HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:45:24 GMT

In article <2868@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <Bt8816.HLs@world.std.com>, twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:
>> Ted, let's imagine that another of your bursts of radiation bathes the
>> Earth and a bunch of new mutants are created.
> 
>> Is it possible that one of these mutants could get more weight off the
>> ground than Kaz?
>
>In my opinion, no.  By all published accounts, muscle tissue is nearly 
>identical from any vertibrate to any other, so that mouse, human, and
>elephant muscle tissue is hard to tell apart under the microscope.  I
>don't easily see what any further mutation could add to that picture.

Well, I wasn't thinking about muscle tissue, but that's a very
interesting idea. Unless you've looked at sauropod muscle tissue under
the microscope, how can you say that it wasn't different and stronger?

But I was thinking of simpler changes. Some kind of Incredible Hulk
with really gigantic legs, twice as big as Kaz. With completely
different knee joints with better leverage. A real mutant. Why
couldn't he break Kaz's record?
-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:01:45 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug17.162241.26511@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <zs9msg+.alc@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:

>>[..about dating trees by tree rings...]

>Suppose you had a garden. One day you look out of the window and see
>a tree in the middle of if where previously there had been none. Now
>a friend comes to visit you for the first time and looks at the tree.
>He counts the rings and says its been there for 100 years. You say 
>its been there for 1 day. Which of you is correct?

	Why is that supposed to be a relevant analogy?

	The tree could have gotten there on the trailer of a truck,
for example.

	I propose another analogy:

	Let's say that you want to check out some claims that there
are new celestial bodies to be seen with a telescope, especially
celestial bodies that move against the background of stars. Do you:

	Try to build one yourself and try to see if you can see the
same things?

	Decide that they can't exist and decide not to look through
the telescope? And give the reason that the human head has seven
openings and that's why there can't exist more than seven moving
celestial bodies? [Seriously!]

>Hint: It depends on your assumptions.
>Advice: Don't make too many assumptions about the origin of the
>        universe and of species.

	Same to you :-)

	I guess you should start avoiding the assumption that the
Bible is never to be questioned.
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:54:14 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Felt effects of gravity


Question: what effect would the hypothetical lesser felt effect
of gravity have on the flying creatures ?

While the birds would have less weight, what would be the state of
the atmosphere ? Would it be easier or more difficult for a bird of
a given mass to fly ?

-akg
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject:  absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:01:31 GMT

In article <8ck103Dl606a00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
}Marvin Lubenow of the ICR is putting the finishing touches on a
}book regarding human evolution and the fossil (or lack of) evidence
}for such. This should be an interesting book.

It would be nice to see something based upon existing evidence.  Or perhaps
you will advocate the conclusion that there is no god based upon the lack
of evidence?


Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:54:33 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at an early ...


Jericho was found, yes, but my understanding was that there was
no evidence for any of the purported Biblical events.  The myth
lies not in the existence of place names but in the events, I
would think, and the myth has not been borne out by the evidence.

-arun gupta
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:26:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.165509.1@si194b.llnl.gov>, brinkman@si194b.llnl.gov
writes:
> African system of apartheid.   Sorry to tell you Herr Tun, but the state
> religion of South Africa was and remains a major (if not THE major) supporter
> of the systematized racial inequality found in that country.

  Now hold on for a second.  What religion are we talking about?  What about
Bishop Tutu?  Is he supporting the racial inequality?  My apologies if You meant
to say that "idiots within the religious body".

> will for science.  In addition to the example of South Africa above, you
might
> also want to look into such topics as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the
> Lutheran/Catholic wars in Germany during the Reformation, and the continuing
> intersectarian violence such as is found in Northern Ireland today.

