HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:42:28 GMT

In article <173@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}In article <justinf-121264011153@macintosh25.cco.caltech.edu>, justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:
}^In article <170@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote:
}^> In brief, the doctrine of uniformity is forcing natural scientists into
}^> a tighter and tighter intellectual corner.  Amongst other problems, they are
}^> continually forced to ascribe giant effects to piss-ant causes.
}
}^> For instance, the assumption that the 900 F surface temperature on Venus
}^> is caused by the tiny to non-existant modicum of solar energy which reaches
}^> the surface as uv and then, supposedly, cannot escape as ir, despite there
}^> being no lid on Venus' atmosphere at any level.
}
}^Ted, do you have a real grasp of ANY area of science? The greenhouse effect
}^on Venus comes about because of Venus's extremely dense CO2 atmosphere. The
}^solar radiation which reaches the surface (mostly short wave IR) 
}
}It is exceedingly doubtful at present that ANY solar radiation reaches the
}surface at all.  Probes indicated utter darkness going through the middle 
}cloud layer, and then light becoming more intense as the descent was made to
}the surface.  The light present at the surface is thus local, caused by
}some combination of chemical reactions and/or heat.  I've pointed this
}out before.  Soviet and American probes showed the same thing.

You have been corrected before.  Check the spectrum.

Could it be considered a lie if you stated something, and claimed it as truth, 
when evidence to the contrary has been presented to you for the same claim
earlier?


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Conceit of t.o regulars
Keywords: Introduction to Tedspeak
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:43:17 GMT

In article <175@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>Any non-standard view of anything presented on t.o. is immediatly pounced
>on by fifty odd people shrieking in unison, and essentially shouted down.

Ah, the Holden Methodology is becoming clear to me.  The problem
is merely one of semantics.  Using the Tedspeak Transform,
"reasoned argument", "supporting evidence", 
and "point-by-point refutation" are turned into 
"shrieking" and "shouting".  Similarly, 
"ahistoric drivel" and "repetitious errors" are magically
converted into "non-standard views".  Pretty clever.

>The second time the person involved attempts to present such views, he is,
>in the view of the t.o regular crew, simply lying;  he has been told better
>(by them), and hence ought to know better:

Let's try the Tedspeak Transform again...
"refusing to answer arguments", "refusing to correct errors",
and "lying" become "a second presentation of views".

Gosh, this is easy, and requires amazingly little thought.

(whiny story about a t.o regular correctly stating that
the felt-effect-of-gravity idea has been thoroughly
debunked in t.o, ending with an impolite, if understandable
and justified, curse against Ted:  deleted)

>People defending a viable science, which evolution does not qualify as at this
>point, do not normally behave like that.  They don't have to.

One more time ...
"people who lose patience and engage in 
ridicule and sarcasm after demolishing the
same old bilge" become "bad scientists".
Presumably, "people who cannot deal with the
galactic-sized holes in their theories and
instead indulge in ridicule of Carl Sagan"
become "good scientists".

-- 
| Eric |         --- Keep "Saturn" in "Saturnalia" ---

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:38:06 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Dec15.134757.3878@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> Hahahahaha! In that case you should look at the chapter entitled
> "List of scientific proofs for evolution" in the book "The Collapse
> of Evolution"

I guess some people enjoy lack of information. However, if you 
really want more evidence about evolution, get to the nearest
library, or maybe take a trip to Grand Canyon, or take the bike
to the nearest natural science museum.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Krishna Propaganda (Lies for Vishnu)
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 14 Dec 92  08:28:22

Who: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
ID: <728gVB1w165w@kalki33>
 
K> "To all the people who were too lazy or cheap to get hold
K> of the book Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, here's
K> some news: Dr. Richard Thompson will not give permission to
K> copy the chapter on information theory. If you want the book,
K> you'll have to buy it or borrow it."
 
Gee, why is no one here surprised? After all, the only way your
cult can sell the book is through covert subterfuge and preying
on the ignorance of the unsuspecting buyer.
 
Try giving copies out at churches, where it belongs.
 
K> Meanwhile, look for his new book Forbidden Archaeology,
K> coming soon.
 
Yeah, sure. More money for your cult.
 
K> Sincerely, Kalki Dasa
 
And THAT'S a crime.
 
                                                      ___
                                                     (o o)
       ---------------------------------------------w--U--w---
      |                                                       |
      |    Creationist's chant:   Is Not! Is Not! Ain't So!   |
      |                           Liar! Liar! Read the book!  |
      |                           Is Not! Is Not! Is Not,     |
      |                           Ain't So! Too Improbable!   |
      |                                                       |
      |   Satan's propagandaline, 666 south damnation alley,  |
      |               hell.university.underworld              |
       -------------------------------------------------------
 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
Organization: City University, London
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:47:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.130836@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  Like many libraries that use the LOC sorting method for books, the library
>here sometimes puts jounals onto the same shelves as books.  In order to keep
>the journals from getting damaged before they are bound, they are kept in small
>boxes that maintain a rigid space on the shelves.
>
>  As I was looking through the shelves yesterday I saw a box labeled "Creation
>Evidences".  Curious I pulled out the box to take a look at the journals.
>
>  I guess I shouldn't have been too suprised to find that it was empty.

Hahahahaha! In that case you should look at the chapter entitled
"List of scientific proofs for evolution" in the book "The Collapse
of Evolution"

--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: More from Ike Winograd
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:47:50 GMT


	Alan Feuerbacher posted a long and detailed description of
Milankovitch cycles which should be read by all concerned.  I just
wanted to mention that a recent "New Scientist" summarized the
Winograd results.  I ran into (almost literally) Ike at the AGU
meeting last week, and showed him the article, which he hadn't seen.
Interestingly enough, the article contends that another reading of the
data brings in a chaos theory interpretation, which is that more than
just Milankovitch forcing is involved in climatic shifts such as
major glaciations.

	Winograd began his questioning of Milankovitch forcing with a
CaCO3 core from Devil's Hole, Nevada.  Much of the news press has
overlooked the fact that he received independent support from cores
taken on the Bahama carbonate platform.  As others have mentioned,
Winograd is not taking on the entire framework of Milankovitch cycles,
which have been confirmed many times.  Rather, he is contending that
one glaciation is out of phase with the Milankovitch cycle.  The
chaos theory interpretation appears to cover this instance in a more
general way.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Compleat?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 23:01:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.082059.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>My apologies to Andy Peters.  I didn't find the word "compleat" in my
>dictionary, so I assumed that he'd misspelled it.  Here's a suggestion: post it
>to alt.humor or something like that.

Another suggestion:  get a real dictionary.  I've got around 150 dictionaries
handy over here and all of the ones I looked in had that spelling.  (As well
they should, since it's actually a fairly common spelling of the word, 
especially in book and article titles.)

Trygve   (At least you're easy to buy solstice presents for.)
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:59:59 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Dec17.132606.27386@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>I'm going to have a friend of mine who happens to be a priest
>>tell on you.
>
>Thats OK, I'm a priest as well.
>
>>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
>
>
>--
>  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
> / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
>/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
>\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/

Pray that God opens your eyes and your mind.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Speed of Light and Relativity
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:43:20 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Dec14.221251.7627@digi.lonestar.org> jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.090340.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>While I'm on the subject of physics, there was a thread on t.o. about
>>relativity.  Not all Creationists are against GR, at least I'm not.  In fact,
>>it makes some things easier to understand.  How could God have no beginning? 
>>Because before He created the universe there was no such thing as space-time. 
>>And therefore no such thing as time.  Beginning implies passage of time.  No
>>time, no beginning.
>
>This sounds like a variation on Hawking's proposal in "A Brief History of
>Time".  If there is a place where there is no space-time, then "before"
>breaks down.  How can there be a before without time?  
>
>>
>>And the equation for time dialation was incorrectly posted as
>>     t'=t/(v^2/c^2-1)^.5
>>This would imply that the speed of light is the minimum achievable velocity. 
>>The correct formulation is this,
>>     t'=t/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5
>>
>
>Okay, I blew it on the denominator quite a few posts ago.  Flames justified.
>
>-- 
>J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\  digi!jtisdel@uunet.uu.net
>DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
>1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\         jmtisdel@aol.com
>   "I want to lie ship-wrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice."

Another interesting question would be, how is it that we are able to
perceive the passage of time.  It seems that there must be a part of our
consciousness that stands beyond time.  

It reminds me of a statement I once heard to the effect that the most 
powerful experiential contradiction of materialism is the fact that 
you can see a river at all.

Gerry Palo

(73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Response to Bill Jefferys, part 4
Date: 18 Dec 1992 04:29:28 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <7997@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>As an example in which isochrons do not agree closely with each other, and
>with other measurements, yet are still used to draw conclusions, we have a
>study [5] which shows a  3-point isochon passing almost exactly through 2 of
>the points and farther farther away from the 3rd.  This gives an age of 1.8
>billion years.  Also assumption is made of the initial isotopic ratio to
>derive an isochron giving an age of 2.5 billion years.  Zircons from the rock
>were dated with uranium/thorium/lead techniques at from 1.56 to 2.55 billion
>years.

	What happend to the reference [5]? Please post it with your use
of it next time.

	You have missed the forest for the trees. All these dates agree as
to order of magnitude and they sure as Hell don't agree with the 6,000
year age attrubuted by Bible Thumpers. How how old is young? If someone
gave me ages for a rock from several isotope methods that fell within
the range 1.56 to 2.55 billion years I sure wouldn't go around saying
that the oldest rock on earth is 15 Million years old, or 6,000 years old.

Jeesh!

Bruce Salem
From: jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Doesn't it seem logical?
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:48:39 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

I am new to this whole conversation here, but I think that it seems rather odd
that people can make comments about man being created from mud when if you
look at the theory of evolution, we all just evolved from some "primordial"
soup.  It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!  What does it take
to believe in evolution?  The fact that we might have evolved from some lower
creatures wouldn't give me a heck of a lot of self-confidence.  I guess the
fact that I was brought up in a church has a lot to do with why I think the
way that I do, but I have seen both sides of the issue and it still seems so
illogical that anyone could believe in such a crazy theory!
-- 
                        Jonathan Scott Gibson
                        JSG1@LEHIGH.EDU
                        BOX 479    X0264
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Lionel Tun: evolutionary relic.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:38:25 GMT

   It strikes me that Lionel's problem is that he has a 7th century
sense of how to arrive at the truth (he even reasons the same way
Charles Martel did, but to considerably less noble ends).

In article <1992Dec18.130553.20138@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
> evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
> effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
> world and of themselves.

   It is amazing, I agree.  You have to remember though that it took centuries 
for science to grow to the point that it's practitioners could believe 
things obviously counter to common sense just because they followed from
evidence.  It's a hard thing to do.  Point of order though: we are not
trying to convince ourselves the world wasn't created.  If the evidence
pointed to a Creator we would tentatively accept Him.  So:

       [At this point I wrote a somewhat scatological paragraph, 
        but later thought better of it.  My (sanitized) point was
        that Lionel is again advanceing his claim that evolution is 
        driven by an Anti-Lionelist religious agenda.  instead:]

Lionel, a priest of the Christian God of love and brotherhood has
repeatedly accused myself, my colleagues, my father, and friends of
long standing of being members of what is essentially a Satanist 
Conspiracy, of scientific malfesance, of lying, and he has never 
supported this view with evidence, correctly parse logic, or any 
other valid rhetorical device.  He has occasionally attempted to
use invalid rhetorical devices such as appeal to completely 
unqualified authority or proof by modified invalid example or
disproof by citation of imaginary evil consequences.
 
> I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
> the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
> seek Him.

   You, [censored], have obviously renounced the standards 
He set for you.  Go directly to [censored].  Don't you see that your
conduct diminishes God in the eyes of (some of) you fellow men?
Can't you at least entertain the notion that belief in the Creator
and belief in you specific creation scenario are inequivalent?
Why doesn't it bother you that God falsified all this evidence?
TUNE IN NEXT WEEK FOR MORE THRILLING DETIALS, (brought to you
by SkyWay Kwik-Bright Armor Polish).

Let me second a fellow poster:  Care to post the theory of creation?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
                     <>ever hear of the global villiage Tun?<>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:56 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <62899@mimsy.umd.edu>, folta@cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes...
>>How about stuff like meteoric dust, the decay of the earth's magnetic
>>field, Archaeopteryx is classed as bird, the recession of the moon, 
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>and other classic young-earth creationist drivel.
> 
>I have been reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton. In my
>reading, I cannot tell what he believes as an alternative to Evolution, and

I've corresponded with Denton, and he *does* believe in evolution, despite
the title of his book.  He just thinks that Darwinism is a "theory in
crisis."

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Date: 13 Dec 92 06:59:59 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1gbb50INNkcu@morrow.stanford.edu>, salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

^	Now, since you have started with the argument that some stupendous
^catastrophies have befallen the earth in the past, tell me why I should
^care? 

^	You might begin by telling us why it matters that we accept your
^facts and your conclusion. Why your conclusion that some celestial billiards
^took place amd why anyone should believe in your particular quest of the
^truth. What does it matter? 

That's the best question I've ever been asked on t.o.  

There are two views you could take regarding man's basic nature;  the debate
between Pierre and Prince Andre in War&Peace.  

From everything which we can directly observe and come to any general 
consensus about, man's nature would appear to be much as Nietzsche and later
students of psychology have described it.  There are the three basic drives
of food, sex, and sleep, and above them if you believe Nietzsche, the will to
power.  And if you accept evolution, then all of this is quite natural and
even possibly desirable.  

There are other views in which man is ascribed a spiritual nature, but we have
absolutely no way of knowing anything for certain regarding this in this life,
or so it would seem.  One of the things which I have tried to point out a
couple of times, is that at least a couple of the things which are normally
ascribed to the next world were in evidence in THIS world in antediluvian
times.  Paradise appears to have once existed here, at least in part.

Richard Heinberg's "MEMORIES AND VISIONS OF PARADISE", Tarcher Books, 1989,
is a sort of a spiritual companion to Talbot's Saturn Myth.  Amongst other
things, he points out that enough data is coming in from descriptions of
near-death experiences to generalize a number of common features which they
all seem to have, and that these features correspond with classical
descriptions of antediluvian conditions.  Amongst other things, telepathic
communication is a common thread in almost all such descriptions.

For these reasons and others, I believe that it is necessary for man to 
comprehend his own past in order to comprehend his own nature, and this
strikes me as important.  The consequences of man failing to understand
his nature are all around us.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:01:35 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1gp0riINNi86@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <Z2XuVB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>
>> O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
>> processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
>> many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
>> for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
>> universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
>> moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
>> out of nothing.
>
>Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
>whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.

Hahahahaha!

--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Doesn't it seem logical?
Keywords: Newbie Flame of the Day
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:22:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.204839.37771@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON) writes:
>I am new to this whole conversation here, but I think that it seems rather odd
>that people can make comments about man being created from mud when if you
>look at the theory of evolution, we all just evolved from some "primordial"
>soup.

No, no, no, why me ? ...

>It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!

Wow!  What unexpected honesty!  Except that it takes more than
"a bit" of faith.  But, thanks for your astute and forthright
admission of the basis of creationism.  BTW, what is creationism?

>What does it take
>to believe in evolution?

At least two synapses in communication with each other.

>The fact that we might have evolved from some lower
>creatures wouldn't give me a heck of a lot of self-confidence.

What does give you self-confidence?  Believing in a set of
translations of contradictory and imprecise stories written
over 2500 years ago by middle eastern pastoralists?
Hint:  it is not the purpose of science to give you 
self-confidence.

>I guess the
>fact that I was brought up in a church has a lot to do with why I think the
>way that I do, but I have seen both sides of the issue and it still seems so
>illogical that anyone could believe in such a crazy theory!

Uh, could be.  What exactly has been your exposure to the
fact of evolution and the theories which account for it?

>                        Jonathan Scott Gibson
>                        JSG1@LEHIGH.EDU
>                        BOX 479    X0264

It is so sad to see messages like this posted from
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
          Everything you know about God is wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.origins