HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:08:40 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 14160@wdl.loral.com, mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
> 
> Come on now, that's just a granularity of mesurement error.  
>                                                      ^^^^^

So much for biblical inerancy.  The problem with perfection is that it's such a
negative thing: The ABSENCE of error.  ANY little error screws up the whole claim.
Making excuses doesn't cut it.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:48:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Wright State University

In article <ke0qRB3w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
>> David Irish (dirish@HQ.Ileaf.COM)
>> >(1) No problem accepting that there was death before Adam. After all,
>> >    what did carnivorous animals eat? Animals in the wild are adapted
>> >    for specific roles. Carnivours do not possess teeth that would
>> >    work very well if they had a vegetarian diet. Ever see a cat try
>> >    to eat grass or non-meat products? They have great difficulty, because
>> >    their teeth are not suited for chewing vegetable matter.
>>
>> (We interrupt this argument for an irrelevant digression on feline dietary
>> habits:
>> Actually it's not just the teeth: their digestive systems are not built to co
>> with vegetation as a normal diet: you need a LONG gut to extract nutrition
>> from plant matter.  Cats only eat grass (I have one who's *crazy* about it!)
>> for the fiber.
> 
> More to the point, cats require taurine in their diet, and taurine can only
> be obtained from meat.
> 
> Dentition is a bad way to determine whether an animal is "supposed to" eat
> meat or not.  Meat-eating humans often argue that humans are "supposed to"
> eat meat because we have incisors and little canine teeth; but next time you
> get a chance, look at the teeth of a gorilla.
> 

So?  I HAVE looked at gorilla's teeth.  Very well suited for their completely
vegetarian diet. 

> 
> mathew
> [ Of course, because of "King Kong" most people probably think gorillas eat
>   meat... ]
> -- 
> Bush/Quayle in '92!
> God Bless America!
> God Bless Family Values!

One thing I've never been able to understand, Bush/Quayle keep talking
about *their* version of family values.... One father, one mother, kids.
Funny thing, a majority of American families just don't fit this very
restrictive mold.  But then, the two of them never seem to have a CLUE,
anyway.


**********************************************************************

Newly coined American slang definition:

	Quayle - Dumb blond male

*********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Differing accounts of creation in Genesis
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:19:00 GMT

	I really like this "Genesis" book by Boice.  Because I'm not
a Biblical scholar, and this guy knows it in extreme detail.
	From Chapter 14, "Are There Two Creations":

	"...we immediately discover that the emphasis is indeed on man
and not on other aspects of creation.  We can see this in two ways.
First, there is more detail about the creation of man, both male and
female.  Second, there is an emphasis on God's special provision for the
man and the woman.  This is where references to the other parts of
creation come in.
	Emphasis on the man and woman is seen in several ways.  We notice
almost at once that the chronological sequence followed so clearly in
Genesis 1, with its succession of seven key days, is dropped and a more
topical sequence is adopted.  Of course, some critical scholars have pointed
to the order of things in Genesis 2 as being evidence that the two creation
"accounts" are contradictory:  the first gives one order for things, the 
second gives a different order.  But this is surely nonsense.  If you take
Genesis 2 as teaching a chronological sequence, you have first the creation 
of man, then the planting of a garden, then God putting the man in the 
garden, then God causing trees to grow in the garden.  After this there is 
a description of the rivers of the garden. Then man is put in the garden
again.  Problems like this should tell us that something is wrong with 
that approach.  They tell us that chronology is not in view here at all.
What matters in this chapter is man.  Everything else is introduced for 
its relationship to him."

	The nice thing about this book is that he does address virtually
every question that has been raised theologically in regard to Genesis
1-11.  You may not agree with Boice's resolution, but he doesn't ignore
these types of questions.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Favorite astronomer jokes
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:40:08 GMT

	Here is another Velikovsky joke:

	One day, as he was driving along the highway, Velikovsky's car
ran out of gas. He pulled off to the side of the road, and took a loaf
of bread he was carrying, tore it up, and stuffed the bread pieces
into the car's gas intake. Another motorists had stopped to help, and
asked V why he was doing it.

	V: Because bread contains carbohydrates

	The motorist: Your car doesn't need bread it needs gasoline.
And gasoline is a hydrocarbon, not a carbohydrate.

	V: Hydrocarbon? Carbohydrate? What's the difference?

	And he kept on stuffing the bread in, and drove the car's
repair bill way up.
From: kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Planet Jesus
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:20:07 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


Ted has cited V's reasoning that since people used to envision presently
distant planets to be gods, those planets must have been much closer
at some time in the recent past.  After all, they're awfully difficult 
to see.  And wouldn't people rebel against the folly of belief in 
something that was so distant that they couldn't even see it?  Well,
as luck would have it, there's a parallel to this inductive farce.
Consider this scenario: many people now believe in Jesus.  None of these
people has ever seen him, nor have their parents, grandparents, etc.
Therefore, at some time in the past, there must have been another planet
in our solar system, Planet Jesus.  I'm sure we can find some sort of 
ways of proving its existence - the Nemesis thesis could be used as a
basis of proof.

If this sounds ridiculous to you, then surely Ted's inductive reasoning
is ridiculous as well.  If you find it a compelling argument, then
please go back and read Colby's articles for information concerning
the way scientists work and think.


              Also, Charlottesville must be destroyed.

   These may not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's.
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com - My other account is a Mercedes.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: a clarification from Ted?
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:32:48 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct5.174915@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <55@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>  This does not seem natural to me.  Can you explain your reasoning?

Surely you jest.  Ted is a natural phenomenon, a cornucopia of crackpot
science.  He doesn't reason, he regurgitates.  Believe me, don't worry
about his reasoning -- just enjoy.  The fun thing about Ted is that there
is no field of science or of practical knowledge where his exposition is not
egregiously ridiculous.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:50:24 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  Now math, is that Empirical or not?  None of the concepts expressed in math
>allows any kind of direct observation until it is applied to the real world.  On
>the other hand, mathematics is probably the only field where one can prove
>things in the strictest sense of the word prove.

	You answered your own question. If I have one apple and then another,
	that makes two apples, mathematically 1 + 1 = 2. The rest of math is
	just applications of this rule. Very empiric. 

>  No, some people say there is a small chance of it not being true.  There are
>enormous mounds of evidence _for_ evolution, while I have yet to see even a
>single piece of evidence against evolution which stood up to analysis.  It is
>you who are grasoping at the 1%.

	No, I said the probability of evolution is 

			1
		----------------
			350,000
		      10

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 12:57:32 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct2.130253.202956@uctvax.uct.ac.za> watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

[extensive deletions]

>The idea behind the JEPD theory is that since the OT is factually unreliable (a
>positon which has been over-turned since the 1800's) the 'history' of the OT is
>Myth (a technical term for historical-fiction, i.e. there is a kernel of
>truth). The result of this Higher Criticsm has been the denial of the
>trustworthiness of the Bible generally today, your statements reflecting the
>general manner of thinking. Logically, however the situation is ironically
>absurd:-   General Assumption: The Bible Is Absolutely true;
>           1st Step: I think that the absence of Archaeological evidence for
>                     some of the historical places/people/events means the
>                     Bible is NOT absolutely true.
>           New Theory: I think the Bible is a composite of Tribal stories
>                      (Wellhausen's Redactors hypothesis)
>           Result: New General Assumption: The Bible is not Asolutely
>                                           Trustworthy
>           2nd Step: I discover the absent Archaeological evidence.
>           Logical Result: Return to the original Assumption, since the basis
>                           for rejecting it was in error.
>           Illogical Result: Retain the NEW Assumption - inspite of the fact
>                             that it is based on an incorrect assumption - just
>                             adjust the New Theory to accomodate new data.
>
>Guess what the General Assumption is Today!
>Illogical? or not?
>Gary

 May I point out (this being talk.origins and all) that, at least insofar
at the first few chapters of Genesis are concerned, the archaeological
evidence does *not* support the Bible's version of history. (At least,
if you insist on a literal interpretation.)
 Its Middle-East and Near-East chronology may well be substantially (or
even completely) correct, as far as archaeological evidence is concerned,
but not beyond a couple thousand years B.C.
 Oh, well.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:03:00 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb) writes:
>to find anywhere where he says this, and have pointed out that much of the
>"Watchmaker" is devoted to demonstrating why the "typing monkeys" are a poor
>analogy to abiogenesis. How do you derive that "the probability of evolution
>is the same as a monkey would type the whole Shakespeare?"

	There is a chapter about the beginning of the life. He uses this 
	example for a few pages. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: "Hydrological sorting" (was: "Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!")
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:25:20 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Sep30.115043.25745@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> No. The two statements are entirely compatible. To say that
> fossils appear in various layers is one thing. But to piece
> together assorted layers from round the world and assemble
> a supposed historical timescale is entirely another.

You don't need to piece together layers from all around the world.
Just take a trip to the Grand Canyon. You still need to explain
the intelligent sorting of fossiles that happened in this place.
If you can't, then your theory is false.

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: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: City University, London
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 12:33:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.132130.19649@athena.mit.edu> lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:
>In article <19920924.131829.48@almaden.ibm.com>, mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM
>(Ken Mann) writes:
>
>|> Lawrence C. Foard writes:
>|> >And why can't an animal evolve into another? Evolution is >>observed<<
>|> >all the time.
>|> 
>|> I frequently see this statement in this newsgroup.
>|> Please list >>observations<< of animals evolving into other animals.
>|> Who has observed this happening?  And what did they observe?
>
>
> ... and while they're at that, could you please show me
>some examples of divine creation ... show me God creating
>things; don't just tell me that she or he did ... I want
>to see the act AND the actor ... I want to observe it
>happening!

You just need to be at the right place at the right time. There
are numerous examples of withered arms and legs being grown back
or re-created by God. Check out one of these maybe.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: a farewell to Antti
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behaivor, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:31:54 GMT

In article <97739@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>No, that about wraps it up. If any of my freshmen biology students
>gave such poor answers on a quiz, I would not give them any
>points on that question. You didn't even take the minimal
>amount of time to crack open a bio book (or read my FAQ) and
>get a suitable definition. If you were in my class here at BU,
>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.

I'd just like to add, in case Antti hasn't noticed, that I'd
decided to follow this path myself a while ago, for these
exact reasons.

Trying to discuss things with Antti is like examining Ross Perot's
political career.  Every time he runs into difficulty he changes
the subject, throws a tantrum blaming the other guy, or occasionally 
drops out for a little while.  Then, when he comes back, he says the 
same old things, assuming people have forgotten how idiotic they 
were the first time. His claims about his background are suspect 
at best ("I'm a biologist!" vs. "I'm not a Washington insider!").  
He claims to be better than the status quo, but he refuses to 
say specifically what's wrong with the status quo, as well 
as refusing to offer any sort of concrete alternative; hell,
from all evidence, he doesn't even understand the status quo!.  And, he's 
lost any value he might have had as comic relief or as a source of new 
ideas.

Here endeth my political/scientific commentary for the day.

>Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: evolution and natural selection
Date: 5 Oct 92 08:01:54 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <73018@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
|Point of curiosity: do the definitions below assume (as they
|seem to) some constant environment in which fitness is
|defined? It seems to me that evolution might alter the
|environment (in the smaller sense of changing the populations
|of organisms sharing it, or the larger sense of having effects
|on the climate or on chemical composition of the environment
|and so on), thus altering the fitness of the organisms in
|the environment.

In essence, *yes*!

This is a well known, well-established concept.

Special cases of it even have names - like "red queen's race", or
"predator-prey arms race", or "millieu effect" and so on.

All of the best books on evolution *clearly* state that fitness is a
*contingent* factor, not a fixed one.  Thus it is often stated that
no allele (genetic variant) is intrinsically advantageous or deletrious,
but only so in a given set of circumstances.  The circumstances that
effect the fitness of a given gene can include other genes in the same
individual as well as extrinsic environmental factors.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: shouse@oscar.UUCP (claude shouse)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:07:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.121140.24899@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> 
> All it shows is that different forms of life appear in the
> fossil record at different _layers_!
> 
> As to the interpretation of that, evo's say its because of
> evo, but an equally if not more valid interpretation is that
> of hydrological sorting in the flood.
> 
> --
> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

Hydrological sorting.  OK Lionel, I'll buy that if you can tell me
two things:  1.  Where did all the water come from.  and  2.  Where
did it go.  Remember, no miracles.  This is science not belief.

Claude Shouse

.





.
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Holden omissions
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 06:04:04 GMT

In article <41@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <717658769@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>[much blather omitted]
>> With that, here's what Ted always neglects to tell you:
>[remaining blather omitted]
>
>Here's what Wayne is neglecting to tell you:  that all of his calculations
>and sophistic reasoning are basically an attempt to convince you of something
>which common sense and everything you've ever actually observed regarding
>large and small creatures tells you is entirely wrong.  He's trying to 
>demonstrate that for truly large animals such as sauropod dinosaurs,
>effeciencies and things such as power to weight ratios GO UP.
>
>We all know that in going from mice to men, or from ants to mice, these
>ratios go down.  We know that 200 lb athletes cannot do iron crosses on
>the rings, that their power/weight ratios won't support it no matter how
>strong they might be...  we know that ratios go down in going from 200 lb
>weight-lifters to your super heavyweights such as Kaz, even in cases in
>which the super heavyweight is carrying no extra or appreciable fat.
>
>But Wayne says that if you get REALLY big, then the whole thing turns around.

Actually, from mice to men, and from ants to mice, power to weight ratios
do go up; in fact, they go up quite a bit.  Now, force-to-weight ratios
are another thing entirely and, for two creatures of identical composition,
construction, and proportion, differing solely in scale, the larger 
creature will have a lower force-to-weight ratio.  Fortunately, however,
for the dinosaurs, sauropods were not, in fact, proportionally enlarged
copies of Kazmaier.  (Indeed, a quick look at any good text on dinosaurs
that includes illustrations should be sufficient to prove this to anyone
other than Ted.)

Incidentally, Ted might well be surprised to know what some of the larger
weightlifters can do--I don't know if Kazmaier has been known to do iron
crosses (I doubt that he's ever trained to do so--it's a slightly different
move than the bench press, though it actually does use a lot of the same
muscles), but others (Larry Pacifico comes to mind, though he's not quite
as large as Kazmaier) probably could do them with little difficulty.
(Judging by some of the shoulder exercises Pacifico is in the habit of
doing, I suspect he could manage an inverted iron cross without too 
much difficulty).

Trygve
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:04:30 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <BvMHJE.n0w@world.std.com>, twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:

> Ok then, according to the theory of a reduced felt effect of gravity
> that you seem to believe in, would it be possible to say which areas
> of the earth had reduced gravity and which did not?

In the age when the really big sauropods lived, all the land had reduced
perceived gravity (since it was all pulled up into one place, i.e. under
the small electromag star we then orbitted, and the majority of the water
did not.  The southern hemisphere was pretty wet.

Lynn Rose indicates that there likely was an age prior to the classical
golden, or antediluvian age, when the earth was VERY egg-shaped, and then
the classical age of Cronos, or golden age, during which time the earth was
still egg-shaped, the felt effect of gravity still attenuated, but not
so greatly...  i.e. he figures the original conformation of the earth
collapsed in at least two discernable stages.  A big part of the problem is
that human memory in any form whatsoever goes no further back than a 
thousand years or so prior to the flood.  Given catastrophist hypotheses,
you assume that it gets harder to know much about earth history beyond
each catastrophe.  Rose's general hypothesis makes sense to me logically,
but I would have little easier a time buying off on any DETAILED description
of the world during Pangaea even from catastrophists than I would buying
Hyde's version, i.e. the bogus notion that anything can be known about
a Pangaea before Pangaea.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins