HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Book: The Creationists
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:00:05 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <1993Jan8.010703.224@indyvax.iupui.edu>, harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu writes...

>In article <1ii7c8INNknc@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:
>>       A new book, The Creationists, by Ronald Numbers, gives the history of
>> "Creation Science".  I haven't yet seen the book, but there is a rave review
>> in Nature, Dec. 17, 1992, page 637.
> 
>I.U. already has two copies on order, and one's for our campus!  Catalog info:

I have a copy, it was written by a professor from my campus, the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.  I've only had a chance to read about 40 pages but have
already found it quite informative as to the origins of the Scientific
Creationists movement.  For example the author points out that the early
"defenders" of the Biblical creation were far less conservative than
the current adherents.  So much so that they would have surely been 
rejected by the current group as heretical.  

All in all it appears to be a very good summary of the history of 
creationalism. I picked up a copy when the university bookstore had about 
100 copies for sale at 20% off.  Unfortunately it is not printed on acid-
free paper ... something I come to expect in a $25+ reference book.

Dana Bunner
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Mark's Laws of Biology
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:46:48 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

I propose these very general laws on a linkage between procreation, aging and
complexity:

(1) In all species, over the long term, the average birth rate is equal to the
    average death rate.

(2) Species will age if and only if their average rate of attrition is greater
    than the reciprocal of its average birth rate.

(3) A species average birthrate decreases with increasing complexity of the
    species.

Consequences of these laws would follow:
(1)a Life expectancy decreases in inverse proportion with increasing birth rate
     as compared between species.

Are laws (2), and (3) consistent with actual biological data? ((1) is
obnviously valid).
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Book: The Creationists
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:29:44 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

      A new book, The Creationists, by Ronald Numbers, gives the history of 
"Creation Science".  I haven't yet seen the book, but there is a rave review 
in Nature, Dec. 17, 1992, page 637.
From: fargher@unixg.ubc.ca (Robert Fargher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:19:28 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In <1993Jan7.053238.14970@smds.com> rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:


>No that wasn't me.  I did the time traveling angels, the creationist FAQ,
>the Holden Scatology index, tomorrowism, atheistic creationism, and
>sundry other japes, but not the human body temperature "proof".

  I'm a newcomer to talk.origins and I really hope you saved the above
mentioned essays.  If so, would you mind re-posting them?  
                                     Thanks,
                                     Rob
-- 
Robert Fargher  fargher@unixg.ubc.ca |  The number of things that I know
Dept. of Physiology, UBC             |  absolutely nothing about is increasing
Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z3       |  at an alarming rate!
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Biology majors pleez!
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:44:39 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

I'm not a biologist, but ...

In article <1993Jan11.100725.10864@panix.com> arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
}
}Hi!  Are there biologists who believe in Creationism?

Probably.

}                                                      Is evolution a necessary
}part of Biology?

Charles Darwin was to biology as Isaac Newton was to physics and Antoine
Lavoisier to chemistry.  Each of them took a hodge-podge of data and hypo-
theses and whipped them into an elegant theory that explained lots of stuff
and made many useful predictions.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
From: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Keywords: future
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:45:00 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation  Sunnyvale California


  arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
> I can't help but blame the scientific community for not popularizing science 
> enough.  There seem to be very few scientists who get up and try to make
> current science understood by 'normal human beings.'  As a result, science
> becomes this mystical, impossible-to-understand-by-normal-people thing.
> I think this is where people gain a certain mistrust of science's findings
> or anything scientific.

Bah. 

 _Scientific_American_ is an ongoing popularization.
_Discover_ likewise.  The current issue of _National_Geographic_
centers on dinosaurs.  _Natural_History_ has an S.J. Gould
essay every month, and often has paleontology articles.

Einstein wrote outstanding popularizations of relativity.
Feynman's QED is a wonderful attempt to explain quantum
electro-dynamics to a lay audience, and his _The_Character_
Of_Natural_Law_ would be required reading for graduation
from high school, if I had my way.  Likewise, Aldo Leopold,
one of the founders of ecology and what is now called
"Conservation Biology", wrote brilliant popularizations of
his work in _A_Sand_County_Almanac_ and _Round_River_.


In the area of origins, we currently have Ernst Mayr's
_One_Long_Argument_ (historical discussion of the
testing and analysis of Darwin's theories of evolution),
Richard Leakey's _Origins_Reconsidered_ (his revisionist
retrospective of the known hominid remains, including a
long account of his discovery of the first essentially-
complete skeleton of Homo erectus), David Raup's pithy
_Extinction:_Bad_Luck_Or_Bad_Genes?_, and finally,
Edward O. Wilson's *excellent* _The_Diversity_Of_Life_
(personally rated at six stars out of a possible five).
All available in bookstores, today.

Of course, Gould, Jared Diamond, Richard Dawkins,
John McPhee........  what are these guys, chopped liver?

Let's not forget the natural science programming on TV:
The Discovery Channel, PBS, etc between them offer an
unending stream of nature shows.

If people don't know much about science, it's because they
don't much want to know about science.  Science requires
a certain amount of thinking ... and most people these
days seem to avoid anything that requires more thought
than "I Love Lucy" reruns.

---
Joel Hanes
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Summary: no need for smileys
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:14:07 GMT
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC

In article <watson.726339134@space.sce.carleton.ca> watson@sce.carleton.ca
(Stephen Watson) writes:

>Sorry, Richard, but you need to start using smilies.  Creationists
>descend so often into self-parody that it gets difficult to tell the
>spoofs from the genuine item.

Competence of expression and rigor of thought are sufficient to
distinguish Richard's essays from "the genuine item."
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Dinosaur footprints in a vertical cliff face
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:47:31 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

Young earth creationists who believe that "Flood Geology" accounts
for most of the earth's sedimentary rock, and that Noah's Flood
killed off the dinosaurs, should take a look at the January, 1993
_National Geographic_.

Pages 16-17 show a photo of an almost vertical rock face, in which
is embedded layer upon layer of wave-rippled sediments -- the shore
of an ancient sea.  The layers are flaking off the cliff.

Most striking are the several sets of dinosaur footprints in one
of the layers.

Flood geologists claim that this kind of formation was laid down
in a few weeks, but this particular formation shows that the theory
is completely out to lunch.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Volunteer Wanted
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:15:57 GMT

In two months, I'm moving to a new location and I may not have net
access.  I'm looking for a volunteer to take over responsibility
for the few talk.origins FAQs which I now maintain, and to distribute
Dalrymple's "radiometric dating" paper.

Please contact me via Email if you are interested.
--
Chris Stassen			408-943-0630			stassen@alc.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: RE: Biology majors pleez!
From: C741SCB <C741SCB@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU>
Date: 11 JAN 93 14:47:48 CST
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City
NNTP-Posting-Host: semovm.semo.edu

In article <1993Jan11.100725.10864@panix.com> arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
>
>Hi!  Are there biologists who believe in Creationism?  Is evolution a necessary
>part of Biology?
>
>Mr. Curious
>.
>.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
-- Theodozius Dobzhansky

Not that there aren't a few exceptions.  But the real question is,
does anyone seriously doubt that evolution has occurred on the basis
of the evidence alone, as opposed to a preexisting fundamentalist
religious conviction?

************************************************************************
|    Allen Gathman                |  Bitnet: C741SCB@SEMOVM            |
|    Biology Department           |  Internet: C741SCB@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU |
|    Southeast Missouri St. U.    |  Phone: (314) 651-2361             |
|    Cape Girardeau, MO 63701     |  Fax: (314) 651-2223               |
************************************************************************
|    "I would lay down my life for two brothers or four cousins."      |
|    - J.B.S. Haldane                                                  |
************************************************************************
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Gould versus Dawkins
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:19:47 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Marvin Minsky (who, incidentally, is somewhat of a God in the field of
visual information processing) recently stated an opinion on the word
"emergence" over in sci.bio.  Since the topic came up here a couple of
times wa-ay back in 1992, I thought I'd reproduce Marvin's statement
here for those interested in the subject.