  Despite popular belief from outside, when my father visited Ireland none of
the people he talked to actually believed this bit of propaganda.  At least all
the people he talked to knew it was really a fight over money, not religion. 
You can drive down a street and 9 times out of 10 pick out the terrorists by the
cars they drive (hint: they ain't Yugos)

  Likewise, wlthough it was the Church running the inquisition, any serious
inquiry will show it wasn't for religious reasons.  If anyone confessed to
heresy the church could confiscate all their posessions.  Again, it was all for
money.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: Facts is Phacts,Metaphor is Metaphor,and Luke 14:26 is Luke 14:26
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:34:11 GMT

In article <6654@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> 
alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
<I think there are only two logically consistent positions on whether the
<original writings were inspired or not:  the fundamentalist position that
<*all* scripture is inspired, which the Bible itself claims (2 Timothy 3:16),
<or the opposite, that it is merely the writings of men.
<Any position in between runs into the problem of judging what is inspired
<and what is not.  By what standard do you pick and choose what part you
<will believe?  If you pick and choose, what then becomes the basis of
<your faith?  Your own ideas?
<Fundamentalists argue correctly that Jesus Christ himself believed in a
<global Flood.  They say he compared it to the coming end of the world.
<Do you disagree?  If so, on what basis?

Ah, do you have proof that Jesus believed in a global Flood as fact? Now don't
start quoting King James. After all that is an English translation of Greek
scripture written by people who claimed to have heard Jesus speak in Aramaic
almost 2 thousand years ago. And if you claim that all scripture is inspired, 
what is the inspiration for Luke 14:26? And now that you've read Luke 14:26, 
what do YOU say about Pick and Choose? What standards do you use? What is the 
basis of your faith? Do you believe in Luke 14:26?
From: root@lyra.scg.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Vestigial organs
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:14:53 GMT
Reply-To: root@lyra.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Aug20.123950.3651@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
]In article <22957@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, root@lyra.scg.hac.com (Dave Fisher) writes:
]> I'm looking for a source of detailed information about "jury-rigged"
]> adaptations, vestigial organs, and the like.  I was considering reading
]> Darwin's book on Orchids... anyone have a better suggestion?
]> 
]> Dave Fisher
]
]Certainly *don't* miss _The Panda's Thumb_.
]
]Sue

Thanks for the reply.  I should've said I've already read all of Gould's 
essay collections, though.  I'm kind of looking for something big and
descriptive, with lots of pictures and details...  any other ideas?

Dave

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:19:50 GMT

skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:

>>>|In article <salem.712392603@pangea.Stanford.EDU> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
>>>|
>>
>>>Unfortunately, there are no such aboslutes to be found, so they have to
>>>clutch madly at thier imagined absolutes.
>>>-- 
>>Hmmm, I am not sure what "no such" means but it is not obvious to me
>>that there can be no absolutes in our unverse. Pi is a transcendental
>>number seems a pretty absolute statement: or is it false for some
>>other (arbitrarily different) life form somewhere.

>Ahh, but do we know it exactly?

We don't need to know it exactly we can prove it is transcendental, at 
a simpler level we can prvoe sqrt(2) is irrational and I do not think
any intelligent being with a knowledge of arithmetic will disagree. So
these mathematical assertions are "absolutes" ie observer-independent.

>>Within general relativity the interval between two events is an "absolute"
>>quantity that is agreed upon by all observers. So here a scientific theory
>>postulates the existence of an absolute.

>Relativity states that the interval between two events is
>NOT absolute.  It states that unless two observers are in the same frame of
>reference, they will NEVER AGREE on exactly when two events happen.

I should have been more clear. The interval is not the time between teh
two events but the quantity defined by the metric. In Euclidean 4-space
this is:

 ds**2 = dt**2 - dx**2 - dy**2 - dz**2

in cartesian coordinates. In GR in the empty space around a massive
gravitating body this changes to:

 ds**2 = -dr**2/g - r**2dtheta**2 + g**2*dt**2

where g = 1-(2*m/r) and m is the mass of the body. This is in polar 
coordinates and states that the interval between events at 
(t,r,theta) and (t+dt,r+dr,theta+dtheta) is ds. This quantity is
an absolute in the sense that all observers in the universe (whether
at rest, at constant velocity or accelerating) will measure it to be
the same. Of course, they will disagree on their own values of
t and r but ds is absolute.
So physics certainly does postulate absolutes that can be agreed   
upon by all observers.
julian
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Jim sez: who ya gonna trust, me or your senses?
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:33:53 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <67XJ035262c600@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>In article <39EA03P761SV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
>>Loucks) writes:
>>                                [deletions]
>>>Maybe we shouldn't be messin' around where we're messin' around. I 
>>>believe the Bible to be a revelation of God, not just "religion." 
>>>The Bible states that God will frustrate the intelligence of the
>>>intelligent, and just maybe this origins debate is one of the 
>>>frustrations. I think we can all admit that man can be extremely
>>>proud, and wouldn't intellectual pride be an extremely easy trap
>>>to fall into? Maybe God never intended for us to try to figure out
>>>how old the earth is, or how he created life. But man with all his 
>>>pride must know, and for this pride, God frustrates those minds. 
>
>>   Jim, I will refrain from swearing and profanity BUT do you realize what you
>>just said?  You just said that any attempt to use reason to deduce things about
>>the world is an act of hubris and that we should just all accept the Bible
>>instead.  From this I deduce that you think God gave us brains IN ORDER TO AID
>>THE DEVIL IN DAMNING OURSELVES?!?
>
>Dan, there is pride, and then there is pride. Since this is a rather 
>difficult subject to effectively communicate in this forum, it is
>best we drop it here and now. 

Maybe it's difficult, maybe not. However, you haven't even tried.

>But I will repeat the following:
>
>   I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but ...
>   I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
>

Then why don't you explain what you meant? Specifically, in this case,
how else can what you said be understood?


>Once again you have misunderstood me and I'm beginning to think it's
>intentional as has been suggested by some. If you desire to take up
>this conversation in email then great. Otherwise, I won't be responding
>to further posts on this subject, so please don't take it personally
>when I ignore future postings on this subject.

I myself would refuse email, but Dan, hey, if you find out what Jim
really meant then, assuming you get Jim's permission of course, I'd be
interested in hearing it.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Gish v. Ross on Focus on the Family
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:03:18 GMT

hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50) writes:
>I intend to write a letter to Jim Dobson thanking him for publishing the
>fact that there are legitimate disagreements over issues like evolution
>and the age of the universe among Bible believing Christians.

While Hugh Ross may question the young age of the earth quoted by
some creationists, he doesn't question their "scholarship" in
the area of evolution.  He uses the same flawed thermodynamic,
missing gap arguments that Gish and Morris use.  I'd say that
fundamentalists are a pretty monolithic block of anti-
evolutionists, and Dobson is certainly among them.

But you are right; it is nice to hear that their disagreements are
getting air time.  I wonder when Gish will start accusing Ross
of being an agent of the devil. :-)

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:45:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.121440.24522@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> According to evolutionist thinking, whites and blacks can be
> considered two separate species.

  What?  You wan't to explain why some of my friends couldn't possibly exist?
(Need I repeat the definition of species)

> So the situation in apartheid
> countries has an evolutionary basis.

  No, the "situation in apartheid countries" has a pigheaded idiot basis.  If
any of those people thought ratiopnally for a second they would dump said
system.  You are completely reversing the situation: racism is created by those
who avoid logical thought, not those who use it.

> How are whites and blacks
> considered different species? Well evolutionists like to show
> speciation has and is occuring. A popular method is to say that
> two sets of organisms that are identical but differ in mating
> habits or preferences `cannot' interbreed and are therefore
> two distinct species.

  Gee, maybe that explains why the girl at work turned me down, NOT!  Even if it
was for the reasons you give you still have to explain why she dated my boss. 
Or was still willing to pinch my butt when she walked by.

> This can be extended to human society if
> social factors cause different races to prefer not to interbreed.

  Any social factors of this sort are based on ignorance, not science.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: JW discourage education (was Re: dawkins/_the selfish gene_)
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:37:39 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug18.163840@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.195929.4206@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
>amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>> Just a quick question (I'm bored): How long have these characters
>> been around?
>
>  The JWs were founded by Charles Taze Russell in 1876 when he was elected
>"pastor" of a small Bible group in Pittsburgh.
>
>  The name was appropriated in 1931.
>
>>  They are the "millions now living never will die",
>> right?
>
>  Yep.  They have made numerous predictions for the end of the world, the first
>set for 1914.  After the incident in the 70s they have hedged their bets a bit. 
>I think they predict a "better than 50% chance" of the world ending within the
>next ten years.


This is only partly true.  Apparently the leaders so believe, but don't want
it to get out and there possibly be a repeat of the 1975 fiasco.

In the January 1, 1989 _Watchtower_ magazine, p. 12, they published a
statement that the end of their "missionary activity" would

"be completed in our 20th century".

When they published the yearly bound volume, somebody must
have said OOPS, and this was amended to:

"be completed in our day".

Alan Feuerbacher
Tektronix, Inc.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9472 sci.skeptic:14280
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:40:55 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Aug11.192309.24760@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.035024.5531@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>|> Now that the Shroud has been shown to be 14th Cen., it now becomes a
>|> remarkable 14th centuary image instead of a remarkable 33 AD image.
>|>
>|> Are there any reasonable theories as to how the 14th C artist pulled
>|> off the image reversal???
>
>A reasonable possibility is that it was done through a variant of the
>then-common method of rubbing:  slather a perfectly ordinary 14th
>century demi-round carving of JC with perfectly ordinary 14th century
>tempura paint, wrap shroud around it, press and rub gently and then
>allow to dry.
>
>You get a negative of a 3-D image.  And the image even has all the
>features of Christ's body that would be expected in the 1350's!
>
>Simple, but very effective.
>

Hmmmmmmmmmm, don't buy it. The image would look stretched if that was the case.
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is creationism?
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:35:42 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame


     Of course, first of all I have to comment in amazement at Jim Lippard's
scholarship in this area.  Words do fail me ... how do you manage to keep
up on all this stuff?  
     
     Now, my little posting was made up by me fairly quickly.  It has a 
bunch of flaws that I recognize.   It may not represent the position of any
creationist.  Yet, for all of those flaws:
     It is, to the best of my knowledge, the most comprehensive statement
of creationism.
     I have not heard from any creationist who objects to any point of it.

     So, why is it so difficult for any creationist, or any group of creationists,
to come up with a statement of position sort of like what I did for them?

     What would creationists have to say were I to suggest that this, with all
of its flaws, were to be a proposed FAQ definition of creationism?  Don't
worry, I'm not going to pull a Henley on you.
-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:28:05 GMT

>In article <1992Aug21.121440.24522@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>> According to evolutionist thinking, whites and blacks can be
>> considered two separate species.
>>
>> So the situation in apartheid countries has an evolutionary basis.
>>
>> How are whites and blacks considered different species?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Actually I think the main three racial groupings (black, white,
>> yellow) are descended from Noah's three sons.


It has been pointed out to me by in e-mail that Lionel's position re.
apartheid being an evolution-based doctrine is on even shakier ground
than I realised (correspondent quoted with permission):

# BTW, if Loony Tunes buys into the biblical legend that all three races
# are descended from Noah's sons then he may also believe that the black
# race (supposedly descendants of Ham) are cursed by God, long held as a
# justification for racism, slavery, and apartheid by many racists for
# centuries. 
# 
# After all if he's going to claim that evolutionary thought leads to
# racism, then it's only fair that we point out that the acceptance of
# this legend has long been used to justify racism.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: JW discourage education (was Re: dawkins/_the selfish gene_)
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:03:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <omv7ocs@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>My degree is also in mathematics.  I found Sutter's posturing
>to be utterly laughable.  Does he expect to awe his readers with
>his stunning education?  That might work in his JW congregation,
>where most people aren't likely to have math degrees, and would
>be easily cowed.  It probably won't work here, where his audience
>is likely to be expert.

If I'm not mistaken, the Jehovah's Witnesses discourage their
members from attending college for some sort of religious reason
(interpretation of some Bible verse, It think).





-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA