asking why, if you were, that would be so bad.

	Seriously, it doesn't bother me (after all, I'm probably
related to a self-replicating liposphere, too).

	Unseriously, I think I might like to be a bonobo.  :-)

	Can you imagine getting sex every time you took an 
apple out of the refrigerator?!
	

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


(Of course, it should be obvious I'm not a Cretinist, uh, Creationist.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Well, Holden?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:19:05 GMT

In <74@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.162548.5783@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>*Subject: Re: Direct question for Holden
>*
>*In article <1992Sep30.161451.9854@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>*}
>*}You claim to have a unique and totally accurate understanding of various
>*}astronomical, physical, biological, and chemical T/S "events" that differ
>*}from the accepted norm by a substantial degree.  Could you please specify
>*}how you acquired this raw data and your qualifications for evaluating the
>*}material?
>*
>*How many more weeks are needed for your response?

>*James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
>*The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
>*They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.


>I feel myself under no obligation TO respond to liars.

	I won't comment on whether or not Meritt is or is not a liar.  The
above questions, however, are valid to ask of ANY theory, irrespective of
who asks them.   Please answer them.  Thank you.

>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE
	Facts are illusion and concepts misleading.  Only Truth exists. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: sieferme@carson.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:43:27 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Oct8.210149.5703@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>I am not a regular reader of t.o, but just passing through looking
>for something interesting...
>
>We had this pi=3 discussion on t.r.m a while back. My reply...
>
>From 1 Kings 7:23...
>The given diameter is 10, which has ONE significant digit.
>The given circumference is 30, which has ONE significant digit.

Looks like TWO significant digits to me.

>Divide two numbers of one sig digit, and how many digits can you
>keep in the result?  pi=3 is correct to ONE significant digit.
>Where is the error? 
>Are Biblical authors not allowed to round off measurements?

The problem is not with the authors (whoever they were).
The problem is with the people who want to believe that
the book containing these questionable translations of
ancient writings is absolutely and literally true,
and should be used as an infallible guide for all
questions of life, including (gasp!) science.

>Dave Weaver


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:28:48 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct8.054545.6972@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
|
|I missed that the first time around.  That's really very pretty.
|
|The puzzling thing is how one branch of the dinosauria could be
|cold blooded and the rest not.  If the ancestral dinosaurs were
|endotherms, which seems indicated, then the sauropods either lost
|endothermy or else evolved into ectothermy or a thermal regime
|effectively equivalent to ectothermy.  When one thinks on it
|there is some plausibility to that notion; there are real advantages
|to ectothermy (lowered food requirements, fewer problems with heat
|loss).

Exactly, and for something as large as the sauropods these two factors alone
would be quite powerful.  Add to this a greater tolerance for periods of
deprivation (which is the reason that reptiles are so common in desert
environments), and you get a good basis for loss of endothermy.  (The
biophysical and genetic basis of ectothermy is enough simpler than that
of endothermy to treat this as a simple loss character, rather than a
more complex convergence).

|How reliable is the pattern determination?

My *guess* is quite reliable.   But it needs to be verified by further
tests on living animals.  (The original article did include some baseline
runs on living animals, so it is at least partially verified).

Note, I am trying to be cautious here - to try to keep my natural
excitement about a new discovery from running out to far ahead of
the data.

I have to keep reminding myself - one study by itself is *never* conclusive.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com