In article <1993Jan2.065434.23370@news.media.mit.edu>
     minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

>   (Aside: when I hear the term 'emergent' I reach for my revolver.
>Because emergence is not an actual phenomenon in the system being
>studied.  On the contrary, emergents are artifacts that 'emerge' when
>an observer does not understand how the system works. That is, an
>emergent is something that a certain observer did not expect, because
>of ignorance or inability to predict that outcome.)

The topic that brought this up was:

>>Stephen Jay Gould's very negative review of Helena Cronin's book
>>"The Ant and the Peacock" [which] appeared in the New York Review of
>>Books for Nov. 19, 1992.  Cronin is a follower of the "gene
>>selection" theory of Richard Dawkins, and so Dawkins is the real
>>target of Gould's ire.

so you might want to check out the whole thread...

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: davisson@milton.u.washington.edu (Gordon Davisson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 10 Jan 1993 08:39:47 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: milton.u.washington.edu


In article <1imefcINN5om@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au
(Mike Hartley) writes:
>It is very important to note that _almost_all_ variations we see between
>sub-species are NOT due to mutations, but rather to the `concentration'
>of different genetic information in the different populations, ALL
>of which information was available in the original stock.
>[...]
>_no_ random mutation has _ever_ been observed to be beneficial.

The biologists and/or FAQholders here will no doubt provide lots of
clear-cut and well-documented counterexamples that occurred under
controlled conditions.  I'll give you a counterexample that isn't so
neat, but parallels an example you gave so well I can't resist...

In article <1imcqnINN4va@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> you wrote:
>Say we want to produce a poodle. [...] Suddenly, a dog is born with
>curly hair. "Wow!" you exclaim.  I'll keep that one! Fairly soon,
>all of your dogs have curly hair, and so you continue.
>
>Where did the curly hair come from? The study of genetics tells us that
>it was there all the time in the `mongrelised' individuals, but being
>a recessive gene, only became manifest under certain (rare) conditions.

Here's an excerpt from _The Seattle Times/Seattle Post-Intelligencer_,
February 2 1992, page F1, in an article about an upcoming cat show:

	   The featured feline will be a Selkirk Rex, one of
	approximately 90 worldwide.  Called "the cat in sheep's
	clothing," this distinctive creature is a result of a
	mutation that occurred in a litter of house cats born
	in Wyoming in 1987.  The original, a blue-and-white
	longhair, was given to Persian breeder Jeri Newman of
	Livingston, Mont., the matriarch of the Selkirk Rex.
	   In 1988, Newman bred the curly-coated aberration to a
	black Persian, producing six offspring, three of which
	were curly coated, the trademark of the new breed.
	This indicated that the coat was caused by a dominant
	mutation, says Newman.

I'm not sure how you define "beneficial", but it seems clear that the
trait is being strongly selected for (going from 1 individual to ~90 in
a few generations does not happen due to genetic drift), which means
it increases reproductive fitness (in, admittedly, an extremely
artificial environment -- a society of cat fanciers).

--
Human:    Gordon Davisson
HASA:     Member, S division.
Internet: davisson@milton.u.washington.edu
ATT:      (206) 527-0832
USnail:   5502 15th NE, Apt. #3, Seattle, WA, 98105

	"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as
	 much as you please."		-- Mark Twain
From: waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Future evolution of Creationism
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:46:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Assuming the point of view that the standard Creationist position is
bunk, what do you think is the destiny of the Creationist movement in
both the near and distant future?  Taking the long historical view, one
hopes our current era represents only a brief reaction against evolution
science similar to initial reactions against Copernican theory.  

As I understand it, belief in Creationism is currently strong in the 
U.S.A., Canada, and Australia, but much less so in Europe.  What about
the rest of the world?  Is it on the rise anywhere?  I guess I had better
clarify: by "Creationism" here I do not mean the attempts to justify it
scientifically (a la the ICR) or the political movement to inject it
into the high-school science curriculum.  I mean a religiously-motivated
denial of evolutionary theory and belief in supernatural creation, often
associated with a mistrust of science.  This would include both Bible-
based and Veda-based creationism.

This post was largely motivated by the recent discussion on Hugh Ross'
book "The Fingerprint of God".  His position seems to be that the 
scientific evidence for an old universe and the Big Bang is irrefutable,
that this virtually proves the existence of God, that biological 
evolution could not have occurred (at least not naturally), and that
his interpretation of events fits not only the scientific evidence but
also the Bible a lot better than the usual ICR line.  I suspect that
this doctrine could become more prevalent and eventually displace the
"Young Earth" model, as people start to face up to the geological and
astronomical evidence.  Even the ICR seem to hedge their bets more than
usual on the issue of the age of the Earth/universe, pointing out that
their "model" does not *require* a young world necessarily.

If so, this could represent an important step in the eventual general 
acceptance of evolutionary theory and the reduction of Creationism to
the status of today's Flat Earth Society.  I would be willing to guess
that this state of affairs might be reached in the next 30-80 years.
Any detractors?

In the end, all this heated debate will just seem like so much hot
air in an amusing footnote anecdote in the history of science (if 
the previous history of science is anything to go by).

Sincerely,
Wayne.

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

Wayne J. Broughton                 Take the road less travelled by.  
waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu    

Caltech has no idea what my opinions are;  
they think I'm working right now...
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sjchmura@kimbark.uchicago.edu (steven joseph chmura)
Subject: Re: Biology majors pleez!
Reply-To: sjchmura@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:00:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.100725.10864@panix.com> arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
>
>Hi!  Are there biologists who believe in Creationism?  Is evolution a necessary
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No.  All life evolves.  This is a paradigm of the field.  Anything else
and you are not a biologist.


-- 
________________________________________________________________________________Steven Chmura				University of Chicago Medical School(M1)
  "Given enough time, the impossible becomes probable, and the probable
	inevitable.."  -George Wald, "On the Origins of Life"
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: A funny from the U.K.
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 09 Jan 93  04:42:00

 > From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
 > Message-ID: <1993Jan5.072311.3062@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

 > Tunnelling of Macroparticles," my abilities in this regard pale
 > beside
 > those of the masters of the field--the always delightfully funny
 > Robert
 > McElwaine and, of course, the incredible master of the art who
 > gave us
 > the following post I saved from sci.physics.fusion nearly two
 > years ago:


 > From: pahsnsr@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle)

(stuff deleted)

ROFLASC!!!

Ted Holden: Bow down before your master!


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Real americans don't     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| pledge allegiance, they  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| make the government earn | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| it.                      | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Variable speed of light
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:07:12 GMT

    From time to time, we hear about the creationist argument
which says that the speed of light as measured over a number of 
centuries, fits a curve which extrapolates back to an infinite 
speed of light at the Creation, in the 41st century BCE.  I have
looked at the data, and how good the extrapolation is.

    Setterfield supposedly gave the following equation for the
speed of light:

     c = 299792 cosec^2 (0.015 t)

    where t is the time in years since Creation, dated at 4082 BCE.
I have been checking out variations on the cosecant-squared formula:

     c = a cosec^2 (b (T-c))

and I have come up with a few puzzlers.  First of all, the best fit 
for the year of Creation in the neighborhood of 4082 BCE turns out
to be 4083 BCE, as if Setterfield had forgotten that there was no
year 0 (that is, identified the year -4083 with 4083 BCE), and this 
fit has different constants than 299792 and .015.  Secondly, there 
is a better fit for the years 4039 and 4061.  This is, for me at 
least, a difficult kind of equation to fit to the data, with small 
variations making a big difference, and it would take more work than
I have interest in doing to find all of the better fits than
Setterfield's.

    I then tried fitting a quadratic equation to the data, and found
out to my surprise that the following fits better than any of the
cosecant-squared formulas:

     c = .015690 T^2 - 62.638256 T + 362281

    (For those interested in numerology, the minimum of this
function occurs in 1996, which happens to be the 6000th anniversary
of the year 4004 BCE.)

    My understanding is that the claim is that the cosecant-squared
equation is the best mathematical fit, and it appears that that claim 
is a falsified one.  (Does this make creationism a falsifiable theory?)
Of course, I could have made any number of mistakes in interpretation 
or calculation.


-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@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