HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:24:36 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Sep30.115509.26590@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> 1. The water came from the water vapour canopy around the earth.
> 2. The water ended up in the oceans.

So we didn't have any oceans before the flood. An even more bizarre
claim. I couldn't imagine this planet without all the water from
the early beginnings of life. Most of the known observations would
suddenly be invalid. You have an even harder time justifying your
bogus scientific theories due to the lack of oceans.
 
> This also explains why lifespans became shorter after the flood,
> because of the cosmic rays getting through and causing ageing.
> I can supply details of lifespans if you wish.

Hehe, I guess the cosmic rays are playing tricks on us again, because
our lifespan is increasing. Anyway, if we continue with this silly
theory, could you explain why the lifespan decreased all the way 
from Adam, and they lived before the flood when the cosmic rays
were not as strong. You know, your theory is broken due to the Bible (!).

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Genesis (was Deja vu all over again)
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:54:28 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



In <1126@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>It depends on where you start.  If you take the Bible as a source of
>*spiritual* truth, then Genesis is *not* (in this sense) proven wrong
>by the scientific evidence.  Of course this is not a *literal* reading
>of Genesis, but it does retain the *message* in it.

>Now, from this position there is no particular reason to believe that
>a non-literal Genesis casts doubt on any of the spiritual truths in the
>Bible.  Yes, it does open the way to doubt the historical reality of other
>passages, but so what?  The historical reality is not what the book is about
>any way.

/(emc)
/Please no more of this crap.  What gives you the right to dissect the texts
/in this manner?  

Um, perhaps because this is a discussion group devoted to the talk of
origins, and everything is up for scientific examination, even sacred
cows?

Just a guess.



/(emc)
/How do you discern this "spiritual" truth from the "historical"
/truth?  

He doesn't.  He was offering you a way out; a way to possibly reconcile
the scientific errors in your bible with observed science.  Don't be so
nasty; he was doing you a favor.



/(emc)
/Are the former marked in red letters?  Or is spiritual truth 
/considered to be what is not in conflict with your present morality?

Oh, I see.  We have now defined geology, biology, chemistry, and astronomy
as facets of "present morality".  Obviously that is why you can declare
categorically that something in science is right or wrong:  you are
using moral absolutism to judge the results of the scientific method. 
Wrong tool for the job.  Sort of like measuring someone's height with a 
thermometer.




(emc)
/The writers of Genesis would have turned in their graves if they knew
/how their simple writings meant to convey their world view were being
/so sterilized.

Please, no more of this crap.  What gives you the right to say what the
writers of Genesis would or would not have thought?  Were you there?
Did you talk to them?  Did you write the book?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Antti's File of "Nonreligious Objections" (was: Thanks etc)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:04:41 GMT


asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	we discuss about the possibility
>	that life could have arisen in some planet in a year, and THEN the 
>	probability is 
>
>				1
>		----------------------------------
>				350,000
>			      10
>
>	as shown before.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Are you an idiot, or just pretending to be one? You've been asked
several times how this number can be justified.

Particularly considering you apparently got this idea from a book
which nowhere gives this number, and which disagrees with your
conclusions.

Your ability to dodge questions is certainly not to your credit.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:01:02 GMT

	I have seen Jim Aker's bio and acknowledge that he is indeed
a geochemist specializing in groundwater geochemistry and I take it,
duagenesis. This does not necessarily make him any more an expert
on origins then myself. I apologize to Jim and to others for denegrating
him.

	I do wonder how careful he is about distinguishing religious
and scientific language. I will be examining the recent postings to
determine this.

Bruce Salem
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:41:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Organization: Apple

In article <lcj3unINNkdb@news.bbn.com>, ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
wrote:
> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
> |ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
> |: Maybe G*d's manager stuck him with C++?
> |We all know that all really cool supreme beings use Smalltalk.
> 
> Actually, my son, We prefer CLOS.

That would explain Quantum mechanics (MOP)!

Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti dodges reality (take two)
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:31:56 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct2.121428.16289@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
|colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|
|>Then you were told wrong. They do not interbreed, the two new species
|>(one of which arose three independent times!) have different numbers of
|>chromosomes and do not produce fertile offspring. Once again, you
|>are only proving how astoundingly ignorant you are and the lengths
|>you will go to avoid learning anything about biology.
|
|	Am I responsible if I was told wrong ? Still I'm suspicious and want to
|	stick with living evidence. 

Well, since the biological species concept has been based on interbreeding
for at least 50 years, I consider failure to properly utilize it is indeed
an indication of profound ignorance of things biological.

Yes, in many cases it is necessary (due to lack of data) to estimate the
degree of interbreeding from morphology.  But this is (usually) recognized
as merely a short-cut to be used until conclusive data is available.

|>PS Got those "wedge leading birds suffer higher mortality" references
|>dug up yet? It's only been weeks since you've made the claim.
|
|	Look Tarttu P|llimajandus~likooli archives, 1988 or before. Also 
|	the zool. mus. of Leningrad can give you information. Also 
|	"Linki ptitsi vorybenniij v severo-zapade SSSR" by Leningrad 
|	University can give you some information, though concerning only
|	passerine moulting times (which is important in order to understand
|	the migration). 
|
|	Never it's said straight, but you get the idea if you go through the
|      data and think its applications. Also you can contact the ornithological
|	stations of P{rnu, Kabli, Rossitten and Gdansk, they have field-      
|	knowledge. 

This sounds inconclusive to me.  It certainly doesn't appear to address the
issue of switching off the lead position (especially if it does not address
the issue directly).

|	Also you can get good photos of migratory wedges and do your own 
|	decisions. 
|
Again, this does not address the issue of switch offs.  That requires
extended observation of a single wedge.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:03:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.115509.26590@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> In article <714@oscar.UUCP> shouse@oscar.UUCP (claude shouse) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep28.121140.24899@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

|> >> 
|> >> All it shows is that different forms of life appear in the
|> >> fossil record at different _layers_!
|> >> 
|> >> As to the interpretation of that, evo's say its because of
|> >> evo, but an equally if not more valid interpretation is that
|> >> of hydrological sorting in the flood.
|> >> 
|> >> --
|> >> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
|> >> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
|> >
|> >Hydrological sorting.  OK Lionel, I'll buy that if you can tell me
|> >two things:  1.  Where did all the water come from.  and  2.  Where
|> >did it go.  Remember, no miracles.  This is science not belief.
|> 
|> 1. The water came from the water vapour canopy around the earth.

	If water fell from a water vapour canopy "around the earth"
	It would be heated by the conversion of its gravatational
	potential energy to heat.  Just how high up was the canopy?
	What kept the canopy up?  If it was in orbit, its fall would
	be enough to kill everything on earth with the heat released.


|> 2. The water ended up in the oceans.

	If even a hundredth of the water in the oceans was in
	a vapour canopy surrounding the earth, a greenhouse effect
	would have increased the global temperature to the point
	where the planet was uninhabitable.

	This argument is not subject to the same sort of questions
	as the relatively small C02 greenhouse effect being
	discussed today.  Such a water vapour perturbation is
	orders of magnitude larger.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:05:18 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 14343@unixg.ubc.ca, morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
> 
> Actually, it is possible in principle to build a temple 10 units across,
> and 30 in circumference.  A temple diameter on the order of a few thousand
> kilometres would do it.
> 
> Recall:  pi=3.14... only in Euclidian geometries, and the surface of the
> Earth is non-Euclidian.  For large circles on the Earth's surface, 
> pi < 3.14...
>

I realized SOMEONE would come up with something like this about 10 minutes after I
posted it.  My response is that I did indeed asume Euclidian geometry, and that,
taken in Euclidian terms, your temple's diameter is not being measured in a straight
line.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: Differing accounts of creation in Genesis
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:30:15 GMT

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>pretty soon.)  Biblical Hebrew does not have a past or present or future
>tense.  It has a perfective (for completed actions) and an imperfective
>(for continuing actions).  Temporal sequence is thus ambiguous.

>>  2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
>>  field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see
>>  what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living
>>  creature, that was the name thereof.

Temporal sequences are not ambiguous. They are expressed by what
is called in Hebrew grammars the "consecutive vav". This is the
conjunction "ve" regularly translated in the KJV by "and",
prefixed to the verb in the imperfective. I do not have my 
bilingual OT here, but I'd bet that "and brought" in the above
quote is a consecutive vav construction. I've rubbed shoulders
often and long enough with SIL people in my student days to
remember that.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Favorite astronomer jokes
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:01:15 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <36@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> 
> It appears obvious to me that the twentieth century American
> scientific community in general and the astronomical profession
> in particular, are, in the next century, going to come in for a
> great deal of opprobrium, calumny, criticism, ridicule, abuse
> etc. etc. for the manner in which Immanuel Velikovsky was dealt
> with and for the steadfast refusal of establishment scientists
> to deal with the emergent discipline of catastrophism until at
> least two generations of them have died out altogether.  Maybe
> the term I want is DISSIN', as in "He was dissin' my woman, so I
> snuffed him out with my Uzzi..."  Our present astronomers are
> going to come in for some DISSIN' in the next century.

   Is this one of the jokes?

Karl
------
Satan for president - when you're sick of voting for the _lesser_ of two evils.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:25:24 GMT

In article <1510@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
writes:
> I'm still trying to understand this "felt effect" idea (because nobody
> has answer my question in previous posting).  Is the idea that certain
> parts of the Earth had less attraction than others at some time in the
> past or was the density of the whole Earth much lower?

  Okay, here is the physics as far as I could get it from Ted.  The earth was in
orbit around Saturn, rotating about the poles while at the same time the north
pole pointed towards Saturn.

  First point: Take a gyroscope, set it spinning, and the try to rotate it at
right angles to the flywheel.  Hard, isn't it?  This is because the rotational
force of the flywheel is changing its directional force of rotation into a
counter rotation at right angles.  This may sound weird, but if you try to
picture graphically whats going on it make a little more sense.  This is all due
to the conservation of angular momentum.  Ted's model violates this law.

  Since an orbiting body is in free fall, the surface of the Earth would not
have a reduced effect of gravity due to the pull of Saturn.  Instead the pull is
due to tides.

  The center of the object is what is actually in orbit, and since planets are
not points, the surface pulls against the orbit somewhat.  On the side pointing
directly towards the primary there is a slight pull upward is felt due to being
in a closer orbit to the primary but moving at the slower speed of the further
orbit.  On the opposite side a slight pull outward is felt due to being in a
further orbit, but moving faster than correct.

  Between these two low gravity points, there would be a band encircling (just
inside the equator)where gravity would be normal.  To either side would be a
slight tug towards the poles.  This situation actually exists on the Earth, and
can be observed (via the moons influence) by visiting your local harbor and
watching the Tide come in and go out twice daily.  When the suns influence
counteracts the moon we have the lower neap tides, and when the sun coincides
with the moon we have spring tides.

  Ted claims that the Earth was close enough to Saturn to cause the tides to
pull outward enough to partially counteract gravity.  The moon can reduce a
persons weight by an amount enough to be measured by a sensitive scale, but Ted
needs several orders of magnitude greater tides to fit his theories.

  I do wonder at how much flooding this Saturnian world would suffer.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: Ken.Stuckas@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Stuckas)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: antti's file of "nonr
Date: 25 Sep 92  00:38:00 EST

-> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
-> >Your knowelege of biology is abissmal.  When a person professing to
-> be a >biologist has to be corrected on the basic facts of his
-> profession by an >aeronautical engineer (yours truly), that point
-> seems rather obvious.
->       Then I could say that you should leave biology for biologists
-> and I
->       promise to you never to interfere to aeronautical engineering.
-> :)

I know very little about biology since I skipped it in high school to take Latin III.  I recently read seven books about evolution/natural selection and Darwin because I was confused by all the debate still going on (at least on the boards).

I am an aero engineer (Purdue '69).  I loved the last book I read best. It is a recent biography of Darwin from the point of view of a psychiatrist, John Bowlby, who died shortly after finishing the book at the age of eighty-something.

After reading all those books, it is really very hard for me to understand how anyone with any knowledge of science could possibly still believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis.  At what point does one give up the ghost (NPI) and see the truth?  Darwin, who was destined to become first a physician and then a clergyman struggled for years over the impact of what he had proposed and it's affect on the religious beliefs of the times.  He was very moderate in his proselitizing of evolution due to the 
natural selection of heritable traits.  I kept thinking what a pity that he never came across the work of his contemporary, Gregor Mendel.

The title of the bio is, "Charles Darwin - A New Life".  ca. 1990

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observations
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:15:31 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <qfji3vs@zola.esd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.195145.19351@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
> |> In article <qe5e904@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> |> >In article <1992Sep28.123356.25628@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> |> >> There are numerous examples of withered arms and legs being grown back
> |> >> or re-created by God. Check out one of these maybe.
> |> 
> |> >If there are "numerous" cases, then it should be easy to 
> |> >give us a reference to a few of them.
> |> 
> |> Of possible interest:
> |> 
> |> Fishman, Steve. (1992). "Hunting for a miracle," _Health_ 6:1
> |> (Feb/Mar 92), 48-59.
> |> An article about the miracles at Lourdes.  It's interesting that the
> |> miracles have become less frequent now that people are examining them more.
> |> 
> |> Hall, Stephen S. (1992). "Cheating fate," _Health_ 6:2 (Apr/May 92), 38-46.
> |> About the mystery of spontaneous remission.
> |> 
> |> I don't think either of these is the kind of thing Lionel has in mind, though.
> 
> I agree.   I picked up a book last year which described in some
> detail six cases of spontaneous remission from cancer.
> 
> I found myself thinking: Ah, this is a doctor writing, so she
> calls these spontaneous remissions.   If a TV evangelist were
> talking about the same cases, they would call them miracles.
> 
> So what exactly is the difference?   Is a miracle just a matter
> of who's telling you?   Some proof of the existence of God.
> 
> jon.

Then there is The Amazing Randi, debunker extraordinaire, who has offered
a $10,000 reward for years to anyone who can produce a genuine bonafied
miracle for him.  So far, no takers, none, not one......

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Archeopterix revisited
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 26 Sep 92 01:25:22 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <7080@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>
> When one asks why Archaeoperix should be considered an intermediate, the answer
> is in the form of a list of Archaeoperix's supposedly reptillian characteristics.
> But when one asks how we know that a form with these characteristics is an
> intermediate form, the answer is simply an assertion that it is.  There is no
> exiperiment or observation to show that an organism with this characteristic must
> be an intermediate form.

   Tell me, what would you accept as evidence that Archaeopteryx is an
intermediate form?  A lab experiment in which a reptile is artificially
selected to evolve it into a bird, where an Archaeopteryx is one of the steps
in between?

Karl
------
Satan for president - when you're sick of voting for the _lesser_ of two evils.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Old, stale, cretioniost crapola.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:08:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.115509.26590@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:

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

   The vapor canopy for which no evidence ever exists.  Great.

> 2. The water ended up in the oceans.

   No, they aren't big enough.
 
> This also explains why lifespans became shorter after the flood,
> because of the cosmic rays getting through and causing ageing.
> I can supply details of lifespans if you wish.

   But Lionel, this is completely debunked crap that is in the FAQ; could you
please respond to the objections to this theory that have already been made?

> 
>>Claude Shouse
> 
> --
> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: fossil, schmossil... what about the bug!?
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:55:35 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)

Also, there was a recent letter in one of NATURE, SCIENCE that handily
disputed the paper that claimed a therapsid tooth was found younger by
100 million years than any other therapsid fossil.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins