HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: A Theory of Creation (first draft)
Keywords: creationist God LORD Darwin fish chips wood carpenter
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:57:40 GMT

In article <2ADDB66C.23216@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>So where's the scientific theory?  A theory that merely states
>"We exist and God did it" does not count.  'Tain't scientific.
>There's got to be abundant evidence, falsifiability, predictions
>and verifiability.  I saw no evidence (most evidence contradicts
>creationism); falsifiability was tossed out the window in favor
>of absolutist religion; predictions were unlisted; and verifiability
>was hinged on faith.
>
>It's no wonder creationists are ridiculed when they try to emulate
>scientists.  "Massive funding" haha.

-2 for failing to recognize sarcasm.

>Brett J. Vickers		"Substitute `damn' everytime you're
>bvickers@ics.uci.edu		 inclined to write `very'; your editor

-- 
* 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
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Holden theory Q&A
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 23:40:05 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <BvvA4C.MHq@scd.hp.com> dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller) writes:
>In article <718507842@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>|> : From: bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour)
>|> : Ted,

[deletions]

>|> : What, precisely, is an "electromag star". 
>|> 
>|> A star that is hot because of electrical current instead
>|> of hydrogen fusion.
>|> 
>|> : Is our Sun one of these? 
>|> 
>|> Yes.  (Though how they explain the solar neutrinos, I don't know.  Ted
>|> never addressed that issue when I asked him.)
>
>Come on, now, Wayne. The explanation is simple: Neutrinos are a bullshit
>fiction of those cnspiratorial balckguard physicists like that weasel
>Merritt. Everyone know that!

 To be fair, we should mention that Earth-based detectors have found
significantly fewer neutrinos that were expected; of course, Ted's
'model' (if we can so debase the term by applying it to Ted's post)
has trouble explaining *any* neutrinos...
>-- 
>Dave Waller


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Clarification on Microevolution and Macroevolution
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:06:11 GMT
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University

In article <1bkf7bINNrp5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.161851.21477@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes

>|> Maybe I was a bit irrational, but I was so schocked 
>|> that the repliers had never
>|> heard about dynamical systems because 
>|> they are crucial in the understanding of 
>|> life. 
>
>I don't recall anyone saying that they had never heard of dynamical
>systems.   I know that what I asked you to do was to justify your
>claims about them and their relationship to evolution.

Yes, and I explicitly listed the unsupported assumptions of your (Onar's) 
model; you have yet to respond.  Did you miss the post?  Until the
assumptions are supported, you have no basis to assert that dynamical
systems are important in the way you say they are.

>jon.

-- 
* 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: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: fossil, schmossil... what about the bug!?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 11:46:43 GMT

In article <97661@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.174235.18587@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
>
>>    In a recent issue of Science, there is a review article and a
>>research article about a dryopithecine fossil (Dryopithecus branchoi)
>
>Bah, another rock... who cares?

Well, Chris, yesterday afternoon I became exasperated enough to harass a 
librarian into finding out why the September 25 issue hadn't been placed on
the shelves, and when she returned with it, I read both the rock and termite
articles.  The rock guy seems to be saying that you molecule guys were right
all along about chimps being more closely related to humans than to gorillas.
I mean, talk about "hard evidence."

>Question to creationists:
>do you have a theory that predicts anything? Just wondering.

I'm still wondering when Lionel Tun is going to explain to us why he
thinks _Australopitheucs afarensis_ is either an ape or a human, and
you're asking about predictions!

-- Herb Huston
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: creationism-explained.gif (part 01/01) [cartoon]
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:58:49 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)

In article <2AD48F8C.15095@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>If you're trying to figure out the joke, the cartoon's basically
>poking fun at creationism's pseudoscientific nature.  Gary
>Larson's quite a paleontology buff, so it shouldn't be surprising
>that he would caricature creationists in such a demeaning way.

What was demeaning about it?  Have you seen creationists offer a more
coherent theory than Larson's somewhere?  As the recent "decline in
body temperature" spoof showed by its ability to fool people, there is
no difference between their arguments and deliberate idiocy.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Holden theory Q&A
Summary: attempt to answer some questions about neo-catastrophist ideas
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:40:33 GMT

: From: bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour)
: Ted,

Well, I'm not Ted, but I've been an active Holden-watcher for years.
I'll present my understanding of what Ted has said in the past:

: What, precisely, is an "electromag star". 

A star that is hot because of electrical current instead
of hydrogen fusion.

: Is our Sun one of these? 

Yes.  (Though how they explain the solar neutrinos, I don't know.  Ted
never addressed that issue when I asked him.)

: I believe you always point to Jupiter (or is it Saturn) as being this star
: during the antedeluivian times. What caused that star to stop burning?

It was both, at different times, as I understand it.  They both
stopped buring because the electrical current that ran them was
shunted to the current sun.  Ted has used the metaphor of Jupiter
and Saturn being lightning rods tens of feet high, and the sun as
one hundreds of feet high.  Once the taller one arrived on the
scene, all the lightning goes to it, the others cool off.  No
mathematics or field maps, of course... just vague handwaving.

: How do electro-magnetic effects attenuate gravity on essentailly
: non-magnetic things, like animals?

Ted has been very unclear on this.  When he is challenged on this point,
he claims that the effects influencing the effective acceleration
(what he calls the "felt effect") are gravitational, but when it is
pointed out that gravitational effects simply won't work in his
scenario, he calls on very vague electromagnetic effects that smooth
away all problems with the gravitational ones.

How this was supposed to work is all a deep mystery, and Ted has
resisted all pleas to explain it with mathematical models.  I don't
mean a model of how it actually was, but just ANY model that has
the required properties.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:28:08 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Oct12.163804@IASTATE.EDU>
kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>
>In article <1531@esl.ESL.COM>
>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>>
>> Why does the Earth need to be hollow to be less dense?
>
>Of course!!!  The earth wasn't actually less dense, it was
>the felt effect of molecular bonding.  You see, back then
>molecules had a lower binding force, and so were much larger.
>The result: a larger Earth (as well as everything else
>(ie dinosaurs)).
>
>Since saturn was bigger it would be more clearly visible in
>the sky and that explains all the Holden stuff.  Then, about,
>what, 4000 years ago, the binding force increased and
>everything in the universe shrunk.  This would even explain all
>the stories about giants: people who failed to shrink!

Why does a less dense Earth have to be so ridiculous?  Couldn't
the Earth have originally been formed as a less packed, larger
body that has since gradually become more packed or dense from
the forces of gravity?  In so doing, the forces of gravity at
the surface would increase with time.  In fact, wasn't the Earth
formed by gravitational collecting of "loose" matter?  If so,
then the Earth had extremely low density at one time!

Obviously, I haven't done extensive research into this area,
but am only suggesting what I believe to be more plausible
explanations of low gravity than have been presented by
Ted, et al.  Help me out if I'm way off base here.  I won't
defend any of my wacky thoughts!

Mark
==
  I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of
the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and
most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the
falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to
colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which
they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.
   -- Tolstoy
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:40:10 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 11171@trl.oz.au, jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
> gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne) writes:
> 
> >In article 833@trl.oz.au, jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
> >> 
> >> Pi is not defined as the ratio of circumference to diameter. If it were,
> >> a great deal of physical laws where it enters would be false. Nice try,
> >> Morgan, but pull the other one.
> 
> >*Drop* the other one, please.  Enlighten us ignorant heathens.  If pi is not
> >defined by the ratio of circumference to diameter, by what is it defined?
> >(Note that this is a sincere question, since I have for many years been under
> >the delusion that pi is defined by the ratio of circumference to diameter
> >of a Euclidian circle.)
> 
> You've just answered your question: "the ratio of circumference to diameter
> of a *Euclidean* circle". The original poster (I tried to retrieve the
> message, but it was expired) had written that pi<3.1416 in a NON-Euclidean
> space (he'd used the surface of the earth, I think). I was certain he must
> have had his tongue in his cheek and was just trying to see if he could
> start a wonderful red herring, up the garden path etc. So I put my tongue
> in the same place, too. But perhaps he was being serious. You get all
> kinds here. Perhaps he did believe that, because that Biblical vessel
> was on the earth, and the earth is spherical, the ratio of its circumference
> to its diameter could be 3? 

Thanks, I thought maybe I'd missed something there.  This whole thing started when
I said that if anyone could show me a circle whose ratio of circumfrence to diameter
was three, I'd accept creationism.  Unfortunately, I neglected to specify Euclidean
geometry, hence the response.  I had assumed that a circle, being a two-dimensional
shape, was inherently Euclidean.  A matter of interpretation, I suppose.  

'Nuf said on this topic.  After all, this is not a mathematical symposium, is it?

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: creationism-explained.gif (part 01/01) [cartoon]
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:03:43 GMT
 <1bapegINNdck@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1992Oct12.123958.3168@city.cs> 
 <1bchnsINNci0@fido.asd.sgi.com> <domalley.718980582@unix1.tcd.ie> <1bfdb0INNssp@fido.asd.sgi.com>

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>What on earth are you talking about?   We're not talking about
>cartoons.    I'm asking Mr Tun to deliver on his promise to 
>explain the fossil record according to a Flood model.

>Please read what you reply to, eh?

The thread's been crossposted to many places, among them
rec.arts.comics.strips.  Editing the Newsgroups: line would be
a good idea.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:00:38 GMT

david_s@hsr.no (David Andreas Sjoeen) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.210149.5703@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com >(Dave Weaver) writes:
>> I am not a regular reader of t.o, but just passing through looking
>> for something interesting...
>> 
>> We had this pi=3 discussion on t.r.m a while back. My reply...
>> 
>> From 1 Kings 7:23...
>> The given diameter is 10, which has ONE significant digit.
>> The given circumference is 30, which has ONE significant digit.
>> 
>> Divide two numbers of one sig digit, and how many digits can you
>> keep in the result?  pi=3 is correct to ONE significant digit.
>> Where is the error? 
>> Are Biblical authors not allowed to round off measurements?
>
>Well, this is not a valid argument, since 10*pi=31 rounded off.

Sorry, but it is a valid argument. 31 is rounded off to two significant
digits precision. The diameter and circumference are only given in
one significant digit precision. 10*pi=30 to one digit precision.

Dave Weaver
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:05:40 GMT
Subject: Oops
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: talk.origins

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:12:00 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Ultimately everything is a matter of belief. You show Grand Canyon
>to a Creationist and state that this place is the end result of millions
>of years, and the Creationist still has faith in an ancient nomadic
>mythology of creation. You are right, science also relies on belief,
>belief ratified by millions of logically thinking individuals. If you
>don't think such cases are valid, do research, publish it and maybe
>become the next Nobel price winner. 

	"The ancient nomadic mythology of creation" excludes young earth, but
	I don't care what fundies think of it.   
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden and the C programming language
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:26:05 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <718507718@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:

or rather brings nit-picking to a new level:


> 
> First of all, the program as posted is not ANSI conforming.  Nor is it a
> legal K&R C program.  

K&R C compilers, free with UNIX, are a classic example of getting what
you pay for in life.  



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Bird Wedges
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 09 Oct 92  09:56:12

Tag: Warren Vonroeschlaub (kv07@IASTATE.EDU)
And: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
 
AS> "It's the same as if the boss of your company would be shot."
 
What a pleasant, entertaining thought to dwell on. . . .
 
WV> "So in other words, any bird could be the lead bird, and it
WV> is just a matter of who gets their first. Therefore being
WV> a lead bird is not a genetic trait and evolution does not
WV> need to explain it. The example was bogus."
 
I figured out something about Ur-viles (who build wedges
somewhat like flying birds do). I know why they are so
damn mean, vile, and viscious!
 
They reproduce asexually: they're all virgins!
From: phs@cassiopee.lifia.imag.fr (Philippe Schnoebelen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:16:38 GMT
Organization: /local_home/phs/.organization

In article <42@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

|   1.  We no longer have such creatures, and there must be a reason for that.
|       If such sizes worked for sauropods, and if nothing has changed vis a
|       vis circumstances which might allow for such sizes, then in all the
|       intervening time, something, at least one life form, should have
|       RE-evolved into such sizes.  This is, of course, assuming the usual
|       multi-million-year time frames given out in schools for dinosaurs.
|       In reality, of course, these time frames are wrong.


Ted, here you are BACKING AWAY from previous claims you made. (Yes !)

Surely you understand that your argument I quoted only indicate that huge
land animals do not exist anymore because (1) gravity has changed, OR (2)
there has not been enough time because the time frames are wrong.

In the past, you claimed (1) and (2) (and other things :-), but only used
sauropod necks as a "proof" of (1). This is the first time I see you using
it as a proof of "(1) or (2)" (which is a step back.) Surely, you did not
intend to use it as a proof of "(1) and (2)" ?

Well, all this is pretty unclear. And your theory, like every theory, will
improve by being refined with time. So please make all this very clear for
me. Is the sauropod neck thing an argument for (1) or for (2) ? (I mean, in
your head).

--Philippe
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:06:17 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

   Has anyone calculated, using Ted's methods, if a Kaz the 
size of something like a rhino or elephant would be able to 
squat its own weight?  If it couldn't, it would seem like a 
pretty clear indication that using Kaz doesn't make sense.

Karl

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Denton's Book
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:00:01 GMT

Some time ago I read a post that gave a review/critique of Michael
Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".  If anyone has it
on line, I appreciate it if they'd e-mail it to me.  Thanks in advance!
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
Xref: sparky talk.origins:13074 alt.atheism:19160
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A Theory of Creation (first draft)
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:36:08 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Oct16.094339.2386@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
> In article <1992Oct15.154301.1759@aber.ac.uk> dmf@aber.ac.uk (Darren Michael Forbes) writes:
>>
>>                        A Theory of Creation,
>>                                by
>>          Darren M. Forbes BSc. and Jonathan M. Ashley BSc.
>>          dmf@aber.ac.uk                     jma@aber.ac.uk
>>
>>          Communications should be addressed to the authors.
>>
> 
> Super!  All very explicit.
> [...]
>>Furthermore, much evidence directly contradicting the theory has been
>>observed, again as predicted[4,5].
> [...]
>>and non-sentient life forms. The theory is sufficiently flexible to encompass
>>all observable evidence.
> [...]
> 
> So there is no possible evidence, even in principle, which could falsify this
> theory?  Sounds just like several other theories I know of.  How do you suggest
> we choose between them?

   -5 for not recognizing satire.

   Go back and read the list of endnotes.

Karl

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Onar is probably right (was Re: Clarification)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 10:58:31 GMT

In article <Bw3HI7.BA7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>ASSUMPTION #3:  GENE DELETIONS ARE LETHAL/DISADVANTAGEOUS AS A RULE
>Look up neoteny, paedomorphosis, and the evolution of direct-developers from
>larval-developers (Raff & Kaufman's _Embryos, Genes, and Evolution_ is a
>good source).  In neoteny and paedomorphosis, what was the ancestral larval
>form becomes the mature form.  In other words, many of the genes coding
>for transformation to maturity are lost.  The evolution of direct development
>is the other way around:  the organism is born as the mature form, and
>most of the genes coding for larval traits are lost.  There are lots of
>examples of both; the ones I can think of off the top of my head are
>the axolotl for neoteny and a sea urchin for direct-development.

There are also some neotenous mammals.  Humans are the most dramatic example.
Didn't Bolk describe us as "precocious fetal apes?"

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: talk.origins