HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:27:52 GMT

maoh@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Maureen O'Halloran) writes:

>>>> .... Then in stat. mech. one makes massive  assumptions
>>>>that allow predictions to be made but at the expense of knowing exactly what
>>>>the system is doing.

>>>Massive assumptions may be made in APPLYING stat mech, but the basic
>>>theory has very few assumptions.  The only one I can think of off-hand
>>>is that the probability of a certain macrostate is proportional to the
>>>number of microstates.

>>I was thinking of the ergodicity assumption, and the probabilistic way
>>we assume energy is shared out among all the particles in a system.

>I still wouldn't call that massive assumptions. I just didn't want to
>leave the impression that statmech is on shaky grounds.

Quite right. When I said "massive" I meant un demonstrable not "dodgy".
Trouble with english is the words have too many different meanings.


>>I notice that no creationists have taken up my postings, I am 
>>disappointed.


>Sorry to break into your discussion then, but is it kind to
>tease them that way?

Hardly teasing, I want to hear their views. I am not so certain of my own
beliefs that I refuse to learn from others. But a few
of the christians I have talked to in the past have torn into my views
with very little (to my mind) justification that I am intrigued
whether I am a unique christian or others also think like me.

>Your original example of a sphere of visible universe was confusing
>because in a _way_ the universe is "finite".  If it started out as a
>point at t=0 (a.k.a. the big bang) then it has expanded to a "sphere"
>of a "finite" size. Why do we say its infinite then?  Because of the
>curvature of space-time you can never reach the "edge" of the
>universe.  I can't think in non-Euclidean geometry, but the analogy I
>heard was that the two dimensional surface of a sphere is finite 
>but because its curved through a third dimension it has
>no edges.  Similarly we are at the "center" of the universe, that is
>its expanding isotropically around us, because its expanding like a
>balloon and all points on the sphere expand equally and are symmetric
>with respect to each other.  What's "outside" the universe?  Heaven
>perhaps, but unfortunately we can't observe it.  Perhaps we're just a
>bubble in someone else's universe.


Did I suggest the universe was infinite? I was assuming the standard
model of an expanding region that is unbounded but closed. SO in fact
every point in it is at the centre of the universe (just as every point
on the surface of a sphere can be called the "centre" of the surface
(not to be confiused witht the centre of the sphere which lies outside
the surface completely). 

I guess I will have to think some more about the boundary of where
we can see and do experiements.

Yours cogitatingly

julian

Xref: sparky talk.origins:9429 sci.skeptic:14166
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:57:55 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

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

  And it also would explain all those "details" the artist "must have known to
include".  The feet have microscopic traces of dirt because the statue was
standing in it.  Etc.

> Simple, but very effective.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: root@lyra.scg.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Vestigial organs
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:03:33 GMT
Reply-To: fisher@lyra.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., Carlsbad, CA

I'm looking for a source of detailed information about "jury-rigged"
adaptations, vestigial organs, and the like.  I was considering reading
Darwin's book on Orchids... anyone have a better suggestion?

Dave Fisher
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:11:57 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

Who is (was) Laura?


-- 
Good-day!

Mark
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:10:25 GMT


   In article <1992Aug20.051347.4310@ccu.umanitoba.ca> 
vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes...

>In <918@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>>Now, unless you can show that the moral/spriritual principles being expounded
>>in 1 Peter *depend* on a literal Noah, the fact that he didn't exist is of
>>little theological significance.

>If Noah is a fictional character, then he and the text that contains his
>story has no more significance than any other folk story.

   If the Wicked Husbandman is a fictional character, then he and the text that
contains his story has no more significance than any other folk story.

   If the Good Samaritan is a fictional character, then he and the text that
contains his story has no more significance than any other folk story.

   If the Prodigal Son is a fictional character, then he and the text that
contains his story has no more significance than any other folk story.

   If the Ten Virgins are fictional characters, then they and the text that
contains their story has no more significance than any other folk story.

   Hey Vern, are you sure this is the tack you want to take here?  Seems like
you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

>Do you also pray to the god Aesop and read blindly his book of fables?

   No, but if I bought into the argument you advanced above, it would appear
that you would leave no other option open to me.  After all, given your
pronouncement, I can't see how you could view the Gospels as anything other
than folk stories told about the life of a master fable teller.

   Once again, are you sure this is the argument you wanted to advance?

>Vern Nelson

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Evolution is false
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 17:43:52 GMT

In article <emc.713897842@keiko>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>In fact if something does not have proof, we can just wait long
>enough and a scientist will surely discover it.

Only if it's true, of course.

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:43:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1992Aug21.132442@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>
>  And you've totally neglected the fact that there may be no need to stand up. 
>Can you give any evidence (snicker) that the seismosaur ever actually sat down? 
>Horses sleep on their feet, why not seismosaurs?

Yup, they could have just grown up on the hoof, in fact if Ted's
numbers are right then they must have. Only reasonable explanation.

I mean, if you saw a peach in a milk botle, as some farmers used to make them, and you knew that it was impossible "in today's world" for the peach to go through the neck of the bottle, would you conclude that

1) the peach was teleported into the bottle, or
2) the peach branch was put in the bottle and the peach grew inside the
   bottle.
-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Punctuated equilibrium
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:39:54 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <714216322.2@iphase.FidoNet.Org> Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas) writes:

>How about Gould's hyposthesis of punctuated equilibrium.  It make a lot
>of sense.  The reason that "missing links" are not found is because a 
>species remains relatively unchanged for a long, long time and then 
>the change in speciation is rapid.  Anybody know anything about this?

This is only one part of Eldrege and Gould's model, but it seems to
be the only aspect that gets presented in the popular press. The
second part is that speciation (in addition to being rapid) occurs
in localized areas. Following speciation a new species may wipe
out the species it evolved from by invading it's range and out-
competing it. Thus, missing links are not (usually) found because
you would have to be searching in the area speciation happened to
find them. In other places, the fossil transition would be sharp -- 
this would be due to replacement by migration, not fast evolution.

In some cases, the speciation locale has been found and intermediates
between two distinct species are located there (In my FAQ I give an
example of a brachiopod transition).

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: JW's claim of a "Water Canopy"
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:37:27 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1992Aug20.125119.20634@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug19.193958.12821@engage.pko.dec.com>, ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com writes:
|> |> 
|> |> In article <6604@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes...
|> |> > 
|> |> >I've recently been reading a book called _The Waters Above_, by Joseph C.
|> |> >Dillow, Moody Press, 1981.  It purports to give a "scientific view" of
|> |> >the "earth's pre-flood vapor canopy."  
|> |> > 
|> |> >The basic thesis is that the above mentioned Water Canopy was actually
|> |> >a "vapor canopy" containing the equivalent of about 40 feet of water,
|>   ...
|> |> 40 feet of water should be enough to block out a significant portion of visible
|> |> sunlight.
|> |> 
|> |> 
|> |> So how did the plants grow before the flood? 
|>   ...
|>     I've seen the vapor canopy discussed a few times, and wondered 
|> about this myself, but your posting was the first time that I've seen this
|> mentioned.  A thundercloud will make it very dark, and produce a couple 
|> of inches of rain.  Wouldn't the equivalent of 40 feet of water make it 
|> as dark as night before the Flood?


	That depends on how the water was stored.  Clouds consist
	of liquid water in drops a few microns in radius.  Liquid
	water in that form is very good at scattering visible light,
	so the side of a thick cloud away from the sun looks dark.


	If the canopy was stored as vapour, however, its optical
	properties would be quite different.  Water vapour does not
	scatter much visible light (except in the blue), nor does
	it absorb a significant amount.  It does, however, absorb
	very well in the infrared, thus leading to the venus-type
	greenhouse I mentioned in an earlier post.

	Forty feet of water is about ten meters, which will weigh
	enough to exert a pressure of one bar.  Are the JWs stating
	that before the flood atmospheric pressure was double what
	it is today?  Is it mentioned in the bible that water was
	*much* easier to boil after the flood than before?  Or that
	everybody's voice changed? (etc, etc).



						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution is false
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:59:53 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: HTE

In article <emc.714056355@keiko>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
 
> Logically:
> You can disprove an axiom only if 

An axiom is a logical starting point.  You don't prove or disprove
axioms.  You either assume or do not assume them.

For instance, all "proofs" of the axiom of choice are actually merely
proofs of the equivalencies of the various forms of statements of
that axiom.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: JW's claim of a "Water Canopy"
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:10:38 GMT

In article <19AUG199201102221@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
|> In article <6604@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes...
|> > 
|> >I've recently been reading a book called _The Waters Above_, by Joseph C.
|> >Dillow, Moody Press, 1981.  It purports to give a "scientific view" of
|> >the "earth's pre-flood vapor canopy."  
|> > 
|> >The basic thesis is that the above mentioned Water Canopy was actually
|> >a "vapor canopy" containing the equivalent of about 40 feet of water,
|> >held up by some sort of a massive temperature inversion.  The whole idea,
|> >of course, goes against all the physics I ever learned.
|> > 
|> >Does anyone know of any scholarly reviews of this book, or of any other
|> >books or publications like it?
|> 
|> Yes to the latter.  I have an article which is an example of a genuine
|> contribution to science published in a creationist publication.  It
|> is by Glenn R. Morton, titled "Can the Canopy Hold Water?", and appeared
|> in the _Creation Research Society Quarterly_, vol. 16, no. 3 (December
|> 1979), pp. 164-169.  The abstract:
|> 
|>    Calculations of the surface temperature of the Earth with a water
|>    vapor canopy, under the assumption of radiative equilibrium, yield
|>    temperatures too high for life to exist.  Moreover, when the results
|>    about radiation are combined with the barometric law, only certain
|>    solutions to the physical description of the canopy are found to be
|>    possible for a given set of assumptions, and those solutions generally
|>    either lead to impossible environmental conditions or else do not
|>    fulfil the purpose for which the canopy was proposed.  It appears that
|>    some new thinking about the antediluvian climate, and the cause of the
|>    Flood, is due.
|> 
|> I bet your book doesn't cite this article.



	I am duly impressed.  Not only can the man actually
	do (at the least) elementary meteorology (unlike, for example,
	Ginenthal) but he actually publishes the result even if it goes
	against his case.  With Aardsma, that makes two.

	A few more people like this and the phrase "creation science"
	wouldn't be quite as sick a joke.

						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9906 soc.culture.african.american:8975 alt.rap:4177
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:59:50 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <fedde.714406692@Minsk>, fedde@Minsk.docs.uu.se (Fedde Engler) writes:
> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> 
>>Actually I think the main three racial groupings (black, white,
>>yellow) are descended from Noah's three sons.
> 
> Well...that is if you bring in religion...and in this case it doesn't
> really make sence. There are traces of races and cultures from before
> that time...
> I just don't understand how religion can have som much power over humans,
> but then again...who am I to say so :)

Sigh, why don't people just take a physical anthropology course and learn
a little about humans?  Actually, there AREN'T three main racial groupings,
humans vary in infinite variety, there are shadings and gradiations and
mixings of every physical type and color.  

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Are we privileged observers?
Keywords: universe,earth, paradox
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:44:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.152953.5634@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de
(Thomas Kettenring) writes:
> Julian Shillcock writes:
> >["I-want-a-scientific-reason-for-my-beliefs" preliminary deleted]
> >Anyway the argument is: We can only observe those parts of the universe
> >where the light has had time to reach us. If we assume a finite age
> >of say 15 billion years or so then there is a "horizon" at 15 billion
> >light years distant from us beyond which we cannot observe any events.
> 
> Yes, it's there (I think).

  Wouldn't the barrier be at 7 billion years? (since it takes at least 7 billion
to get there and another 7 billion for the light emitted there to get back)

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: 360 day year
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:15:05 GMT

In article <2861@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> As Velikovsky noted, these five ceremonial days were added after the change,
> not just in central America, but all over the world.  The same situation
> can be found everywhere.  The 360 degree compasses we use also date from
> the time of 360 day years;  a degree on the compass was basically just one
> day's worth of angle.  This could not be changed without creating havoc with
> all systems of math and engineering.

  Gee, and here I've been using radians with no ill side effects whatsoever. 
Add to that that astronomical angles across the equator do not use degrees, but
_hours_.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Proving the existance of a deity (was Re: Mandatory negatives)
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:34:49 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug19.184353.776@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
    ...
|> How about as particles of differing size are hydrostatically sorted
|> into "bins" of their respective size/weight through hydraulic acton?
|> 
|> Are you so out of tune with reality that you've never looked at the sand on
|> a beach?
    ...
   Sometimes (well, OK, often) I feel so stupid.  I've seen this point
umpteen times, and it never clicked before.

   The fossils were hydraulicly (or is it "hydrologically" -- could
someone tell me?) sorted in the Flood.  So the creationists tell us.
Wouldn't that be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?  Or, 
for that matter, any other mechanism which would sort the fossils.
Of course, God could have performed a miracle to suspend the second
law, and intervened in such a way as to sort them in an order which
would give the impression that there was evolution.  Or maybe, he
just allowed some intelligent malevolent force to intervene.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:55:22 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Julian Shillcock (julian@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
: >moral standards. Evolution is opposed because it is a cogant
: >answer to this. It suggests that nature, physical processes, alone,
: >can account for the choices in human behavior. The rest of science
: >suggests that the supernatural intercession is not needed in the
: >operation of the Universe.
: 
: >Bruce Salem
: 
: Evolution suggest nothing of the kind: it is a model for the transmission
: of genetic information and the transformation of species: unless you
: believe that evolution somehow picks out mental processes as well as
: physical traits. Personally I find it hard to imagine a scientific theory
: (viz one that make predictions and is testable as opposed to one that can
: be distorted to accomodate anything) that will postulate anythin about
: humans' ability to think. We do not even know what thinking is
: yet!

Evolution does indeed pick out mental processes. It will pick out
anything which have a beneficial effect (meaning increased likelihood
of passing your genetic information onto future generations.) It is
quite standard for evolutionary considerations to be used to explain
behaviour. When a scientist ask why some species displays some
characteristic behaviour, the answer is invariably phrased with respect
to evolutionary pressures.

I read an interesting example of this just today somewhere, about a
species of bird which frequently prefer not to mate, but rather to stay
at home and help raise siblings. This is interesting, since it would
seem to go against expectations suggested by evolution; the
explaination suggests that this species of bird lives in circumstances
where natural selective pressure gives rise to the behaviour.

The fact that we do not yet know what thinking is certainly does not
mean no-one can possibly make concrete postulations about it!  This
betrays a total misunderstanding of how science works. The process of
thought is a mystery -- but it is a mystery which is being studied and
for which many concrete hypotheses have been made (not to explain every
aspect of the phenomenon, of course, but aspects thereof), and tested,
and failed or succeeded to varying degrees. We have lots to learn in
this area; you appear to suggest we cannot even make a start.

You seem to be showing some signs of why religious faith can easily
become a millstone around the neck of one honestly searching for truth
about the workings of the world.  No insult intended to the many
Christians and believers in other faiths who apparently avoid this
temptation.

Felicitations -- Chris