HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Category 4 / Other large animal anomalies
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:26:32 GMT

In article <2839@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|>In article <744@tdat.teradata.COM*, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
|>writes:
|>* In article <1992Jul23.183919.3071@desire.wright.edu>
|>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
|>* |
|>* |So, what?  Falls can be fatal for horses, falls can be fatal for
|>giraffes,
|>* |falls *can* be fatal for humans.  
|>* 
|>* Oh yes, talking about giraffes, does ted know that giraffes' feet
|>support
|>* more weight per square inch cross section than do those of
|>elephants?
|>* [What, you mean *giraffes* exceed Holden's weightlifters limit? -
|>yep].
|> 
|>* sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
|>*   or
|>* Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
|>
|>
|>Actually, this only means that Friesxen does not COMPREHEND Holden's
|>weightlifters' limit.  The Holden number for a giraffe would be around
|>13,
|>nothing outrageous.  The Holden number referrs to muscular
|>capabilities
|>vs the amount of weight a creature has to deal with.  Shoe size, bone
|>size,
|>etc. are irrelevant.

Whats all this about `Holden numbers"? I think that Ted needs to learn
the rules of the game. You don't refer to your own inventions by your
own name. Nope need to be much more subtle. What you do is that you make
a proposal and then you publish and get somone else to make a second
proposal which is slightly different. Then you get a third person (did I
mention that this costs a lot of money in terms of buying drinks?), you
get a third person to  (heh with this continuous voice recognition box
you tend to write the way you speak and repeat the start after a
digression), so this third person then is bribed to refer to your
invention as a "Holden Number".

BTW is this Holden guy for real? 

Phill
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Clarence Darrow Quote
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:10:05 GMT

Some time ago, there was a discussion here about a quote supposedly made
by Darrow during the Scopes trial that indicated he believed in "balanced
treatment" of evolution and creation in the schools.  Does anyone have more
info on this?  I remember the quote turning out to have been fabricated,
if I recall correctly.  Thanks in advance!
-- 
Seth J. Bradley
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
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering: FAQs and figures
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:03:54 GMT

In article <712253273@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>Also, be aware that when reading Ted's expositions, he tends to confuse
>"mass" with "weight".  Basically, he uses "weight" for both things, and
>you have to deduce from context which one he really means.

In't it rather that he calls mass "weight" and weight "felt effect of
gravity"?

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Do you ask a Napoleon why it has to be Moscow, of all places?  Do you ask a
Mondrian why one has to paint only in the rectangularly framed primary colours
Red, Blue, and Yellow?  Ah, how all questions are ruined in view of a persuas-
ively recited system of madness! And is there a mortar keeping those systems
together firmer than real or supposed enemies?  -  Robert Gernhardt
From: leesa@frith.egr.msu.edu (Anita Lees)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Elaphants CAN'T gallop, ddamn it!!! Nor mammoths!!!
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:43:38 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb) writes:

>The figurine depicts the mammoth with its hind legs stretched out,
>together, at the back, as in a gallop. The problem is, that at the same
>time, its forelegs are pointing straight down. If the mammoth were
>actually to try to gallop like that (attenuated gravity or not, and
>assuming it had the joints to be able to gallop), the next thing it
>would be doing when it landed would be making a very close examination
>of the flora of the tundra as it slid across the landscape on its
>face.

Obviously, the statuette depicts a circus-trained mammoth standing on its
front legs.  The little revolving box that went with the figurine was
wooden, and unfortunately was not preserved.

:-) :-) :-)

Or, perhaps it is really rearing.  Rather hard to tell what the figurine
is supposed to represent the mammoth doing, isn't it?

But Ted... Given the physical similarity between mammoths and elephants,
why don't you suppose that an elephant has never even tried to gallop
away from, say, ivory hunters?  If elephants had the anatomy to do it,
I would think they'd be willing to risk straining their tendons (or even
falling) to escape predation.  Or, if they are anatomically incapable of
galloping, what was the adaptation that allowed galloping for mammoths?

>PS: I haven't seen you post a single objection to my or Andrew MacRae's
>    posts about Rose's theory of grapefruit tectonics. I assume your
>    silence signifies assent?
>-- 
>Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)

And he has never replied to my question about the asteroid belt, and the
problems this causes for the migratory Earth theory.

Anita Lees
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:02:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.155954.20849@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>Nice paper on thermodynamics but what is it doing on talk.origins?
>The fact that entropy need not increase in an open system is mentioned
>over and over again. Infact anyone who has seen a refrigerator knows
>that one can decrease entropy one place by increasing it some place
>else.

I believe that a macroscopic thermodynamic analysis of the earth and its 
ecosystems can lead to a much better understanding of biological and
global processes.  These processes are interlinked, for example, greenhouse
gases and burning of the rain forests.  I am trying to define the terminology
so that everyone will be speaking the same language, and then we'll start
applying them.  We still don't all have the same definitions, so that comes
first.  It may sound trivial now, but later it will be extremely important
that we all mean the same thing by the same terms.

>-- 
>>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
>Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
>in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
>       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/


James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept
Auburn University
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: two words -- tartigrades rule!!!!
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:34:58 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <92334@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|In article <782@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|>In article <Bs10rM.5q4@world.std.com> twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:
|
|>(I have heard that there are a few
|>prokaryotes that can survive such dose rates, but I am skeptical, and
|>even if true, those dose rate would kill everything *else* on Earth).
|
|	What kind of doses are we talking about? Tartigrades (the
|absolute niftiest animals in existence) can withstand 570,000
|roentgens (the lethal does is humans is about 500). 
|
O.K., let's add tardigrades to the list.  (Even there, I suspect it
is mainly tardigrades in the 'suspended' state that can survive those
dose rates).  But even then, it would be a close thing, since we are
talking about annual dose rate close to the 570,000 figure.

Still, the point is that the Tedsters model of radiation causing diversity
would leave us with a world populated by tardigrades and purple bacteria.

Hardly what he had in mind.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:44:12 GMT

In article <BrsMCD.8rp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:

>On the other hand , if A&E are just a figleaf of our illustration, and
>humans originated from herds of apemen, then it is the natural order of
>things to be polygamous and copulate with anything in heat.

Sorry to interrupt here, but I figured at least Seanna might
appreciate some actual _biology_ here, rather than Chuck's twisted
version of evolution (I know from experience that Chuck doesn't
care).  Chuck remains deluded about mating behavior in non-human
animals, assuming that polygamy is universal.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.
While monogamy is relatively rare among animals, it is far from
nonexistent.  What are the conditions under which monogamy will
evolve?  The following specific explanations for the 
evolution of monogamy are from [1] (the ellipses replace specific
examples and further explanation):

  "1. Monogamy evolves because male help is essential to female
      success. [...]
   2. Monogamy evolves because the polygyny threshold is never
      reached in a species [the p.t. is the point at which a
      female is better off mating with already mated males, i.e.
      because they have better territories, than with bachelor
      males. -ap] [...]
   3. Monogamy evolves because female aggression prevents males
      from achieving polygyny. [...]
   4. Monogamy evolves through male defense of individual females.
      [...] In these species, males show no parental care. [...]"

I don't know what the currently-accepted explanation is for human
monogamy, but I would suspect it is some combination of 1 and 2
(though number 3 seems to be supported by some personal observations
of mine :-).  The point is that there is no reason within the
evolutionary framework to expect that monogamy wouldn't have arisen.

It should also be noted that in a lot of "monogamous" species
(birds have been studied most), extra-pair copulations (i.e. "affairs")
have recently been documented, both through behavioral observations
and DNA fingerprinting.  This also fits in very nicely with a lot
of observed human behavior.

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 29 Jul 92 06:50:03 GMT

young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:

>My question is this:  Why do some Christians (e.g., Anthony Faull who
>posted the original question) try to find physical evidence to support 
>their beliefs, when they already believe in the Bible?  After all, 
>they say that the Bible is the "Word of God" and "the truth".  If they
>already believe that they know the truth, then why do they need to
>seek physical evidence which is incomplete given our limited 
>measurements?  Perhaps they have some doubts, and/or they just need 
>some reassurance?

	The give away answer to your question is that such people who
claim to want to find cooberating physical evidence to their already
heald beliefs aren't really interested when evidence is presented that
doesn't confirm their preconception. The whole question is a ruse to
try to give their assertions a legitimate sound against a backdrop of
objective criticism based on evidence. They make such noises to make
it seem that they are impartial and objective when they are not.

	Your average Born Again Christian True Believer knows what he
wants. He wants everybody to yield to the simplistic prescriptions of
Scripture as he sees it and the addictive tendency of his faith. It
would be an interesting study of Born Agains to see how many of them
not only have a past, but in particular how many are addicts of one
form or another. They want the rest of us to live their flawed mentality.

	Finally, there is a larger and more arguable position from
which many kinds of people will find issue with Evolution and sympathy
with Creationism that isn't defensable from the point of view of the
evidence. This position is that Morals are trancendant and need to
be defended against views that make them non-absolute and
not based on something like religious faith. This becomes a hidden
agenda of Creationism when people argue as if it is the weight of
evidence alone which decides the issue for them. This is not true
at all. Many people decide this matter by ignoring evidence, which
does not support either a trancendant origin for Mankind or for
his Moral code. The debate is kept going because the moralistic aspect
of it is never discussed, only the attack on science. The philosophical
position of Creationism, namely, that morals are trancendant, needs to
be addressed as well, and with it the kind of religion that argues
ad hoc for a God and a Creation which justifies this view.

	It can be argued that such religion is hardly worth the name.
I agree, and with it condenm many types of Christianity as non-religious
for confusing morality and authority with spirituality.

Bruce Salem
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 7'th Category of evidence / Greco-Roman myth and tradition
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:36:08 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Jul24.121434.13927@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> In article <2833@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> }Primative peoples (in our day and age) tend to worship whatever strikes them
> }as most awesome, amazing, exciting etc. in life.  I can and will cite
> }several examples:
> 
> Ted, you ARE an example.

*GOOD* one, Jim!

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Noah's ark incompatible...with Noah's ark?
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:44:05 GMT

In article <36018@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.164702@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>
>>  Henly pointed out in a letter to me (is this a breach of netiquette?) that the
>>the orders may have been to gather two of every animal, then later to gather
>>seven clean ones and birds.  While this interpretation again ignores your
>>"exactly" it agrees with the text better than mine.
>>
>>  While I hate to switch tracks, do you see anything wrong with this line of
>>reasoning?
>
>It's more sophistry attempting to harmonize the verses.  Since none
>of us are creationinsts that are arguing (and arguing and arguing)
>this point, why don't we just agree on the widely accepted belief
>that Genesis 6 to 8 represent a conglomeration of two separate
>Flood myths.
>
>Steve Linke
>Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
>La Jolla, CA


ARGHHHH!  It looks like I'm going to have to jump in publicly after all.

OK, the flood story according to Henley:

Act 1, scene 1:

    God told Noah to gather two of every land animal and bird and bring them
    to the ark.

Act 1, scene 2:

    Noah did what God said.

Curtain closes on act 1.

Act 2, scene 1:

    God told Noah to board the ark, and take with him his family and seven
    [pairs]* of each clean (edible) animal and bird.

* according to the _NIV_ notes, there are two possible translations:
  "seven of each" or "seven pairs of each"

Act 2, scene 2:

    And Noah did what God said.

Now why do you suppose God told him to take seven [pairs] of every clean 
animal and bird with him?  

Uh.....I wonder what would happen to cows if there were only two, and
Noah and his family ate one after the flood?

Not only is my version consistent, it is almost exactly what the account
says, and it is perfectly logical!

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University

Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce)
Subject: Re: Elements for Life was Re: stars & carbon
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:53:03 GMT

Mail bounced so I follow up here.

In article <1992Jul26.073833.25338@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>And Na and Cl and .... Granted P is essential (ATP and DNA for starters).
>However most atoms in life are CHNO; the specific chemistry of CHNO is
>what makes life "work".

   P is not quite in the same league as Na and Cl.  It is looking like if
you reduce "life" to it's most basic level, RNA is it which requires P.
Also fundamental to life is some method of separating "you" from
"everything else".  This is accomplished in cells with a semi-permeable
membrane composed largely of phospholipids.  I would say that it belongs
up there with CHNO.  I think P gets shortchanged because it is currently
de-emphasized in chemisty relative to CHNO and because from an aesthetic
sense it lives in a less fashionable row of the periodic table.
     -Andy
ajpierce@med.unc.edu
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: two words -- tartigrades rule!!!!
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:22:50 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <782@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <Bs10rM.5q4@world.std.com> twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:

>(I have heard that there are a few
>prokaryotes that can survive such dose rates, but I am skeptical, and
>even if true, those dose rate would kill everything *else* on Earth).

	What kind of doses are we talking about? Tartigrades (the
absolute niftiest animals in existence) can withstand 570,000
roentgens (the lethal does is humans is about 500). 

>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

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"

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:27:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.193508.21907@bcrka451.bnr.ca> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:
>In article <BrtM15.n2E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
>>In <1992Jul20.104506.18345@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>>
>>[a description, which cm deleted, of a 10 month old baby being spanked for
>"refusal" to use the toilet]
>>
>>>...be "beaten out of her", and the list goes on, and on, but my hands are 
>>>starting to shake.
>>
>>I've seen people lose a child because of such controlling influences, so
>>I can empathize.
>
>Let me get this straight.  You have seen people lose children to demonic 
>influence and therefore condone the beating of a *10-MONTH-OLD BABY* for
>-- 
>Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
>(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>

I didn't read it that way, Seanna.  Let's give him a chance to explain
whether he means that they lost the child to:

1: Being beaten
2: Demonic influence

I had the first interpretation, not the second.  I took it that he was
empathizing with Rob Derrick for being horrified. 

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Meritt in Confusion
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:14:26 GMT

In article <2846@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}Meritt (recently) on my commenting upon his weak English grammar:
}
}>What's the matter, Ted?  Can't find anything wrong with the science?
}
}i.e. "Granted I haven't mastered anything as simple as English yet, but
}you don't expect that from a great physicist and self-proclaimed
}renaissance man..."
}
}Of course, I comment upon what I see (here, the amazing slaughter of the
}king's English).   If I'd SEEN any science, I might have commented on it.
}Ah well...

Noticed you didn't....once again.

Anyone suprised?

yawn.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Closed vs. Isolated systems
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:46:39 GMT

	The following paraphrased definitions courtesy of James Henley:

Closed System:  a system which does not exchange mass with its surroudings.

Isolate system:  A system isolated from its surroundings, exchanging neither
mass nor energy.  Entirely non-interacting with surroundings.

	Mr. Henley claims to have obtained these definitions out of an
engineering thermodynamics book.  (Or several.)  Fine,  I'll believe him.
However, I would like to point out the following:

1) the above definition of 'closed system' is not what I'm used to as a
physicist.  The above I find confusing, because I have never seen the above
distinction between 'closed' and 'isolated'.  However, as long as you clearly
define what you mean by 'closed' -- as you have -- you can define it to
mean whatever you want.

2) I am curious to see what practical purpose there is behind the definition
of the 'closed' system you have above.  All of the laws of thermo I'm
familiar with apply to 'isolated' systems; I know of no situation where
the above distinction is usefuls.


	By the way, Mr. Henley:  I was perhaps unnecessarily harsh in my
early reaction to your FAQ.  I think the main problem is that you were
using familiar terminology in an unfamiliar (at least to me) manner -- the 
way you have shown it is different from what I have seen elsewhere.  I 
will try to be more careful in the future.


One other P.S.:  in your FAQ, you forgot about the zeroth law of thermo-
dynamics (yes, there is such a thing, but I don't have references handy): 

If a system A is in thermal equilibrium with a system B, and B is in thermal
equilibrium with a system C, then A is in thermal equilibrium with C.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner          Department of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu             Iowa State University 
                            Ames, IA 50011

"What does God need with a starship?"  J. T. Kirk  
Newsgroups: talk.origins